Why not start again from scratch, Mr. Osborne?

I still don't understand how someone can give a lump sum to charity and then get it back with the tax being paid by muggins (the generous British tax payer)

Who set that rule up?

I don't understand the use of credit card allocation to ciivl servants ...that these are not routinely checked??? that they are being mis-used???

Fiddling while Rome burns???

This is my first post so I'd like to say hello to everyone.

My income is about half the national average and yet I would be happy to pay a little more tax so that our health service, education service and social welfare could benefit all citizens, especially those struggling with the current cuts.

I don't understand why, in these straightened times that any Government doesn't start at the top and work down. e.g. The Houses of Parliament. Do they really need subsidised restaurants? Perhaps they could turn the heating down and dress more warmly as I've had to do. (The Health and Safety at Work Act says the minimum temperature in offices should be 18C). Their expenses to me are still a bone of contention. Why do they travel first class? I'd just like to see some very visible belt tightening and a serious effort at reducing costs! This obviously goes for all government offices.

Lead by example would be my motto!

Sorry for this little rant

Hello ayse
Wellcome to GN!

Hi ayse …and subsidised bars, for heaven's sake. Please don't be sorry about ranting; it's good.

Stansgran I don't understand what you mean about giving to charity and getting it back. I know there is a scheme whereby when you give to charity, the charity can claim back the tax you have paid on the amount. That's called giftaid, but what you are talking about seems to be something completely different.

In our business we consider what if scenarios and the impact of proposed actions. It seems beyond Mr O and his team to do this. It's not rocket science -and I've not been to public school! Perhaps they ought to add these considerations to the school curriculum!!!!!!!!!

I have got to grips with the charity thing now. Those who make large charitable donations can claim back the tax they have paid on the sum of the donation. Charities were very anxious that this shouldn't be capped because large sum donations are so important and they are afraid that not being able to claim back the tax (inevitably a large sum itself) will put their donors off giving in the first place. It's actually quite a good system and it seems fair that if a rich businessman, for example, wants to give away hundreds of thousands of pounds, he shouldn't have to pay income tax on it.

I've never understood how this works and I still don't! Does it mean that while the charities we give our fivers and tenners to can claim back the tax we would have paid on the gift, if we were able to give thousands, WE could claim back the tax? Or does it mean if we are paying more than the standard rate, the charity only gets the standard rate and that's all we would have to pay? We keep the difference between standard rate and higher rate? Why shouldn't a rich businessman have to pay tax on gifts to charities like poorer people do?

Hi ayse welcome & I hope you enjoy GN! Agree with your rant!

Welcome ayse look forward to chatting to you.

I can understand that travel needs to be undertaken sensitively where matters of national security are concerned, but not for general day to day travel for MPs. They all seem to think they should be entitled to exactly the same travel allowances as those ministers who need a degree of protection, or have vital documents that need to be kept secure. And just because it might cost £165 to stay a night in a London hotel, doesn't warrant Baroness Warsi deciding her mate can have the £165 instead if she stays over at her house. They all have their noses in the trough, and can't see they are being greedy. What's wrong with publishing how thrifty they have been, too? Or is it that they would be shown up for the greedy fat cats they are?

When I was still working, the mantra from government was 'impact assessment' of every activity or policy, so it puzzles me that George Osborne would not have known the likely financial impact of the taxes that he has now u-turned on. Bunch of numpties!

I agree Greatnan. They seem to be a silly lot. Very easily influenced by public opinion. Why can't they think things out thoroughly beforehand, be sure of themselves and the proposed policy, and then stick to it?

Not very grownup are they?!

Like ayse, my first post as well. Hello everyone.

I agree with j04 about the government not thinking things through. The worst thing about the u-turns this week is not that the government has admitted they got things wrong, but how obviously wrong they were in the first place.

It's not like the failings of the 'pasty tax', the caravan tax and the tax on charitable donations were only discovered after lots of careful scrutinity of the small print of the budget - the newspapers and political commentators were pointing out the problems virtually as soon as the budget speech was finished.

I think if I made such obvious errors and had so failed to think through the consequences in my job I'd be facing the sack.

Hi there newbies and welcome!

Ministers want sound bites and have the attention span of gnats. Civil servants have never had to actually run something in the real world, and neither have most ministers. Not even a Greggs. They can only manage pie in the sky!

Welcome glennd

I despair of this coalition ever getting on top of things now and the creeping euro problems look as though they are inevitably going to drown us, too. I wonder when Cameron will announce the decision that they have to start spending their way out of recession, abolish the granny tax so pensioners have more spending power and can contribute via indirect taxes, and start a massive building and development programme that Vince Cable suggested in the first place?

I wonder what would have happened if the LibDems had been able to form a government on their own?

I met Ken Clarke and his wife once and found KC very pleasant and 'normal'. His wife too was down to earth. I'm afraid my opinion of Mr O is very low - but then I've not met him. However from his results so far I would like to parody the words of this thread title and say 'Why not b....r off, Mr Osborne?'

I don't think Mr Osborne should start again from scratch. I think he should resign because he is so obviously incompetent and go and find a job that matches his rather small talents.

I have met Mr. O and I feel his opinion of himself far outweighs his talents.

The problem with the Charity Tax saga is in some cases there could be a valid point for it being capped.Once it has been balanced against the good side of it then it does become very subjective.

I believe it was infact a Nick Clegg idea. If anyone gives a million pounds to a charity they do not pay the treasury tax on that amount, meaning we the tax payer are loosing out on their taxes and by default are also giving money from the public purse to the charity. It has to be a problem to stop funding for say Oxfam but what about a charity set up abroad that does not exist but claims to be doing charitable work, it is nothing short of tax evasion and the government have been trying to stop tax evasion taking place.

I think when the balance is right any charity in the British Tax Payers domain could be carried on, as it has been, as the tax payer can get some gratification from it being hopefullly given wisely. However I do think any overseas charity should not be included.

As for pasty tax it also had some mileage as a concept. Why should a chip shop or cafe be different to a Greggs Bakery selling hot take-away pasties at a cheaper rate as Greggs did not pay V.A.T. but the cafe and chip shop have to pay V.A.T. It was basically levelling the playing field but the P.R. and expaination was so badly put over the media jumped on it.

I do agree that George Osborne has to stop making such stupid cock-up's. If it comes to saying he should resign what the hell should Brown and Balls have done.

The trouble is with ministers resigning or moving departments is that the newcomer seems always to want to make their mark and that often means fixing things that ain't broke..just to get noticed!

Good point about the charity tax POGS - if foreign charities were the loophole they wanted to plug, why not go for that in the first place? I guess the very rich are very good at evading - but at least you could insist that the charity has to have its main office in the UK. There are plenty to choose from if all you want to do is a bit of good!
But are you suggesting that in the middle of the banking crisis, Brown and Balls should have thrown in the towel? There is of course the argument that they should have let a bank or two fail - but I would not have liked to been in their shoes when it all went belly up.
You are right nanaej and the better civil servants also move around between departments, which is nice for their careers but not good for development of expertise and depth of knowledge.

Jessm. No I did'nt mean for them to resign. What I was trying to say is Pasty Tax, Granny Tax, Static Caravan Tax, Charity Tax even Horsegate gave the media and some to go into a frenzy of resignation demands.

Why, when huge financial mistake were made before did they not ask for resignations then. I hate politics of spin and hypocrisy. That is my point, a question of principal really.

As I said, I too think Osborne has made cock-ups but compared to the non regulation of the banks and the prolific spending by government who left us with the highest debt in Europe and little to show for it I think asking for his head is a bit too soon to ask for.

As Liam Byrne said when he left the Treasury 'Good luck, there's no money left'.