Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The public really don’t rate Liz Truss – politicalbetting.com

123457»

Comments

  • MaxPB said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. Royale, as an uncontested successor, it could be Hunt. But there's no chance if it goes to the members.

    Start at the other end - if there's a vacancy, neither the Tories nor the country can afford a contest lasting months. We'd be lucky to get 50 cents for a £ by the end of it.

    So if there's a replacement, it has to be done by the MPs. You don't even need to think about any personalities to get that far.
    Yes the 1922 committee should add a rule that leadership candidates must have at least 40% of MPs vote for them in a final round to make a members ballot.
    Nah. They should just scrap the members ballot completely and have the MPs decide.
    That's not a decision for the 1922 Committee.

    The members' ballot is in the Conservative Party Constitution, which isn't set by the 1922 Committee and places a duty on them to offer a "choice of candidates" for a members' ballot. There is a get-out where only one person puts their name forward (Howard in 2003). In 2017, the 1922 Committee did offer a choice of candidates but one (Leadsom) subsequently withdrew.

    The 1922 Committee's role relates to setting the Round One rules for coming up with the "choice of candidates" to go to Round Two (in consultation with the Party Board, in fact, but the decision is ultimately the 1922's) - they can't simply refuse to come up with a choice of candidates. That gives them a certain amount of power - for instance, the fact it's two rather than more candidates at Round Two is because of the 1922 Committee - the Constitution just refers to a "choice".

    A response may be that the 1922 Committee could make the rules of Round One so restrictive that only one candidate can realistically make it, but there would be a pretty strong argument that's unconstitional. In theory, they could do it anyway as the PM just has to have the confidence of Parliament so would probably be appointed if sent to the Palace. But it would be very messy.

    Their better bet is probably to achieve a gentlemen's agreement that the second person in the MPs' ballot would be put forward with the winner, but would decide, in the interests of Party unity, to withdraw at that point. They can't enforce that though.
    Actually what should happen is the MPs (of all parties) should exercise control - which is theirs by right and should pass a law setting out how the PM is chosen - stating that if anyone other than MPs have any say over the selection then there is an automatic vote of confidence which if lost leads to a GE.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,276
    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    George Bush signs a bottle of wine. C’mon. Use your IMAGINATIONS

    I photographed it yesterday afternoon

    His last drink?

    Superb!

    Yes. Bang on

    I am staying at the remarkable Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs. A genuinely remarkable place in terms of American/Wild West history

    So. Apparently the young George W Bush came here in 1989. He got - as was his wont - completely shitfaced. He woke up with barely a memory of the night before. He just knew it was bad. So he finished off the last of the wine left in his bottle - for breakfast - then he signed it. Why? Because he said “I am never drinking again and I want to remember this moment”

    He was true to his word. Never drank again. Went on to invade Iraq when sober. Sober presidents are bad. Donald trump is sober



    So it's the actual bottle, he left there?

    On my US trip I met someone who told me that his father had quite a serious bowel problem and often had to go in a hurry; during engagements this wasn't always possible and this guy had once cleaned him up behind the scenes mid-engagement, and received a set of presidential cufflinks by way of reward.
    It is the actual bottle

    This hotel is amazing. Gorgeously decadent Prohibition history. They have a corridor called Bottle Alley with all these curious and historic wine/whisky/gin bottles. For a drinker it’s like the Louvre

    https://www.broadmoor.com/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Broadmoor

    The mad owner proprietor Spencer Penrose built an enormous private stash of liquor… under the swimming pool. Only rediscovered. He also used to ride around on an elephant


    Gold mine money

  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,056
    For those with diesel cars:

    https://archive.ph/xgGjc

    “Truckers grow anxious as AdBlue shortage applies brake to German industry”

    From another source I just googled:

    “The UK has no indigenous automotive grade urea production, so anyone looking to blend AdBlue must import from overseas.”
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043

    The new PM seemed to go out of his way to say on LK show the poorest would be at the forefront of his mind when designing the new Budget.

    So he can't possibly not uprate benefits by inflation can he?

    I’m a bit stumped as to what the heck he is going to do to be honest. I think a rise in the additional rate is going to be likely (height of irony). But it doesn’t raise that much. He could perhaps tweak IHT (though I suspect not given low IHT is a Tory shibboleth).

    Honestly I am starting to wonder if the higher rate is going to go up - going to be very unpopular with middle class professionals/homeowners if so.

    Edit: CGT maybe?
    CGT is part of the Labour plan I think.

    He could nick it.

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,915

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?

    If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
    It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
    Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
    The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
    IIRC she wanted it at 50% and it was Lawson who convinced her to go for 40%. I've always thought 50% was the appropriate level (including NIC). Nobody making >150k in the UK could do it without the stability (sic) and infrastructure offered by the British state so it seems reasonable to split the lottery winnings of being a high earner 50/50 with the state apparatus that makes it possible.
    You are forgetting NI.

    I actually watched the Laffer Curve in action - a rich American relative, living here, binned his tax lawyers and just paid the top rate when it changed. He said that he liked publica services, but paying more than 50% just felt too much.
    Er I said 50% including NIC!
    Sorry - yes.

    The problem with NIC is how much it has been mucked up over the years. Roll it into income tax.

    The ambition of the state should be that the rules for living in this country should fit on a small set of postcards. Setting tax at a sensible, easy to understand and hard to avoid level is in my top 10.
    Agreed. Get rid of NIC. My preferred income tax regime would look something like first 10k tax free. 10k to 100k at 25%. Above 100k at 50%. Thresholds uprated with inflation automatically. I don't like the way we keep cutting income tax rates, people should pay for public services and know that they cost money if you want them to be good, we choose how they are run (so don't vote for chancers) and you can't run them on the never never or expect someone else to pay for them. Income tax is the fairest tax so it should be the bedrock of our tax system.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,169
    The main reason rich Brits don’t leave the country in droves every time tax goes up is inertia. The second and very important reason is that most don’t speak foreign languages.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    edited October 2022
    ping said:

    Higher rate tax relief on pension contributions to go?

    Would piss off the Tory voter coalition, but raise a lot of money.

    It's a point I've often made to my brother. He can stuff £40k a year into a pension tax free. Not sure how much it raises.

    I'd look to have:

    Workers over 65 paying NI
    CGT on disposal of primary residence (maybe only 10%!)
    Land Value Tax as a replacement or complement to council tax?
    Keep the corporation tax rise to 25%
    Restrict property ownership for non-citizens/residents

    Ideally I'd want the basic rate of tax to be about 24% and NI about 8%. You might have to phase that over time. Don't think work should be more heavily taxed than other income really.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    George Bush signs a bottle of wine. C’mon. Use your IMAGINATIONS

    I photographed it yesterday afternoon

    His last drink?

    Donald trump is sober
    To go all Ken Livingston, Hitler was a teetotaller and Churchill a high functioning alcoholic.

  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,003
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?

    If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
    It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
    Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
    The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
    Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.

    A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
    The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
    No, the direction of travel is more important for the party core vote.
    A tax raising, spending cutting Tory government will be far more unpopular with the public and the base than a tax cutting and spending cutting Tory government. A tax cutting and spending rising government would be most popular but that is not always economically viable.

    So the Tory vote likely continues to decline even further. The destination of 50% would also still be higher than the 40% destination Thatcher arrived at by the time she left office
    Here's an original thought. The government should try governing in the interests of the country as a whole, rather than in the interests of their core voters.

    That way, you can recruit new Conservative voters, rather than see your support withering away.
    Oh yes, what a landslide the Tories will achieve with a government increasing the basic rate of income tax and higher rate of income tax in a cost of living crisis as well as cutting spending on public services!!!! Meanwhile is that a pig I see flying by?

    For goodness sake!!
    Raise taxes on capital, keep the national insurance and income tax cuts.
    Pensioners and their heirs are the Tory core vote, lose them to RefUK or the LDs and the Tory voteshare also falls further
    The Tories won't lose pensioners, given they will be more scared of Labour having a massive majority. And a lot of pensioners don't have any money.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,003

    Joe Biden says cutting top income tax rate in the UK from 45% to 40% would have been wrong. The 40% rate here kicks in at £50,270. In the US the tax rate is 22% up to equivalent of £80,000. Then 24% on income up to £153,000. Top rate of 37% kicks in over £483,000.

    https://twitter.com/harryph/status/1581559319295770625

    Yes, these are Federal taxes (the ones Biden is responsible for) and most states charge state tax on top, with California the highest at13.3% and eight at 0%….but it illustrates the folly of opining on other countries domestic politics…

    Plus the US can have very high property taxes.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,773

    Hunt interview - ALL government departments "being asked for efficiency savings".

    Its official. Full-on austerity.

    You have a big deficit that you need a plan to close

    It’s unlikely that tax rises sufficient to close the complete gap are possible

    Productivity enhancements, while critical, take time

    The markets are grumpy

    What is your solution?

    Don’t start from here? The markets weren’t so grumpy until Truss’s mini-budget.
    The markets were flashing amber. All the Truss nonsense did was tip it over the edge. The one positive I would highlight is that now the public realise there is a problem that needs fixing.

    But @RochdalePioneers was implicitly criticising austerity (I think).

    Unfortunately when you eliminate the impossible, whatever left, no matter how unpleasant, is the correct answer
    Raising taxes fits your thesis just as well as austerity. That’s the choice then: cut public services or raise taxes. Polling suggests the latter is more popular. That’s probably why Sunak chose that route.
    There is certainly potential to raise some taxes. But I think we are getting close to the limit of what can be done - we are at a 30-40 year high in tax take IIRC.

    I don’t think we can successfully close the entire gap with tax increases. Which was one of the limiting assumptions in my original post…
    Why is the limit of what can be done defined by the tax take over the last 30-40 years? Why isn’t it defined by what happened 50 years ago, or what happens in other successful OECD nations?

    Range since 1940s (30-40 years was a guess cos couldn’t be bothered to check but have now) has been 31-43% GDP

    We are currently at 40% GDP.

    2020 GDP was 2.7 trillion so 3% is £81bn.

    The deficit is £120bn

    So you would be increasing the tax take well above the highest level in recorded history.

    I don’t think that is possible without negatively impacting economic performance

    (FWIW I looked two not-that-random countries. Sweden is 43% GDP and France 45%. So it is theoretically possible but would be a fundamental change in our political/economic structure - and I don’t think it is achievable in that we would then need to limit any future government spending increases to GDP growth and I don’t think we have the political maturity to do that)

    When you eliminate the impossible, whatever’s left, no matter how unpleasant, is the correct answer… or so you said earlier. Raising taxes to be still lower than those in France eliminates the deficit. Austerity 2.0 also eliminates the deficit. We choose our path, but neither is impossible.

    France has huge hand outs and spending that we don’t - such as stackable personal allowances. I think those are good ideas (partly why they have higher birth rates) - we would be taxing at very high levels for mediocre services.

    Moreover you would then be unable to grow taxes above the rate of GDP growth so the deficit would inevitably grow again unless you limited growth in public spending to only 2.5% which I don’t think it achievable in a long term basis.

    Clearly tax rises have some role to play, but so must spending cuts to put the UK back on a sustainable path (I would prefer limiting the scope of the government and funding what it does well, but that’s just me)

  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,806
    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Nigelb said:

    France to train up to 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers - French Armed Forces Minister

    The soldiers from Ukraine will soon be assigned to French units for several weeks.

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1581563848808710144

    Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??
    They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.
    Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.

    Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
    IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.

    In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.
    Airdropping paper leaflets with menus would be great propaganda. Surrender on Wednesday and you’ll be in time for our curry club. Thursday pizza, Friday and it’s fish and chips.
    All joking aside - it has long been said that armies march on their stomachs. Even from doing camping and reasonably hard hiking, the difference between hard living with dry socks and good food and hard living without is massive.
    Best military food I've eaten. I am not a food wanker so this just a general rating based on palatability, hygiene, presentation and how equipped for killing a complete stranger it left one feeling.

    1. Japanese
    2. Italian
    3. Indian

    Worst...

    1. British
    2. Polish
    3. Bulgarian
    For anyone planning a violent night out can you please clarify whether British is better or worse than Bulgarian.
    British was the worst although that's probably because it's the largest sample size and most of that was at sea so I've really had a chance to experience the gravest atrocities that British military catering can perpetrate.

    Food on Indian Navy ships is amazing... if you're an officer...
    Hm, a work colleague who was in the Andrew was quite clear that he thought RN food was a lot better than the shite given to the Army. However, he was a submariner, and I don't know if the underwater warriors still have a tradition of better food than the chaps who bob around on the surface?

    Edit: one BritishArmy unit in Former Yugoslavia ended up with an outbreak of scurvy, the food in the field was so crap.
    There's a quite enjoyable Heston programme (if a bit 'modern telly' - will he manage it? Is he out of time? OMG!) where he tries to improve the food for submariners. Episode 4 of https://www.channel4.com/press/news/hestons-mission-impossible
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,414
    Re the contest - It won’t get as far as the 1922. There’ll be a tacit agreement on a single candidate, possibly even a slate of cabinet names representing all wings of the party, and the MPs will sign off on it, IMHO.

    Until that point is reached they won’t get rid of Truss. Their goal in the coming days will be to get to a place where there is agreement on a candidate.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?

    If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
    It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
    Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
    The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
    IIRC she wanted it at 50% and it was Lawson who convinced her to go for 40%. I've always thought 50% was the appropriate level (including NIC). Nobody making >150k in the UK could do it without the stability (sic) and infrastructure offered by the British state so it seems reasonable to split the lottery winnings of being a high earner 50/50 with the state apparatus that makes it possible.
    You are forgetting NI.

    I actually watched the Laffer Curve in action - a rich American relative, living here, binned his tax lawyers and just paid the top rate when it changed. He said that he liked publica services, but paying more than 50% just felt too much.
    Er I said 50% including NIC!
    Sorry - yes.

    The problem with NIC is how much it has been mucked up over the years. Roll it into income tax.

    The ambition of the state should be that the rules for living in this country should fit on a small set of postcards. Setting tax at a sensible, easy to understand and hard to avoid level is in my top 10.
    Agreed. Get rid of NIC. My preferred income tax regime would look something like first 10k tax free. 10k to 100k at 25%. Above 100k at 50%. Thresholds uprated with inflation automatically. I don't like the way we keep cutting income tax rates, people should pay for public services and know that they cost money if you want them to be good, we choose how they are run (so don't vote for chancers) and you can't run them on the never never or expect someone else to pay for them. Income tax is the fairest tax so it should be the bedrock of our tax system.
    There is no bedrock. In the medium to long term the whole system is unsustainable as long as we keep expecting the State to do everything. We are now so very far removed from the original welfare state safety net as to be unrecognisable. Eventually - and not too far in the future - we are going to have to return to that.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,775
    TimS said:

    The main reason rich Brits don’t leave the country in droves every time tax goes up is inertia. The second and very important reason is that most don’t speak foreign languages.

    The main reason is that most of them like living here. The number of people who jet from one country to another to minimise their tax bill is not a huge one. All of us put down roots, and build up networks of friends and family.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,003
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    PICTURE QUIZ

    What is this and why is it politically and historically significant?



    There are enough clues in this picture for a smart person to work it out

    Nein klein googlein!

    The only thing more boring than other people’s dreams is
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?

    If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
    It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
    Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
    The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
    Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.

    A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
    The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
    Rich people don’t live in the UK for our excellent weather, beautiful new towns or excitingly vast amounts of immigration

    If taxes sharply rise - and rich people believe they will rise further - these higher rate payers will simply leave
    They live here because it's a nice place where they can enjoy their wealth without being kidnapped by rivals, or murdered by the government.

    That is worth paying for.
    Do you think the U.K. is the only country that provides such luxuries?
    No, but there are not many, for the rich. I don't buy into the notion that changes in tax rates make that much difference to where people choose to live.
    Most people want to be close to their friends and family and their national culture. It does seem to make a difference in moving between US states though.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    .
    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    George Bush signs a bottle of wine. C’mon. Use your IMAGINATIONS

    I photographed it yesterday afternoon

    His last drink?

    Superb!

    Yes. Bang on

    I am staying at the remarkable Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs. A genuinely remarkable place in terms of American/Wild West history

    So. Apparently the young George W Bush came here in 1989. He got - as was his wont - completely shitfaced. He woke up with barely a memory of the night before. He just knew it was bad. So he finished off the last of the wine left in his bottle - for breakfast - then he signed it. Why? Because he said “I am never drinking again and I want to remember this moment”

    He was true to his word. Never drank again. Went on to invade Iraq when sober. Sober presidents are bad. Donald trump is sober



    So it's the actual bottle, he left there?

    On my US trip I met someone who told me that his father had quite a serious bowel problem and often had to go in a hurry; during engagements this wasn't always possible and this guy had once cleaned him up behind the scenes mid-engagement, and received a set of presidential cufflinks by way of reward.
    It is the actual bottle

    This hotel is amazing. Gorgeously decadent Prohibition history. They have a corridor called Bottle Alley with all these curious and historic wine/whisky/gin bottles. For a drinker it’s like the Louvre

    https://www.broadmoor.com/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Broadmoor

    The mad owner proprietor Spencer Penrose built an enormous private stash of liquor… under the swimming pool. Only rediscovered. He also used to ride around on an elephant


    Gold mine money

    Wine and gold digging! The gold miners themselves got drunk on cheap red plonk made from Zinfandel, among other things, but the grape was almost forgotten during prohibition. White Zinfandel was invented by accident when a fermentation went wrong and was almost thrown away - but the maker thought it tasted interesting and so was born a craze for it in the 1970s US that mirrored the Mateus Rose boom in Europe, and Zinfandel was suddenly being planted everywhere. Serious reds have only been made in any quantity from it since the turn of the century.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,276
    edited October 2022
    Spencer Penrose, the elephant riding Prohibition busting owner-founder of the Broadmoor Hotel, is buried in his own shrine, visible on a Rocky Mountain summit, behind the room where I write this

    It is known as THE WILL ROGERS SHRINE OF THE SUN

    “Will Rogers Shrine of the Sun, also known as Will Rogers Shrine, is a commemorative tower and chapel on Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado Springs, Colorado. It is named after Will Rogers, the American humorist, who died in a plane crash in Alaska in 1935 during construction of the shrine. It is also a tomb for the remains of Spencer Penrose – who built many of the city's prominent properties, including the neighboring Cheyenne Mountain Zoo and The Broadmoor resort – and his wife Julie Penrose. Completed by Penrose in 1937, the shrine is a 100 feet (30 m), five story observation tower that overlooks The Broadmoor, Colorado Springs,
    and Garden of the Gods.”


    Magnificent. He used to keep hippos


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Rogers_Shrine_of_the_Sun
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?

    If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
    It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
    Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
    The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
    Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.

    A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
    The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
    No, the direction of travel is more important for the party core vote.
    A tax raising, spending cutting Tory government will be far more unpopular with the public and the base than a tax cutting and spending cutting Tory government. A tax cutting and spending rising government would be most popular but that is not always economically viable.

    So the Tory vote likely continues to decline even further. The destination of 50% would also still be higher than the 40% destination Thatcher arrived at by the time she left office
    Here's an original thought. The government should try governing in the interests of the country as a whole, rather than in the interests of their core voters.

    That way, you can recruit new Conservative voters, rather than see your support withering away.
    Oh yes, what a landslide the Tories will achieve with a government increasing the basic rate of income tax and higher rate of income tax in a cost of living crisis as well as cutting spending on public services!!!! Meanwhile is that a pig I see flying by?

    For goodness sake!!
    Raise taxes on capital, keep the national insurance and income tax cuts.
    Pensioners and their heirs are the Tory core vote, lose them to RefUK or the LDs and the Tory voteshare also falls further
    I'm sure that many pensioners and their heirs are sufficiently patriotic to realise that taxing workers ever greater shares of their income is unreasonable. They have children and grandchildren, and want to see them earn a decent living.

    I really don't think you care about anyone who is not a homeowner (without a mortgage) living in the South of England.
    No they aren't, see the dementia tax disaster which lost May her majority.

    Homeowners in the South are the remaining Tory vote, lose them and the party goes extinct. Better to go into opposition than pursue such a policy and I also oppose Hunt's plans to reverse the basic income tax cut for workers too
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    edited October 2022
    TimS said:

    The main reason rich Brits don’t leave the country in droves every time tax goes up is inertia. The second and very important reason is that most don’t speak foreign languages.

    And after three days of really hot weather, a lot of us get fed up with it?

    And the country works, mostly, or used to until the Tories got hold of it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,775

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    George Bush signs a bottle of wine. C’mon. Use your IMAGINATIONS

    I photographed it yesterday afternoon

    His last drink?

    Donald trump is sober
    To go all Ken Livingston, Hitler was a teetotaller and Churchill a high functioning alcoholic.

    OTOH Stalin was a heavy boozer.
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    On topic. I think they will remove her before PMQs. @SouthamObserver thinks they will remove her immediately after PMQs. Other predictions?

    She will be PM this time next week.
    Oh I do hope so. They have removed the egregious threat to the economy but have left in place the person responsible for doing all the damage. We can afford this to be dragged out, the longer the better for shits and giggles.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?

    If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
    It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
    Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
    The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
    IIRC she wanted it at 50% and it was Lawson who convinced her to go for 40%. I've always thought 50% was the appropriate level (including NIC). Nobody making >150k in the UK could do it without the stability (sic) and infrastructure offered by the British state so it seems reasonable to split the lottery winnings of being a high earner 50/50 with the state apparatus that makes it possible.
    You are forgetting NI.

    I actually watched the Laffer Curve in action - a rich American relative, living here, binned his tax lawyers and just paid the top rate when it changed. He said that he liked publica services, but paying more than 50% just felt too much.
    Er I said 50% including NIC!
    Sorry - yes.

    The problem with NIC is how much it has been mucked up over the years. Roll it into income tax.

    The ambition of the state should be that the rules for living in this country should fit on a small set of postcards. Setting tax at a sensible, easy to understand and hard to avoid level is in my top 10.
    Agreed. Get rid of NIC. My preferred income tax regime would look something like first 10k tax free. 10k to 100k at 25%. Above 100k at 50%. Thresholds uprated with inflation automatically. I don't like the way we keep cutting income tax rates, people should pay for public services and know that they cost money if you want them to be good, we choose how they are run (so don't vote for chancers) and you can't run them on the never never or expect someone else to pay for them. Income tax is the fairest tax so it should be the bedrock of our tax system.
    If you're going to roll in NI the figures need to be more like 35% and 60%
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,461
    If I were given £1 for every time the super rich, over the last 50 years, threaten to leave the country if their taxes are raised but then don't actually do so, I'd have enough money to make the threat myself.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    George Bush signs a bottle of wine. C’mon. Use your IMAGINATIONS

    I photographed it yesterday afternoon

    His last drink?

    Donald trump is sober
    To go all Ken Livingston, Hitler was a teetotaller and Churchill a high functioning alcoholic.

    OTOH Stalin was a heavy boozer.
    Immanuel Kant was a real pissant.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    WillG said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?

    If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
    It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
    Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
    The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
    Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.

    A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
    The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
    No, the direction of travel is more important for the party core vote.
    A tax raising, spending cutting Tory government will be far more unpopular with the public and the base than a tax cutting and spending cutting Tory government. A tax cutting and spending rising government would be most popular but that is not always economically viable.

    So the Tory vote likely continues to decline even further. The destination of 50% would also still be higher than the 40% destination Thatcher arrived at by the time she left office
    Here's an original thought. The government should try governing in the interests of the country as a whole, rather than in the interests of their core voters.

    That way, you can recruit new Conservative voters, rather than see your support withering away.
    Oh yes, what a landslide the Tories will achieve with a government increasing the basic rate of income tax and higher rate of income tax in a cost of living crisis as well as cutting spending on public services!!!! Meanwhile is that a pig I see flying by?

    For goodness sake!!
    Raise taxes on capital, keep the national insurance and income tax cuts.
    Pensioners and their heirs are the Tory core vote, lose them to RefUK or the LDs and the Tory voteshare also falls further
    The Tories won't lose pensioners, given they will be more scared of Labour having a massive majority. And a lot of pensioners don't have any money.
    Pensioners can vote for Farage or stay home, they fear Starmer far less than Corbyn
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,003
    TimS said:

    The main reason rich Brits don’t leave the country in droves every time tax goes up is inertia. The second and very important reason is that most don’t speak foreign languages.

    And the main reason they do leave isn't taxes but gross pay. You can look at global companies and see they regularly pay 50-80% more for upper middle management positions in the US than the UK.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,003
    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?

    If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
    It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
    Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
    The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
    Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.

    A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
    The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
    No, the direction of travel is more important for the party core vote.
    A tax raising, spending cutting Tory government will be far more unpopular with the public and the base than a tax cutting and spending cutting Tory government. A tax cutting and spending rising government would be most popular but that is not always economically viable.

    So the Tory vote likely continues to decline even further. The destination of 50% would also still be higher than the 40% destination Thatcher arrived at by the time she left office
    Here's an original thought. The government should try governing in the interests of the country as a whole, rather than in the interests of their core voters.

    That way, you can recruit new Conservative voters, rather than see your support withering away.
    Oh yes, what a landslide the Tories will achieve with a government increasing the basic rate of income tax and higher rate of income tax in a cost of living crisis as well as cutting spending on public services!!!! Meanwhile is that a pig I see flying by?

    For goodness sake!!
    Raise taxes on capital, keep the national insurance and income tax cuts.
    Pensioners and their heirs are the Tory core vote, lose them to RefUK or the LDs and the Tory voteshare also falls further
    The Tories won't lose pensioners, given they will be more scared of Labour having a massive majority. And a lot of pensioners don't have any money.
    Pensioners can vote for Farage or stay home, they fear Starmer far less than Corbyn
    They can do but they won't. They do fear him less but they still fear him more than small taxes under the Tories.
  • DavidL said:

    Interesting piece from Kate Bingham in the Mail today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11294895/Head-UKs-vaccine-taskforce-KATE-BINGHAM-reveals-painful-bureaucracy-jab-programme.html

    As a demonstration of how and why Whitehall is pretty much useless in any kind of a crisis it would be hard to beat. And Matt Hancock doesn't exactly come out of it well either.

    Edit, apologies, this is actually from last week but it is still interesting.

    I think she makes some valid points but we ought to remember that we did manage to vaccinate the mass of our population quicker than any other major country. So things can't be that bad!

    'Yet there’s no doubt that their hesitancy over risk held back the pace of what the Vaccine Taskforce was trying to do. Far better, from the Civil Service viewpoint, to do that rather than risk career suicide by pushing ahead with an even vaguely controversial task.'

    The last couple of sentences are very instructive. Avoiding mistakes is the civil service mantra. She's probably right about diversity too - certainly the dominance of economics and humanities graduates. Maybe that's why the senior civil service is so keen to talk about diversity? Ultimately politicians need to take responsibility for this. The Tories have been in power for twelve years. Hancock obviously comes out of it very badly.
    Diversity? It's woke gone mad from Kate Bingham.

    It would be easy – but perhaps not inaccurate – for me to suggest that this was because the IPA review team were all women. In my day job, I’m fanatical about having senior women leading my companies and on boards since I find diversity helps make better decisions.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11294895/Head-UKs-vaccine-taskforce-KATE-BINGHAM-reveals-painful-bureaucracy-jab-programme.html

    Yes, Bingham is probably right about incompetent, time-wasting audits in a time of emergency but hold on, what about the industrial scale waste and fraud with ppe contracts for mates: surely they'd have benefited from scrutiny?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    If I were given £1 for every time the super rich, over the last 50 years, threaten to leave the country if their taxes are raised but then don't actually do so, I'd have enough money to make the threat myself.

    We could try doing what the US does and try and tax them wherever?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    Joe Biden says cutting top income tax rate in the UK from 45% to 40% would have been wrong. The 40% rate here kicks in at £50,270. In the US the tax rate is 22% up to equivalent of £80,000. Then 24% on income up to £153,000. Top rate of 37% kicks in over £483,000.

    https://twitter.com/harryph/status/1581559319295770625

    Yes, these are Federal taxes (the ones Biden is responsible for) and most states charge state tax on top, with California the highest at13.3% and eight at 0%….but it illustrates the folly of opining on other countries domestic politics…

    You are forgetting an important point re the timing of these cuts. Here's the quote:

    “I wasn’t the only one that thought it was a mistake,” Biden said. “I think that the idea of cutting taxes on the super-wealthy at a time when … I disagree with the policy, but that’s up to Great Britain.”

    Biden's right, and pretty much everyone agrees (see polls), that cutting the top rate at this time was a mistake.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    DavidL said:

    Interesting piece from Kate Bingham in the Mail today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11294895/Head-UKs-vaccine-taskforce-KATE-BINGHAM-reveals-painful-bureaucracy-jab-programme.html

    As a demonstration of how and why Whitehall is pretty much useless in any kind of a crisis it would be hard to beat. And Matt Hancock doesn't exactly come out of it well either.

    Edit, apologies, this is actually from last week but it is still interesting.

    I think she makes some valid points but we ought to remember that we did manage to vaccinate the mass of our population quicker than any other major country. So things can't be that bad!

    'Yet there’s no doubt that their hesitancy over risk held back the pace of what the Vaccine Taskforce was trying to do. Far better, from the Civil Service viewpoint, to do that rather than risk career suicide by pushing ahead with an even vaguely controversial task.'

    The last couple of sentences are very instructive. Avoiding mistakes is the civil service mantra. She's probably right about diversity too - certainly the dominance of economics and humanities graduates. Maybe that's why the senior civil service is so keen to talk about diversity? Ultimately politicians need to take responsibility for this. The Tories have been in power for twelve years. Hancock obviously comes out of it very badly.
    Diversity? It's woke gone mad from Kate Bingham.

    It would be easy – but perhaps not inaccurate – for me to suggest that this was because the IPA review team were all women. In my day job, I’m fanatical about having senior women leading my companies and on boards since I find diversity helps make better decisions.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11294895/Head-UKs-vaccine-taskforce-KATE-BINGHAM-reveals-painful-bureaucracy-jab-programme.html

    Yes, Bingham is probably right about incompetent, time-wasting audits in a time of emergency but hold on, what about the industrial scale waste and fraud with ppe contracts for mates: surely they'd have benefited from scrutiny?
    I was thinking the same.
    Why did the Civil Service meddle so much with the Vaccine Taskforce but the PPE contracts were given a free pass?

    Bingham describes a Civil Service that is not fit for purpose, although I’d like to read her book properly for a fuller picture.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    George Bush signs a bottle of wine. C’mon. Use your IMAGINATIONS

    I photographed it yesterday afternoon

    His last drink?

    Donald trump is sober
    To go all Ken Livingston, Hitler was a teetotaller and Churchill a high functioning alcoholic.

    FDR repealed prohibition and drank dry martinis.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,414
    edited October 2022
    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?

    If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
    It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
    Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
    The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
    Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.

    A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
    The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
    No, the direction of travel is more important for the party core vote.
    A tax raising, spending cutting Tory government will be far more unpopular with the public and the base than a tax cutting and spending cutting Tory government. A tax cutting and spending rising government would be most popular but that is not always economically viable.

    So the Tory vote likely continues to decline even further. The destination of 50% would also still be higher than the 40% destination Thatcher arrived at by the time she left office
    Here's an original thought. The government should try governing in the interests of the country as a whole, rather than in the interests of their core voters.

    That way, you can recruit new Conservative voters, rather than see your support withering away.
    Oh yes, what a landslide the Tories will achieve with a government increasing the basic rate of income tax and higher rate of income tax in a cost of living crisis as well as cutting spending on public services!!!! Meanwhile is that a pig I see flying by?

    For goodness sake!!
    Raise taxes on capital, keep the national insurance and income tax cuts.
    Pensioners and their heirs are the Tory core vote, lose them to RefUK or the LDs and the Tory voteshare also falls further
    The Tories won't lose pensioners, given they will be more scared of Labour having a massive majority. And a lot of pensioners don't have any money.
    Pensioners can vote for Farage or stay home, they fear Starmer far less than Corbyn
    Farage is yesterdays news. The idea he is going to make a breakthrough in a general election when he has never comprehensively managed to do so before is - a brave prediction.

    I do think you have a point that the Tories potentially face a risk on the right in coming years, but Farage ain’t it.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    WillG said:

    TimS said:

    The main reason rich Brits don’t leave the country in droves every time tax goes up is inertia. The second and very important reason is that most don’t speak foreign languages.

    And the main reason they do leave isn't taxes but gross pay. You can look at global companies and see they regularly pay 50-80% more for upper middle management positions in the US than the UK.
    Can confirm.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    And hirohito didn't drink. Pattern emerging.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?

    If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
    It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
    Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
    The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
    IIRC she wanted it at 50% and it was Lawson who convinced her to go for 40%. I've always thought 50% was the appropriate level (including NIC). Nobody making >150k in the UK could do it without the stability (sic) and infrastructure offered by the British state so it seems reasonable to split the lottery winnings of being a high earner 50/50 with the state apparatus that makes it possible.
    You are forgetting NI.

    I actually watched the Laffer Curve in action - a rich American relative, living here, binned his tax lawyers and just paid the top rate when it changed. He said that he liked publica services, but paying more than 50% just felt too much.
    Er I said 50% including NIC!
    Sorry - yes.

    The problem with NIC is how much it has been mucked up over the years. Roll it into income tax.

    The ambition of the state should be that the rules for living in this country should fit on a small set of postcards. Setting tax at a sensible, easy to understand and hard to avoid level is in my top 10.
    Agreed. Get rid of NIC. My preferred income tax regime would look something like first 10k tax free. 10k to 100k at 25%. Above 100k at 50%. Thresholds uprated with inflation automatically. I don't like the way we keep cutting income tax rates, people should pay for public services and know that they cost money if you want them to be good, we choose how they are run (so don't vote for chancers) and you can't run them on the never never or expect someone else to pay for them. Income tax is the fairest tax so it should be the bedrock of our tax system.
    Another suggestion - borrowed from the French. When you use the NHS, you get a bill. Marked paid. Show people what it costs.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    NEW - The race is on...

    Allies of Ben Wallace have been contacting MPs asking if they'd back him to replace Liz Truss, @theipaper understands.

    Comes as Crispin Blunt becomes first backbencher to break cover and call for the PM to quit.

    Story: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/ben-wallace-supporters-launch-bid-to-replace-liz-truss-with-defence-secretary-as-first-mp-calls-for-pm-to-quit-1914751
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725

    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:
    I don’t see REFUK ever breaching 15-16% even in the case of total Tory collapse. Total Tory collapse implies the country falling out of love with right wing politics.
    As this is, unbelievably, a slow news day, what do we think the % shares would be if we had full list PR? I'd guess something like:

    Faragist RefUK 10
    Huntist moderate Con 25
    LibDems 20
    Starmerist Labour 25
    Corbynist left 15
    Others 5
    No big demur, Nick, but I sadly feel the hard populist right might do a touch better than 10%. I'd say there's a close to perfect correlation between that and those in the UK who - either overtly or secretly - like Donald Trump. They are pretty much the exact same people.
    Corbynist left are a little on the high side and Starmer Labour a touch low. Permanent opposition for the Corbynistas would be their dream come true, with the possibility of Centrist coalition Government.Everyone is happy!

    There will be a correlation between the fortunes of the Huntsters and the Farageists. I would imagine, each would move up and down at the expense of the other. But like the Corbyn faction, the dream of permanent carping from the sidelines should tick all Farage's boxes.
    Well Pete when you say everbody would be happy i think you would be happier with continuity Liberal Elitism that we have had since 1979 rather than a redistributive Labour. This bollocks about people on the left being happy in opposition is complete rubbish.

    Forde would suggest its rather the Centrists who would rather be in opposition than have even a whiff of Democratic Socialism
    But it's true BJO. Corbyn and his Momentum chums were the internal Opposition withing the New Labour Party in Government. Corbyn's voting record demonstrated this amply
    Corbyns voting record is spot on.

    Opposed PFI and Benefits Sanctions and War in Iraq and the list goes on of shite Policies that have resulted in where we are today

    Plus he always wanted Labour to win unlike the Centrists in SDP/Change UK and within the Parties own Central Office.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,276
    IanB2 said:

    .

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    George Bush signs a bottle of wine. C’mon. Use your IMAGINATIONS

    I photographed it yesterday afternoon

    His last drink?

    Superb!

    Yes. Bang on

    I am staying at the remarkable Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs. A genuinely remarkable place in terms of American/Wild West history

    So. Apparently the young George W Bush came here in 1989. He got - as was his wont - completely shitfaced. He woke up with barely a memory of the night before. He just knew it was bad. So he finished off the last of the wine left in his bottle - for breakfast - then he signed it. Why? Because he said “I am never drinking again and I want to remember this moment”

    He was true to his word. Never drank again. Went on to invade Iraq when sober. Sober presidents are bad. Donald trump is sober



    So it's the actual bottle, he left there?

    On my US trip I met someone who told me that his father had quite a serious bowel problem and often had to go in a hurry; during engagements this wasn't always possible and this guy had once cleaned him up behind the scenes mid-engagement, and received a set of presidential cufflinks by way of reward.
    It is the actual bottle

    This hotel is amazing. Gorgeously decadent Prohibition history. They have a corridor called Bottle Alley with all these curious and historic wine/whisky/gin bottles. For a drinker it’s like the Louvre

    https://www.broadmoor.com/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Broadmoor

    The mad owner proprietor Spencer Penrose built an enormous private stash of liquor… under the swimming pool. Only rediscovered. He also used to ride around on an elephant


    Gold mine money

    Wine and gold digging! The gold miners themselves got drunk on cheap red plonk made from Zinfandel, among other things, but the grape was almost forgotten during prohibition. White Zinfandel was invented by accident when a fermentation went wrong and was almost thrown away - but the maker thought it tasted interesting and so was born a craze for it in the 1970s US that mirrored the Mateus Rose boom in Europe, and Zinfandel was suddenly being planted everywhere. Serious reds have only been made in any quantity from it since the turn of the century.
    Brilliant. I love mad American history

    You should come here. They have an entire British pub transplanted brick by brick in 1919. Prince Harry came here for a drink 100 years later

    They also have a bar where they would have huge parties during prohibition. Wealthy men were invited to come with their wives or mistresses and they were given menus of “cologne bottles” available for purchase
  • If I were given £1 for every time the super rich, over the last 50 years, threaten to leave the country if their taxes are raised but then don't actually do so, I'd have enough money to make the threat myself.

    Lots of people did just that in the 60s (which I accept is outside of your 50 years). There were the famous examples who made the news like the Roling Stones but they were only the most obvious public face of the large number of wealthy people who became tax exiles at that time. In fact, it is much easier to do so today given the communications advances and the fact so many foreign parts have become even more anglophone.

    That is not to defend it, just to point out the facts. Personally, I agree with Ian and like the US system of taxing people on their earnings where-ever they are earnt and where-ever people live. If you want the benefits of British nationality, then you should be prepared to pay for it like everyone else. The systems of mutual tax recognition treaties that most countries have with each other mean there is little danger of double taxation but the principle of being liable for tax in the UK if you are British seems sound to me.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Ishmael_Z said:

    On topic. I think they will remove her before PMQs. @SouthamObserver thinks they will remove her immediately after PMQs. Other predictions?

    She will be PM this time next week.
    Oh I do hope so. They have removed the egregious threat to the economy but have left in place the person responsible for doing all the damage. We can afford this to be dragged out, the longer the better for shits and giggles.
    A week is a short time in politics. She will go in November

    OK this is the express but it looks credible to me

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1683323/Liz-truss-replacement-tory-plot-latest
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Scott_xP said:

    NEW - The race is on...

    Allies of Ben Wallace have been contacting MPs asking if they'd back him to replace Liz Truss, @theipaper understands.

    Comes as Crispin Blunt becomes first backbencher to break cover and call for the PM to quit.

    Story: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/ben-wallace-supporters-launch-bid-to-replace-liz-truss-with-defence-secretary-as-first-mp-calls-for-pm-to-quit-1914751

    Tories can’t decide between Wallace, Rishi, Mordaunt and Hunt, it seems.

    Wallace and Mordaunt are both untested at the highest level, and both Rishi and Hunt have certain issues.

    I guess we should be grateful that nobody is seriously suggesting Johnson.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    DavidL said:

    Interesting piece from Kate Bingham in the Mail today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11294895/Head-UKs-vaccine-taskforce-KATE-BINGHAM-reveals-painful-bureaucracy-jab-programme.html

    As a demonstration of how and why Whitehall is pretty much useless in any kind of a crisis it would be hard to beat. And Matt Hancock doesn't exactly come out of it well either.

    Edit, apologies, this is actually from last week but it is still interesting.

    I think she makes some valid points but we ought to remember that we did manage to vaccinate the mass of our population quicker than any other major country. So things can't be that bad!

    'Yet there’s no doubt that their hesitancy over risk held back the pace of what the Vaccine Taskforce was trying to do. Far better, from the Civil Service viewpoint, to do that rather than risk career suicide by pushing ahead with an even vaguely controversial task.'

    The last couple of sentences are very instructive. Avoiding mistakes is the civil service mantra. She's probably right about diversity too - certainly the dominance of economics and humanities graduates. Maybe that's why the senior civil service is so keen to talk about diversity? Ultimately politicians need to take responsibility for this. The Tories have been in power for twelve years. Hancock obviously comes out of it very badly.
    Diversity? It's woke gone mad from Kate Bingham.

    It would be easy – but perhaps not inaccurate – for me to suggest that this was because the IPA review team were all women. In my day job, I’m fanatical about having senior women leading my companies and on boards since I find diversity helps make better decisions.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11294895/Head-UKs-vaccine-taskforce-KATE-BINGHAM-reveals-painful-bureaucracy-jab-programme.html

    Yes, Bingham is probably right about incompetent, time-wasting audits in a time of emergency but hold on, what about the industrial scale waste and fraud with ppe contracts for mates: surely they'd have benefited from scrutiny?
    I was thinking the same.
    Why did the Civil Service meddle so much with the Vaccine Taskforce but the PPE contracts were given a free pass?

    Bingham describes a Civil Service that is not fit for purpose, although I’d like to read her book properly for a fuller picture.
    The vaccine stuff had lots of lovely bells and whistles. Lots of minutes could have been written. Lots of little task forces setup. Lots of lovely policy making.

    Instead that Bingham woman comes in, and fucks it all up, with her insistence on delivering vaccines. Rather than on Good Government*.

    *A favourite was being told by a senior civil servant, that modern IT project management methodologies might work, but that strict Waterfall was Good Government.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    George Bush signs a bottle of wine. C’mon. Use your IMAGINATIONS

    I photographed it yesterday afternoon

    His last drink?

    Superb!

    Yes. Bang on

    I am staying at the remarkable Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs. A genuinely remarkable place in terms of American/Wild West history

    So. Apparently the young George W Bush came here in 1989. He got - as was his wont - completely shitfaced. He woke up with barely a memory of the night before. He just knew it was bad. So he finished off the last of the wine left in his bottle - for breakfast - then he signed it. Why? Because he said “I am never drinking again and I want to remember this moment”

    He was true to his word. Never drank again. Went on to invade Iraq when sober. Sober presidents are bad. Donald trump is sober



    Richard Nixon was the polar opposite of sober but I don't think you would say he was a great president.

    Maybe other factors come into play?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Scott_xP said:

    NEW - The race is on...

    Allies of Ben Wallace have been contacting MPs asking if they'd back him to replace Liz Truss, @theipaper understands.

    Comes as Crispin Blunt becomes first backbencher to break cover and call for the PM to quit.

    Story: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/ben-wallace-supporters-launch-bid-to-replace-liz-truss-with-defence-secretary-as-first-mp-calls-for-pm-to-quit-1914751

    There is apparently a FINLAND type rumour about Wallace which prevented him standing last time. No idea what
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    Joe Biden says cutting top income tax rate in the UK from 45% to 40% would have been wrong. The 40% rate here kicks in at £50,270. In the US the tax rate is 22% up to equivalent of £80,000. Then 24% on income up to £153,000. Top rate of 37% kicks in over £483,000.

    https://twitter.com/harryph/status/1581559319295770625

    Yes, these are Federal taxes (the ones Biden is responsible for) and most states charge state tax on top, with California the highest at13.3% and eight at 0%….but it illustrates the folly of opining on other countries domestic politics…

    Basically Biden doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?

    If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
    It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
    Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
    The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
    IIRC she wanted it at 50% and it was Lawson who convinced her to go for 40%. I've always thought 50% was the appropriate level (including NIC). Nobody making >150k in the UK could do it without the stability (sic) and infrastructure offered by the British state so it seems reasonable to split the lottery winnings of being a high earner 50/50 with the state apparatus that makes it possible.
    You are forgetting NI.

    I actually watched the Laffer Curve in action - a rich American relative, living here, binned his tax lawyers and just paid the top rate when it changed. He said that he liked publica services, but paying more than 50% just felt too much.
    Er I said 50% including NIC!
    Sorry - yes.

    The problem with NIC is how much it has been mucked up over the years. Roll it into income tax.

    The ambition of the state should be that the rules for living in this country should fit on a small set of postcards. Setting tax at a sensible, easy to understand and hard to avoid level is in my top 10.
    Agreed. Get rid of NIC. My preferred income tax regime would look something like first 10k tax free. 10k to 100k at 25%. Above 100k at 50%. Thresholds uprated with inflation automatically. I don't like the way we keep cutting income tax rates, people should pay for public services and know that they cost money if you want them to be good, we choose how they are run (so don't vote for chancers) and you can't run them on the never never or expect someone else to pay for them. Income tax is the fairest tax so it should be the bedrock of our tax system.
    At the moment take home pay for someone on £100k would be about £66,000. Under your proposal it would be about £77,500. An £11,000 pound a year tax cut!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    Tory MP Crispin Blunt tells @afneil he doesn't think Liz Truss can survive the current crisis.

    “I think the game is up and it’s now a question as to how the succession is managed".
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,414
    If Wallace wants it, I think he will get it. Seems pretty popular with all wings of the party. No obvious baggage. Didn’t enter the last contest so can’t be accused of being disrespectful to members.

    He would presumably be a managerial PM with a broad cabinet. Hunt would I guess stay at Treasury in that equation. Question is whether Rishi could be tempted back with something.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,537
    I don’t see how Truss survives .

    Even if the polls improve somewhat I don’t see anyway she can lead the Tories into the GE .

    So for that reason better to remove her quickly . You can understand why no one wants to relinquish the role of PM , it must be absolutely galling for her to see the pinnacle of any UK politicians ambition humiliatingly implode after just 5 weeks .

    Every time I start to feel slightly sorry for her I just remember that she appointed the stain on humanity Braverman as HS !
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911

    As I understand it, the number of non doms has dwindled considerably.

    Not sure if it’s that non-dom status became more onerous to maintain, or simply that a lot of rich people have already left sclerotic Britain.

    How many were Russian?
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW - The race is on...

    Allies of Ben Wallace have been contacting MPs asking if they'd back him to replace Liz Truss, @theipaper understands.

    Comes as Crispin Blunt becomes first backbencher to break cover and call for the PM to quit.

    Story: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/ben-wallace-supporters-launch-bid-to-replace-liz-truss-with-defence-secretary-as-first-mp-calls-for-pm-to-quit-1914751

    Tories can’t decide between Wallace, Rishi, Mordaunt and Hunt, it seems.

    Wallace and Mordaunt are both untested at the highest level, and both Rishi and Hunt have certain issues.

    I guess we should be grateful that nobody is seriously suggesting Johnson.
    Please just have a vote behind closed doors and accept the winner. Get on with it.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,276
    edited October 2022
    Who wouldn’t want to visit the WILL ROGERS SHRINE OF THE SUN

    “The shrine contains murals, illustrating scenes of Native Americans; Zebulon Pike's travels; Cripple Creek Mining; William Jackson Palmer, founder of Colorado Springs; and Spencer Penrose. The next three floors contain a photographic history of Will Rogers from his early childhood days in Oklahoma through his time on stage, screen and radio. The last mural is of Will and Wiley Post taken just prior to their fatal plane crash.

    A set of Westminster chimes are played on a vibraharp every quarter-hour. The sounds of the chimes can be heard 20 miles (32 km) away, due to what was a state-of-the-art amplification system when it was built.”
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265

    If I were given £1 for every time the super rich, over the last 50 years, threaten to leave the country if their taxes are raised but then don't actually do so, I'd have enough money to make the threat myself.

    Lots of people did just that in the 60s (which I accept is outside of your 50 years). There were the famous examples who made the news like the Roling Stones but they were only the most obvious public face of the large number of wealthy people who became tax exiles at that time. In fact, it is much easier to do so today given the communications advances and the fact so many foreign parts have become even more anglophone.

    That is not to defend it, just to point out the facts. Personally, I agree with Ian and like the US system of taxing people on their earnings where-ever they are earnt and where-ever people live. If you want the benefits of British nationality, then you should be prepared to pay for it like everyone else. The systems of mutual tax recognition treaties that most countries have with each other mean there is little danger of double taxation but the principle of being liable for tax in the UK if you are British seems sound to me.
    I see the argument for this, but there's a strong case for being taxed on your worldwide earnings where you actually live, because it's there that you are using public services. When I lived in Denmark, the state of services in Britain was only of academic interest, but I was very much affected by Danish services. Also, arguably, it's easier to monitor people who are living in your jurisdiction - are we confident that someone apparently living in the Cayman Islands is scrupulously reporting all their earnings?

    But the Cayman Islands government will struggle too. After the financial crisis in 2008, I recall some moves to increase exchange of information between authorities to crack down on evasion, but I don't know how far that got? I'd favour full transparency, with sanctions against any jurisdiction that declines to cooperate.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461
    new thread
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    This thread's position has

    become untenable

  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,537
    I think Ben Wallace seems a pretty safe choice .

    He doesn’t have any baggage and most people think he’s done a good job regarding Ukraine .

    Labour will be hoping that the Tories pick someone different .
  • Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Nigelb said:

    France to train up to 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers - French Armed Forces Minister

    The soldiers from Ukraine will soon be assigned to French units for several weeks.

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1581563848808710144

    Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??
    They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.
    Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.

    Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
    IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.

    In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.
    Airdropping paper leaflets with menus would be great propaganda. Surrender on Wednesday and you’ll be in time for our curry club. Thursday pizza, Friday and it’s fish and chips.
    Or if you like a reservation at one of our new French eateries. It's overpriced, and not as good as you think it's going to be, most food swimming in grease, but better than the shit you're eating now and you do have the fun of being served by slightly surly and condescending French-trained waiters.

    Can't Wetherspoons open up a few joints? Everyone likes their curry club. The Russians would surrender in droves for a curry and a pint of Tyskie for 5.99. Just leave your guns at the door....

    (although on thinking about it, being fully-armed is probably best when visiting a Wetherspoons.....)
    One of my favourite war stories is the Germans at Monte Casino in WW 2. Besieged for weeks they were reduced to living on rats. In desperation, they counterattacked breaking into the American trenches…where they found fresh cream cakes delivered from Chicago.

    They surrendered.
    One client of my father's, who was captured by the Italians, was certain that the food they served POW's was better than that in the British army.
    On Churchill's meeting with Stalin in Moscow, 1942:-

    The food laid out on his arrival at his dacha was not the only display of Stalin’s hospitality. One aide recalls the breakfasts the Soviets provided: “caviar, cake, chocolates, preserved fruit, grapes, none of the normal breakfast dishes. Fortunately coffee and an omelette appeared and all was well. Leslie Rowan told me that when he asked for an egg and bacon, they produced four eggs and nine rashers of bacon – all very nice except that one remembers that the vast majority of the population are practically starving”.
    Stelzer, Cita. Dinner with Churchill: Policy-Making at the Dinner Table.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    Ishmael_Z said:

    This thread's position has

    become untenable

    So we're going to carry on here for a bit?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265

    The new PM seemed to go out of his way to say on LK show the poorest would be at the forefront of his mind when designing the new Budget.

    So he can't possibly not uprate benefits by inflation can he?

    I’m a bit stumped as to what the heck he is going to do to be honest. I think a rise in the additional rate is going to be likely (height of irony). But it doesn’t raise that much. He could perhaps tweak IHT (though I suspect not given low IHT is a Tory shibboleth).

    Honestly I am starting to wonder if the higher rate is going to go up - going to be very unpopular with middle class professionals/homeowners if so.

    Edit: CGT maybe?
    Higher taxes over £100K with the elimination of the personal allowance taper would probably work - people up to £125K wouldn't necessarily pay more and would be pleased that the daft 61% marginal rate had gone, while those on more (as I was last year as a working pensioner) probably wouldn't be that bothered if the rate went up to 50p.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,773

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    George Bush signs a bottle of wine. C’mon. Use your IMAGINATIONS

    I photographed it yesterday afternoon

    His last drink?

    Donald trump is sober
    To go all Ken Livingston, Hitler was a teetotaller and Churchill a high functioning alcoholic.

    OTOH Stalin was a heavy boozer.
    Immanuel Kant was a real pissant.
    And Wittgenstein a beery swine

  • Scott_xP said:

    NEW - The race is on...

    Allies of Ben Wallace have been contacting MPs asking if they'd back him to replace Liz Truss, @theipaper understands.

    Comes as Crispin Blunt becomes first backbencher to break cover and call for the PM to quit.

    Story: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/ben-wallace-supporters-launch-bid-to-replace-liz-truss-with-defence-secretary-as-first-mp-calls-for-pm-to-quit-1914751

    I still don't get the love for Ben Wallace. He's an indifferent performer who signed off on the latest army cuts (which tbf were probably decided before he got the job). The commentariat, including PB, get over-excited about the prospects of ex-military types. If Tories want a neutral, short-term leader then Theresa May is surely a better fit.

    That said, I've got Starmer, Hunt and Sunak in the book so perhaps it is worth hedging on Wallace.
  • New thread.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    George Bush signs a bottle of wine. C’mon. Use your IMAGINATIONS

    I photographed it yesterday afternoon

    His last drink?

    Superb!

    Yes. Bang on

    I am staying at the remarkable Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs. A genuinely remarkable place in terms of American/Wild West history

    So. Apparently the young George W Bush came here in 1989. He got - as was his wont - completely shitfaced. He woke up with barely a memory of the night before. He just knew it was bad. So he finished off the last of the wine left in his bottle - for breakfast - then he signed it. Why? Because he said “I am never drinking again and I want to remember this moment”

    He was true to his word. Never drank again. Went on to invade Iraq when sober. Sober presidents are bad. Donald trump is sober



    Yours truly has a commemorative ceramic whiskey bottle (Jim Beam) in the shape of The Broadmoor.

    Which also is the place where in 1940, Republican "dark horse" (sorta) presidential nominee Wendell Willkie came, after winning the nomination at RNC, to prepare for his Fall campaign against Franklin Roosevelt.
  • ihuntihunt Posts: 146
    Hunt warns Tory mps against trying to oust pm
    To be fair hes right the best outcome is Truss as a powerless figurehead whilst Hunt actually runs the country
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?

    If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
    It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
    Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
    The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
    Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.

    A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
    The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
    Rich people don’t live in the UK for our excellent weather, beautiful new towns or excitingly vast amounts of immigration

    If taxes sharply rise - and rich people believe they will rise further - these higher rate payers will simply leave
    They live here because it's a nice place where they can enjoy their wealth without being kidnapped by rivals, or murdered by the government.

    That is worth paying for.
    But you can get the same in - eg - multiple EU countries with better weather and fewer “social
    issues”. And quite a few non EU countries

    Britain is still - on balance - a desirable place to live. This is especially true in london (if you’re rich). But we are getting perilously close to the position where the negatives will outweigh the positives

    I suppose we can console ourselves that global instability means almost everywhere feels a bit fucked
    If you're rich, Britain is an incredible place to live.
    If you're rich the US, Singapore or Switzerland is even more incredible than the UK to live, especially if the UK has a 50% top income tax rate
    Really rich people don't pay income tax.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    Joe Biden says cutting top income tax rate in the UK from 45% to 40% would have been wrong. The 40% rate here kicks in at £50,270. In the US the tax rate is 22% up to equivalent of £80,000. Then 24% on income up to £153,000. Top rate of 37% kicks in over £483,000.

    https://twitter.com/harryph/status/1581559319295770625

    Yes, these are Federal taxes (the ones Biden is responsible for) and most states charge state tax on top, with California the highest at13.3% and eight at 0%….but it illustrates the folly of opining on other countries domestic politics…

    Let's hope someone points this out to the senile hypocritical old twunt.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anyone reckon hunt could increase 45p to 50?

    If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
    It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
    Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
    The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
    IIRC she wanted it at 50% and it was Lawson who convinced her to go for 40%. I've always thought 50% was the appropriate level (including NIC). Nobody making >150k in the UK could do it without the stability (sic) and infrastructure offered by the British state so it seems reasonable to split the lottery winnings of being a high earner 50/50 with the state apparatus that makes it possible.
    You are forgetting NI.

    I actually watched the Laffer Curve in action - a rich American relative, living here, binned his tax lawyers and just paid the top rate when it changed. He said that he liked publica services, but paying more than 50% just felt too much.
    Er I said 50% including NIC!
    Sorry - yes.

    The problem with NIC is how much it has been mucked up over the years. Roll it into income tax.

    The ambition of the state should be that the rules for living in this country should fit on a small set of postcards. Setting tax at a sensible, easy to understand and hard to avoid level is in my top 10.
    Agreed. Get rid of NIC. My preferred income tax regime would look something like first 10k tax free. 10k to 100k at 25%. Above 100k at 50%. Thresholds uprated with inflation automatically. I don't like the way we keep cutting income tax rates, people should pay for public services and know that they cost money if you want them to be good, we choose how they are run (so don't vote for chancers) and you can't run them on the never never or expect someone else to pay for them. Income tax is the fairest tax so it should be the bedrock of our tax system.
    From a rough and ready calc, rolling NI into Income Tax would net the government an additional £32bn pa, ignoring the additional amount that would be gained from pensions income and earners over 66.

    While rolling NIC into Income Tax, the government could drop the contributory ESA offering saving another £4.5bn, since anyone without other savings or income could could claim UC (and they usually do tbf).

    So £36bn + whatever extra is paid by wealthy pensioners.
This discussion has been closed.