On topic: Surely even the daftest left-wing ideologue can understand that a tax rate of 57.8% (which is what the 50p rate actually means, once you include national insurance) is counter-productive, since it a comprises a massive incentive to divert income to other forms, or to move to less punitive tax regimes, or not to set up your business here in the first place. When the tax man nicks nearly £1.50 for every £1 you get, you'll behave accordingly.
Since Ed Balls is neither daft, left-wing, nor an ideologue, he'll obviously have no trouble understanding this point, so it's a cynical piece of of crude class-war populism. Will voters fall for it? Quite possibly. But the reckoning will come all the same.
Reassuringly dishonest. Mr Miliband on the other hand...
David Wooding @DavidWooding 17m Ed Miliband writes for The Sun on Sunday tomorrow about the 50p tax rate - and other ways he plans to cut the deficit.
As any fule kno, the 50p tax rate will either increase or, at best, have a no positive effect on the deficit.
It makes you wonder just how robust are the "other ways" the two Eds plan to cut the deficit?
If BenM is still standing, perhaps he can give us a clue?
The problem is they will claim it will raise £3bn and cite the OBR.
They ignore the fact that static behaviour assumptions are silly and the OBR changed its view.
Unfortunately - but quite reasonably - normal people won't look into the detail. So Labour are left with the proposition "raising tax rates = raises more money" which sounds very plausible.
Once again they are creating a political dividing line by simply lying to the voters. And they will probably get away with it.
What's all this boo yah from the PB Hodges, we have been told for the last two years that when the economy improves that there will be a polling crossover and Labour wont win the next election, so this 50p tax rate will not happen. Yellow boxes with economic measures, swingback and 5% for Ukip in the polls....that is where it will be at in May 2015.
Meanwhile outside planet Hodges and his marginal polls:
On topic: Surely even the daftest left-wing ideologue can understand that a tax rate of 57.8% (which is what the 50p rate actually means, once you include national insurance) is counter-productive, since it a comprises a massive incentive to divert income to other forms, or to move to less punitive tax regimes, or not to set up your business here in the first place. When the tax man nicks nearly £1.50 for every £1 you get, you'll behave accordingly.
Except exactly the same argument could be made for 40% tax rate and the tax man nicking nearly half your money. There is simply no hard evidence about where the Laffer curve falls, and the fact that 57.8% 'feels' like it must be above it in your mind doesn't change that.
As for rent controls: in the 50 years or so that I've been following UK politics, I have absolutely no doubt that rent controls were the most damaging single measure any government of any hue has introduced in all of that time. They were an absolute unmitigated disaster, which (unsurprisingly) completely wrecked the rental market and, worst of all, were incredibly difficult to get rid of (because of course you get a sudden hike in rents when you do finally admit defeat and get rid of the price cap). That anyone in Labour can seriously be considering going back to that disaster beggars belief.
The single biggest drop in tory polling since before the 2010 election. That's how voters responded when the 50% tax rate was cut in Osbrowne's March 2012 omnishambles budget. We also aren't talking about one poll but ALL of them. Conclusive proof only PB Romneys like stuarttruth and Seth O Logue would be idiotic enough to dismiss.
The reason why the tory polling dropped so much is the aftermath of the omnishambles during which every incompetent blunder was then framed with Osbrowne's tax cut for the richest.
"we're all in this together."
That worked well, didn't it?
LOL
Make no mistake, Balls is a singularly unimpressive shadow chancellor so what he needs is for the tories to do all the work for him. Which they will do if they repeat their obvious mistakes from the omnishambles by incessantly rehashing every single argument in favour of keeping the tax cut for the richest as the voter looks on distinctly unimpressed.
The only real surprise is that after leaving it so long he didn't wait for the GE campaign to announce it since it so clearly plays well with the voters while putting the tories on the spot by letting them dig themselves as deep as possible. Just like they did during the omnishambles.
So why did Balls do it now? Probably because Balls is struggling himself and Osbrowne made it even easier for Labour by posturing on cutting the mimimum wage and backing labour, the TUC, and the lib dems position on it. So all the shrieking from the tories about despicable populism or socialism/communism just sounds laughable now.
I said at the time when Osbrowne was master strategising/triangulating on the minimum wage that just gave Labour the opportunity to push more populist policies forward. So it has proved.
On topic: Surely even the daftest left-wing ideologue can understand that a tax rate of 57.8% (which is what the 50p rate actually means, once you include national insurance) is counter-productive, since it a comprises a massive incentive to divert income to other forms, or to move to less punitive tax regimes, or not to set up your business here in the first place. When the tax man nicks nearly £1.50 for every £1 you get, you'll behave accordingly.
Except exactly the same argument could be made for 40% tax rate and the tax man nicking nearly half your money. There is simply no hard evidence about where the Laffer curve falls, and the fact that 57.8% 'feels' like it must be above it in your mind doesn't change that.
HMRC did a paper a couple of years ago - believe it came out at around 47/48%
Here's an IFS paper referencing HMRC (p.14). They don't have the actual numbers, but eyeballing the graph the central case (the blue line) peaks somewhere between 45% and 50%
On topic: Surely even the daftest left-wing ideologue can understand that a tax rate of 57.8% (which is what the 50p rate actually means, once you include national insurance) is counter-productive, since it a comprises a massive incentive to divert income to other forms, or to move to less punitive tax regimes, or not to set up your business here in the first place. When the tax man nicks nearly £1.50 for every £1 you get, you'll behave accordingly.
Since Ed Balls is neither daft, left-wing, nor an ideologue, he'll obviously have no trouble understanding this point, so it's a cynical piece of of crude class-war populism. Will voters fall for it? Quite possibly. But the reckoning will come all the same.
Reassuringly dishonest. Mr Miliband on the other hand...
What is the marginal tax rate for those between £50k taxable and £60k with child benefit ?
Coming back to your point. 57.8% is bad but 52.8% is good. Why not 47.8% or even lower ? Particularly for *ankers ?
On topic: Surely even the daftest left-wing ideologue can understand that a tax rate of 57.8% (which is what the 50p rate actually means, once you include national insurance) is counter-productive, since it a comprises a massive incentive to divert income to other forms, or to move to less punitive tax regimes, or not to set up your business here in the first place. When the tax man nicks nearly £1.50 for every £1 you get, you'll behave accordingly.
Except exactly the same argument could be made for 40% tax rate and the tax man nicking nearly half your money. There is simply no hard evidence about where the Laffer curve falls, and the fact that 57.8% 'feels' like it must be above it in your mind doesn't change that.
Yes, the 40% rate is too high (once you include NI), no doubt about it. That's hardly an argument for going backwards.
In any case it's not 'in my mind'. It's observable behaviour; anyone who has sat in on a board meeting discussing bonuses will know exactly what I mean. The marginal tax take is shocking, even for 40% (indeed even for basic rate) taxpayers. People adjust their behaviour accordingly.
David Wooding @DavidWooding 17m Ed Miliband writes for The Sun on Sunday tomorrow about the 50p tax rate - and other ways he plans to cut the deficit.
As any fule kno, the 50p tax rate will either increase or, at best, have a no positive effect on the deficit.
It makes you wonder just how robust are the "other ways" the two Eds plan to cut the deficit?
If BenM is still standing, perhaps he can give us a clue?
The problem is they will claim it will raise £3bn and cite the OBR.
They ignore the fact that static behaviour assumptions are silly and the OBR changed its view.
Unfortunately - but quite reasonably - normal people won't look into the detail. So Labour are left with the proposition "raising tax rates = raises more money" which sounds very plausible.
Once again they are creating a political dividing line by simply lying to the voters. And they will probably get away with it.
Your panic reaction tells me it is a smart move ! I would like Osborne to tell the public that a marginal rate of 50% for those whose taxable income is > 150k brings in less money than those people with child benefit and taxable earnings of between £50k and £60k whose marginal rate is close to 70%..
It might be a smart move, if Labour didn't think there was any risk that they might form the next government.
Here's a hint: politics and economics won't finish in May 2015. If you guys (God forbid) actually get into power, all this stuff will be your problem, and what seems 'smart' now definitely won't seem so smart then.
By the way does the fact that Ed Balls is announcing these policies now mean that his future is more certain than if he didn't as ScOTE than it otherwise would be ?
On topic: Surely even the daftest left-wing ideologue can understand that a tax rate of 57.8% (which is what the 50p rate actually means, once you include national insurance) is counter-productive, since it a comprises a massive incentive to divert income to other forms, or to move to less punitive tax regimes, or not to set up your business here in the first place. When the tax man nicks nearly £1.50 for every £1 you get, you'll behave accordingly.
Except exactly the same argument could be made for 40% tax rate and the tax man nicking nearly half your money. There is simply no hard evidence about where the Laffer curve falls, and the fact that 57.8% 'feels' like it must be above it in your mind doesn't change that.
Yes, the 40% rate is too high (once you include NI), no doubt about it. That's hardly an argument for going backwards.
In any case it's not 'in my mind'. It's observable behaviour; anyone who has sat in on a board meeting discussing bonuses will know exactly what I mean. The marginal tax take is shocking, even for 40% (indeed even for basic rate) taxpayers. People adjust their behaviour accordingly.
I just paid bonuses of between £10k and £100k to about 12 people just a week ago. [ Well, they knew about it beforehand as they could calculate it themselves ]. We only employ 67 people !
I can honestly say not one person mentioned the 40% tax rate.
You can always tell if a policy move by either party is bad for the Tory Party, this place gets flooded with PB Hodges more than usual. You couldn't get a look in here after the Omnishambles for PB Hodges telling us how the master strategist was brilliant again, despite it unraveling within hours. What we need is a few of those multi-millionaire CEO's and Fund Managers who fund the Tory Party whinging to the press about the new Labour policy and the Tory Party to get one of it's millionaires to attack it to really ram home the "Tory Toffs stick up for the rich" view by the majority of people......oh, wait there...
The problem is they will claim it will raise £3bn and cite the OBR.
...
Once again they are creating a political dividing line by simply lying to the voters. And they will probably get away with it.
Well, Labour can't back away from the original assumptions Brown made when introducing the 50p rate in 2010.
These were:
March Budget 2010 Exchequer Estimates 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Pre behavioural yield (liabilities) 6.5 6.9 7.5 Behavioural impacts (liabilities) -4.1 -4.5 -4.9 Post behavioural yield (liabilities) 2.4 2.4 2.6 Post behavioural yield (National Accounts) 1.3 3.1 2.7
The difference between the National Accounts 'bottom line' and the Post behavioural yield (liabilities) are that the latter figures are a combination of accrual (PAYE) and cash (Self Assessment) figures whereas the former are accrual only. Basically Brown calculated that the 10% rise in rate would yield an extra £2.5 bn per year in tax revenues.
Brown's assumptions have subsequently proved to be false and the net benefit is now accepted to be only £100 million, a figure 'verified' by the OBR.
The reason for Brown's assumptions being wrong are many but the two principal causes are:
1. The group of high earners subject to the tax and the taxes they paid were based on 2007 (i.e. pre-recession) figures. They therefore overestimated the base yield;
2. The complex factor used by economists to calculate "Taxable Income Elasticity (TIE)" - or the reduction in yield due to the behavioural changes which result from an increase in tax - was deliberately chosen from the bottom of a range of academic estimates. In other words, Brown asked for a figure (0.35) that, whilst plausible, was least likely. A most likely or 'central' factor would have been around (0.6). In summary, the behavioural impacts were deliberately understated to inflate the forecast yield.
The OBR now accepts that the annual impact of the tax rise was to raise no more than £100 million per annum rather than the £2.5 billion forecast by Brown.
And this £100 million only takes into account the direct impact of Income Tax and National Insurance. It makes no attempt to quantify 'second-round' effects such as the reduction in consumption tax (e.g. VAT) receipts due to higher rate tax payers relocating out of the UK tax jurisdiction or potential inbound tax payers deciding not to locate here. Nor does it attempt to quantify wider macro-economic losses such as reduced foreign inbound investment and employment.
Labour, having cooked the books once to falsely justify the introduction of the higher rate cannot now, in light of subsequent analysis and accounting, recook them to claim a bigger benefit for their 2015 plans.
I just paid bonuses of between £10k and £100k to about 12 people just a week ago. [ Well, they knew about it beforehand as they could calculate it themselves ]. We only employ 67 people !
I can honestly say not one person mentioned the 40% tax rate.
I just paid bonuses of between £10k and £100k to about 12 people just a week ago. [ Well, they knew about it beforehand as they could calculate it themselves ]. We only employ 67 people !
I can honestly say not one person mentioned the 40% tax rate.
Was this a private business?
My company is involved in sales and it is privately owned. I have never worked for the government.
Sunday Times: THE Liberal Democrat peer at the centre of a sexual harassment scandal could expose two decades of sex scandals in the party if Nick Clegg “goes nuclear” and tries to expel him, say his friends.
Lord Rennard, who masterminded some of the party’s most successful election campaigns, is said by allies to “know where the bodies are buried”, including details of a married Lib Dem peer who has had extramarital affairs, a married MP who had a sexual liaison with a Lib Dem peer, a former MP who was regarded as a sex pest and secret gay liaisons involving both MPs and peers.
Personally I couldn't care less if the tax rate at £150k is 45 or 50%, its a purely political argument on both sides I reckon.
What its not going to do is reduce the deficit though, so I'd like our Labour posters to provide some evidence of that. Perhaps rent caps might as it'll mean less housing benefit payout ? I've always thought Gov't cash heading straight to Landlords pockets is a pretty wank use of the countries money myself.
I just paid bonuses of between £10k and £100k to about 12 people just a week ago. [ Well, they knew about it beforehand as they could calculate it themselves ]. We only employ 67 people !
I can honestly say not one person mentioned the 40% tax rate.
Was this a private business?
My company is involved in sales and it is privately owned. I have never worked for the government.
So you are telling me that the board didn't consider the NI cost? That no-one thought about diverting some of the bonuses into pension contributions?
By the way does the fact that Ed Balls is announcing these policies now mean that his future is more certain than if he didn't as ScOTE than it otherwise would be ?
The talk of him going was always overblown but there was a question mark about him going sometime after the 2015 election even if Labour win. Hard to say if this has secured him for then but it's obviously going to upset the remaining Blairites even more than usual. I doubt Balls will be too upset if they decide to fight on this as a battleground since even they remember the omnishambles.
You can always tell if a policy move by either party is bad for the Tory Party, this place gets flooded with PB Hodges more than usual. You couldn't get a look in here after the Omnishambles for PB Hodges telling us how the master strategist was brilliant again, despite it unraveling within hours. What we need is a few of those multi-millionaire CEO's and Fund Managers who fund the Tory Party whinging to the press about the new Labour policy and the Tory Party to get one of it's millionaires to attack it to really ram home the "Tory Toffs stick up for the rich" view by the majority of people......oh, wait there...
compouter
Why did Gordon Brown, advised by Ed Balls, 'cook the books' in 2010 when forecasting increases in tax yield from the 50p rate which never materialised?
By the way does the fact that Ed Balls is announcing these policies now mean that his future is more certain than if he didn't as ScOTE than it otherwise would be ?
The talk of him going was always overblown but there was a question mark about him going sometime after the 2015 election even if Labour win. Hard to say if this has secured him for then but it's obviously going to upset the remaining Blairites even more than usual. I doubt Balls will be too upset if they decide to fight on this as a battleground since even they remember the omnishambles.
I need him to stay, he's one of my biggest potential profits should the reds win next year.
I just paid bonuses of between £10k and £100k to about 12 people just a week ago. [ Well, they knew about it beforehand as they could calculate it themselves ]. We only employ 67 people !
I can honestly say not one person mentioned the 40% tax rate.
Was this a private business?
My company is involved in sales and it is privately owned. I have never worked for the government.
So you are telling me that the board didn't consider the NI cost? That no-one thought about diverting some of the bonuses into pension contributions?
You mean paying in diamonds etc. or in the Channel Islands ? No. We are a German company and such bonuses are given worldwide. We do not do funny business !!
Sunday Times: THE Liberal Democrat peer at the centre of a sexual harassment scandal could expose two decades of sex scandals in the party if Nick Clegg “goes nuclear” and tries to expel him, say his friends.
Lord Rennard, who masterminded some of the party’s most successful election campaigns, is said by allies to “know where the bodies are buried”, including details of a married Lib Dem peer who has had extramarital affairs, a married MP who had a sexual liaison with a Lib Dem peer, a former MP who was regarded as a sex pest and secret gay liaisons involving both MPs and peers.
The problem is they will claim it will raise £3bn and cite the OBR.
...
These were:
March Budget 2010 Exchequer Estimates 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Pre behavioural yield (liabilities) 6.5 6.9 7.5 Behavioural impacts (liabilities) -4.1 -4.5 -4.9 Post behavioural yield (liabilities) 2.4 2.4 2.6 Post behavioural yield (National Accounts) 1.3 3.1 2.7
The difference between the National Accounts 'bottom line' and the Post behavioural yield (liabilities) are that the latter figures are a combination of accrual (PAYE) and cash (Self Assessment) figures whereas the former are accrual only. Basically Brown calculated that the 10% rise in rate would yield an extra £2.5 bn per year in tax revenues.
Brown's assumptions have subsequently proved to be false and the net benefit is now accepted to be only £100 million, a figure 'verified' by the OBR.
The reason for Brown's assumptions being wrong are many but the two principal causes are:
1. The group of high earners subject to the tax and the taxes they paid were based on 2007 (i.e. pre-recession) figures. They therefore overestimated the base yield;
2. The complex factor used by economists to calculate "Taxable Income Elasticity (TIE)" - or the reduction in yield due to the behavioural changes which result from an increase in tax - was deliberately chosen from the bottom of a range of academic estimates. In other words, Brown asked for a figure (0.35) that, whilst plausible, was least likely. A most likely or 'central' factor would have been around (0.6). In summary, the behavioural impacts were deliberately understated to inflate the forecast yield.
And this £100 million only takes into account the direct impact of Income Tax and National Insurance. It makes no attempt to quantify 'second-round' effects such as the reduction in consumption tax (e.g. VAT) receipts due to higher rate tax payers relocating out of the UK tax jurisdiction or potential inbound tax payers deciding not to locate here. Nor does it attempt to quantify wider macro-economic losses such as reduced foreign inbound investment and employment.
Labour, having cooked the books once to falsely justify the introduction of the higher rate cannot now, in light of subsequent analysis and accounting, recook them to claim a bigger benefit for their 2015 plans.
Avery, I sincerely hope Osborne and Cameron tell the public exactly the gumpf you have written above.
Basically, what you are saying is that the rich works harder when they pay less taxes, whereas the poor with benefits work harder when they get less money.
I just paid bonuses of between £10k and £100k to about 12 people just a week ago. [ Well, they knew about it beforehand as they could calculate it themselves ]. We only employ 67 people !
I can honestly say not one person mentioned the 40% tax rate.
Was this a private business?
My company is involved in sales and it is privately owned. I have never worked for the government.
So you are telling me that the board didn't consider the NI cost? That no-one thought about diverting some of the bonuses into pension contributions?
You mean paying in diamonds etc. or in the Channel Islands ? No. We are a German company and such bonuses are given worldwide. We do not do funny business !!
Bumping up a pension contribution to avoid NI is hardly an 'exotic' scheme.
Personally I couldn't care less if the tax rate at £150k is 45 or 50%, its a purely political argument on both sides I reckon.
What its not going to do is reduce the deficit though, so I'd like our Labour posters to provide some evidence of that.
You are correct. It will barely reduce the deficit at all.
However, I am still hoping the Labour high-command eventually see sense and realise it's self-defeating for them to posture on the deficit. Noone who has made up their mind that Labour will bankrupt the country is going to change their mind on the basis of some declaration of a surplus, especially when it comes from Ed Balls. And all this will do is make those who currently don't consider the deficit to be particularly important (which, again, I maintain is a far larger group than the media think), start thinking that it IS more important, simply because Labour are talking about it and making voters think about it more.
As things stand, my sense is that people would be nonplussed if either Labour or the Tories go into the next election promising yet more cuts (the Tories' announcement a few weeks ago didn't seem to cut through much). People might have grudgingly accepted the need for cuts when the Euro-crisis was in full flow and it was easy to say "just look at Greece! We might end up like them!". But, in 2015, if the politicians say more cuts need to be made because we can't afford to keep spending what we currently are, people will simply respond, "but we quite clearly can afford them, because we're paying for them right now and the universe isn't caving in".
I just paid bonuses of between £10k and £100k to about 12 people just a week ago. [ Well, they knew about it beforehand as they could calculate it themselves ]. We only employ 67 people !
I can honestly say not one person mentioned the 40% tax rate.
Was this a private business?
My company is involved in sales and it is privately owned. I have never worked for the government.
So you are telling me that the board didn't consider the NI cost? That no-one thought about diverting some of the bonuses into pension contributions?
You mean paying in diamonds etc. or in the Channel Islands ? No. We are a German company and such bonuses are given worldwide. We do not do funny business !!
Bumping up a pension contribution to avoid NI is hardly an 'exotic' scheme.
Then can do it independently. They can always send a cheque to our pension provider and then claim it back through the tax assessment. I am not aware of anyone actually doing that.
Sunday Times: THE Liberal Democrat peer at the centre of a sexual harassment scandal could expose two decades of sex scandals in the party if Nick Clegg “goes nuclear” and tries to expel him, say his friends.
Lord Rennard, who masterminded some of the party’s most successful election campaigns, is said by allies to “know where the bodies are buried”, including details of a married Lib Dem peer who has had extramarital affairs, a married MP who had a sexual liaison with a Lib Dem peer, a former MP who was regarded as a sex pest and secret gay liaisons involving both MPs and peers.
Didn't take Rennard long did it? Precisely what I and a few others said would happen. Rennard would start feeding the press ever more explicit warnings and hints through his 'allies' making it clear that if he goes down he tries to take Clegg and as many others with him.
It also means Clegg is in a totally unwinnable situation. If Clegg is forced to drop it all now he'll look terminally weak and it will just raise yet more questions about why the Rennard scandal was totally mishandled by Clegg and not properly investigated in the first place.
If he faces down Rennard then it just get's more and more ugly with Rennard lashing out and leaking yet more details of ever more lib dem scandals. Of which there will be plenty.
Personally I couldn't care less if the tax rate at £150k is 45 or 50%, its a purely political argument on both sides I reckon.
What its not going to do is reduce the deficit though, so I'd like our Labour posters to provide some evidence of that.
You are correct. It will barely reduce the deficit at all.
However, I am still hoping the Labour high-command eventually see sense and realise it's self-defeating for them to posture on the deficit. Noone who has made up their mind that Labour will bankrupt the country is going to change their mind on the basis of some declaration of a surplus, especially when it comes from Ed Balls. And all this will do is make those who currently don't consider the deficit to be particularly important (which, again, I maintain is a far larger group than the media think), start thinking that it IS more important, simply because Labour are talking about it and making voters think about it more.
As things stand, my sense is that people would be nonplussed if either Labour or the Tories go into the next election promising yet more cuts (the Tories' announcement a few weeks ago didn't seem to cut through much). People might have grudgingly accepted the need for cuts when the Euro-crisis was in full flow and it was easy to say "just look at Greece! We might end up like them!". But, in 2015, if the politicians say more cuts need to be made because we can't afford to keep spending what we currently are, people will simply respond, "but we quite clearly can afford them, because we're paying for them right now and the universe isn't caving in".
Moving the argument onto the deficit is not a good one (For Labour). Its probably why they've announced the 50p tax at the same time though, your average voter will think it does deal with it, more tax = less deficit - or is it debt. Oh OK the rich will pay for it all !
You can always tell if a policy move by either party is bad for the Tory Party, this place gets flooded with PB Hodges more than usual. You couldn't get a look in here after the Omnishambles for PB Hodges telling us how the master strategist was brilliant again, despite it unraveling within hours. What we need is a few of those multi-millionaire CEO's and Fund Managers who fund the Tory Party whinging to the press about the new Labour policy and the Tory Party to get one of it's millionaires to attack it to really ram home the "Tory Toffs stick up for the rich" view by the majority of people......oh, wait there...
compouter
Why did Gordon Brown, advised by Ed Balls, 'cook the books' in 2010 when forecasting increases in tax yield from the 50p rate which never materialised?
Is lying a policy in the Labour party?
Avery, the OBR otherwise known as HMV will sing out of a different 78 rpm record when Labour get in power. Their record of changing positions is better than an olympian sexual athlete !
David Wooding @DavidWooding 17m Ed Miliband writes for The Sun on Sunday tomorrow about the 50p tax rate - and other ways he plans to cut the deficit.
As any fule kno, the 50p tax rate will either increase or, at best, have a no positive effect on the deficit.
It makes you wonder just how robust are the "other ways" the two Eds plan to cut the deficit?
If BenM is still standing, perhaps he can give us a clue?
The problem is they will claim it will raise £3bn and cite the OBR.
They ignore the fact that static behaviour assumptions are silly and the OBR changed its view.
Unfortunately - but quite reasonably - normal people won't look into the detail. So Labour are left with the proposition "raising tax rates = raises more money" which sounds very plausible.
Once again they are creating a political dividing line by simply lying to the voters. And they will probably get away with it.
Your panic reaction tells me it is a smart move ! I would like Osborne to tell the public that a marginal rate of 50% for those whose taxable income is > 150k brings in less money than those people with child benefit and taxable earnings of between £50k and £60k whose marginal rate is close to 70%..
Tories look after their rich chums, As always.!
Not a panic reaction at all. A little pissed off because they are being so disingenuous in how they present it. As for the actual rate, I don't really like paying more than 50% of my salary in deductions because it feels like the government is being greedy.
But I don't really care. I have enough to live on and run a small surplus most years.
I don't think we can expect any more policies for a while from Labour now though.
Two is probably quite enough, and I suspect they are getting the one populist-ish treasury one out the way now so they can focus of areas of greater Labour strength in the run up to the election.
Although, what I will say is, if Labour really DO go into the next election running on promises of huge cuts (which would be suicidal imo), then all of UKIP's Christmases will come early. They are gradually creeping towards a more leftwing stance on economic and welfare state issues, a la Marine le Pen (I even saw that Janice Atkinson, one of UKIP's candidates for the European elections, saying that the Tories were too harsh on benefit-claimants a while back). If Labour say that huge cuts are unavoidable, then Ukip will have an absolute field day, claiming all the parties are part of the same snobbish elite who wants to pull up the drawbridge on everyone else (and no doubt saying that, if we left Europe and clamped down on immigrants, we'd be able to afford all the things the mainstream parties are saying we can't afford), and they will become a huge hit among tradional WWC Labour voters as a result.
By the way does the fact that Ed Balls is announcing these policies now mean that his future is more certain than if he didn't as ScOTE than it otherwise would be ?
The talk of him going was always overblown but there was a question mark about him going sometime after the 2015 election even if Labour win. Hard to say if this has secured him for then but it's obviously going to upset the remaining Blairites even more than usual. I doubt Balls will be too upset if they decide to fight on this as a battleground since even they remember the omnishambles.
I need him to stay, he's one of my biggest potential profits should the reds win next year.
I think your money is safe. Even if there was a move against him little Ed would still have to wait for a big reshuffle if Labour won and winning an election tends to shut the fiercest critics up for quite some time. If it was a hung parliament and Labour failed to win a majority but were the largest party... tricky. He might be out the door then. Hung parliaments are still very unlikely though since the electoral math still needs to fall just right under FPTP. (hence so few of them in the last 50 or so years) The less lib dem MPs there are the less chance there is of a hung parliament as well and if you are betting on the lib dems keeping their 2010 numbers then I would kiss that money goodbye.
I just paid bonuses of between £10k and £100k to about 12 people just a week ago. [ Well, they knew about it beforehand as they could calculate it themselves ]. We only employ 67 people !
I can honestly say not one person mentioned the 40% tax rate.
Was this a private business?
My company is involved in sales and it is privately owned. I have never worked for the government.
So you are telling me that the board didn't consider the NI cost? That no-one thought about diverting some of the bonuses into pension contributions?
You mean paying in diamonds etc. or in the Channel Islands ? No. We are a German company and such bonuses are given worldwide. We do not do funny business !!
Bumping up a pension contribution to avoid NI is hardly an 'exotic' scheme.
Pulpstar, the one Osborne change of policy that I do support [ being fair minded ] was the reduction in the annual allowance for pension contributions from 2011-12. If I remember correctly it was £75k. Now £50k and falling to £40k.
Avery, I sincerely hope Osborne and Cameron tell the public exactly the gumpf you have written above.
Basically, what you are saying is that the rich works harder when they pay less taxes, whereas the poor with benefits work harder when they get less money.
No wonder you insensitive bunch are so hated !!
Silly Surby!
It is a fact of nature that almost everyone works harder for a higher reward. Isn't that why you have just offered your employees such generous but tax-inefficient bonuses?
As to behavioural changes resulting from tax increases/decreases they are many and varied.
A key benefit of a lower income tax rate is that more people in the target group will pay tax. That is why London has attracted French nationals fleeing the 75% top rate in France in order to benefit from the 45% top rate (excl. NI) which applies in the UK. So the lower your top tax rate, and the more competitive it is relative to competitive jurisdictions, the more high earners will locate in your country. It should be noted that the UK has a top income tax rate which is near the top of G20 countries, so there is plenty more scope for additional reductions in the rate to encourage additional tax yield from inbound taxpayers.
Another benefit is that high earners are less inclined to arrange their tax affairs by using alternative lesser taxed forms of remuneration. For example to realise income through capital gains rather than PAYE or SA income. So the yield per tax payer goes up as rates come down.
I could go on and on, but will spare you on the grounds that the top two benefits should provide you with sufficient food for rethinking you absurby allegations.
By the way does the fact that Ed Balls is announcing these policies now mean that his future is more certain than if he didn't as ScOTE than it otherwise would be ?
The talk of him going was always overblown but there was a question mark about him going sometime after the 2015 election even if Labour win. Hard to say if this has secured him for then but it's obviously going to upset the remaining Blairites even more than usual. I doubt Balls will be too upset if they decide to fight on this as a battleground since even they remember the omnishambles.
I need him to stay, he's one of my biggest potential profits should the reds win next year.
I think your money is safe. Even if there was a move against him little Ed would still have to wait for a big reshuffle if Labour won and winning an election tends to shut the fiercest critics up for quite some time. If it was a hung parliament and Labour failed to win a majority but were the largest party... tricky. He might be out the door then. Hung parliament's are still very unlikely though since the electoral math still needs to fall just right under FPTP. (hence so few of them in the last 50 or so years) The less lib dem MPs there are the less chance there is of a hung parliament as well and if you are betting on the lib dems keeping their 2010 numbers then I would kiss that money goodbye.
Labour don't need a majority for Ed to be PM or Balls to be Chancellor. Thats one of the nice things about that bet. I have plenty others, might publish a full list the night before GE so we can see how I do. Only a conservative majority will leave me down a couple of hundred I think (A continuation of the coalition would be a net winner I think)
I just paid bonuses of between £10k and £100k to about 12 people just a week ago. [ Well, they knew about it beforehand as they could calculate it themselves ]. We only employ 67 people !
I can honestly say not one person mentioned the 40% tax rate.
Was this a private business?
My company is involved in sales and it is privately owned. I have never worked for the government.
So you are telling me that the board didn't consider the NI cost? That no-one thought about diverting some of the bonuses into pension contributions?
You mean paying in diamonds etc. or in the Channel Islands ? No. We are a German company and such bonuses are given worldwide. We do not do funny business !!
Bumping up a pension contribution to avoid NI is hardly an 'exotic' scheme.
Pulpstar, the one Osborne change of policy that I do support [ being fair minded ] was the reduction in the annual allowance for pension contributions from 2011-12. If I remember correctly it was £75k. Now £50k and falling to £40k.
I don't think we can expect any more policies for a while from Labour now though.
Two is probably quite enough, and I suspect they are getting the one populist-ish treasury one out the way now so they can focus of areas of greater Labour strength in the run up to the election.
Your quite right Pulpstar. Just like the Energy Freeze policy which to most voters will see as fair, the Toff Tax Rise will resonate well with the majority. It has also pushed the Tory Party in a corner just like the energy freeze did as they will not want to be seen as sticking up for millionaires for many reasons.....and just like the Energy Freeze this will be the headline grabber for months. Wonder if we will see another coalition policy formulated on the hoof in response. Hopefully they will announce it without informing their junior partners again. Politics hey.
When Labour do it, it is disgraceful populist politics. When Gideon does it, he is a political master strategist....PB Hodges, hey.
I just paid bonuses of between £10k and £100k to about 12 people just a week ago. [ Well, they knew about it beforehand as they could calculate it themselves ]. We only employ 67 people !
I can honestly say not one person mentioned the 40% tax rate.
Was this a private business?
My company is involved in sales and it is privately owned. I have never worked for the government.
So you are telling me that the board didn't consider the NI cost? That no-one thought about diverting some of the bonuses into pension contributions?
You mean paying in diamonds etc. or in the Channel Islands ? No. We are a German company and such bonuses are given worldwide. We do not do funny business !!
Bumping up a pension contribution to avoid NI is hardly an 'exotic' scheme.
Pulpstar, the one Osborne change of policy that I do support [ being fair minded ] was the reduction in the annual allowance for pension contributions from 2011-12. If I remember correctly it was £75k. Now £50k and falling to £40k.
Ha - If only I could contribute 40k to my pension
Actually, I have [ not £40k exactly ] and that is why I do know how it can be done without any big fuss involving the employer.Like you I also believe that those information that are easily in the public domain, i.e. printed in newspapers say after a budget is not "exotic". Diamonds and Jersey to me would be exotic. Anyway, I think the diamond loop-hole was plugged I think some years back.
I don't think we can expect any more policies for a while from Labour now though.
Two is probably quite enough, and I suspect they are getting the one populist-ish treasury one out the way now so they can focus of areas of greater Labour strength in the run up to the election.
Your quite right Pulpstar. Just like the Energy Freeze policy which to most voters will see as fair, the Toff Tax Rise will resonate well with the majority. It has also pushed the Tory Party in a corner just like the energy freeze did as they will not want to be seen as sticking up for millionaires for many reasons.....and just like the Energy Freeze this will be the headline grabber for months. Wonder if we will see another coalition policy formulated on the hoof in response. Hopefully they will announce it without informing their junior partners again. Politics hey.
I thought Gordon Brown was a disaster for the country, and generally I'm a centre- centre-right type. But i feel posting here frequently may have moved me slightly to the left as I also tend to be a contrarian by nature. So I'm probably slap bang in the centre right now.
I feel I can see the arguments and tosh from both sides. Its not a bad viewpoint from here if I must say so myself
I'll agree with the Institue of Directors that the 50p rate is a political gesture, but I can see it being reasonably popular...
What Labour needs to prevent though is the charge that they are going to put up the 40p rate, or move the threshold further down with no change in the PA line to compensate. That will hit 'middle Britain' - a line for the conservatives to exploit potentially.
Excerpt from a Times story about Tory EU rebellions:
"There is now mounting anger among Tory Europhiles about the extent to which they believe anti-Europeans feel unconstrained about destabilising party unity.
“We are biting our lips, we are not going to play their irresponsible game of undermining the party this close to an election,” said one prominent MP. “But you wait until after the election. Whether we win or lose, I am going after them. There will be no compromise, this must be finished once and for all. These people cannot be allowed to go on for longer.”"
I don't think we can expect any more policies for a while from Labour now though.
Two is probably quite enough, and I suspect they are getting the one populist-ish treasury one out the way now so they can focus of areas of greater Labour strength in the run up to the election.
Your quite right Pulpstar. Just like the Energy Freeze policy which to most voters will see as fair, the Toff Tax Rise will resonate well with the majority. It has also pushed the Tory Party in a corner just like the energy freeze did as they will not want to be seen as sticking up for millionaires for many reasons.....and just like the Energy Freeze this will be the headline grabber for months. Wonder if we will see another coalition policy formulated on the hoof in response. Hopefully they will announce it without informing their junior partners again. Politics hey.
I thought Gordon Brown was a disaster for the country, and generally I'm a centre- centre-right type. But i feel posting here frequently may have moved me slightly to the left as I also tend to be a contrarian by nature. So I'm probably slap bang in the centre right now.
I feel I can see the arguments and tosh from both sides. Its not a bad viewpoint from here if I must say so myself
One thing has been quite surprising is how even the very little that Labour announces seems to stay on grid for so long and gets such attention and policy change from the Tory Party. As I stated, like the Energy Freeze policy, this will make the Tory Party form policy contortions and in many eyes place them on the wrong side of the argument. I hope Crosby and Messina stay in their posts for the next few elections, they are making Gideons campaign strategy at the last election look magnificent.
You can always tell if a policy move by either party is bad for the Tory Party, this place gets flooded with PB Hodges more than usual. You couldn't get a look in here after the Omnishambles for PB Hodges telling us how the master strategist was brilliant again, despite it unraveling within hours. What we need is a few of those multi-millionaire CEO's and Fund Managers who fund the Tory Party whinging to the press about the new Labour policy and the Tory Party to get one of it's millionaires to attack it to really ram home the "Tory Toffs stick up for the rich" view by the majority of people......oh, wait there...
compouter
Why did Gordon Brown, advised by Ed Balls, 'cook the books' in 2010 when forecasting increases in tax yield from the 50p rate which never materialised?
Is lying a policy in the Labour party?
Avery, the OBR otherwise known as HMV will sing out of a different 78 rpm record when Labour get in power. Their record of changing positions is better than an olympian sexual athlete !
Surby.
You are trailing all your left colleagues on PB.
They have all moved on to anger, the second stage of grief.
You seem to be languishing behind them taking comfort from whimsical denial.
Excerpt from a Times story about Tory EU rebellions:
"There is now mounting anger among Tory Europhiles about the extent to which they believe anti-Europeans feel unconstrained about destabilising party unity.
“We are biting our lips, we are not going to play their irresponsible game of undermining the party this close to an election,” said one prominent MP. “But you wait until after the election. Whether we win or lose, I am going after them. There will be no compromise, this must be finished once and for all. These people cannot be allowed to go on for longer.”"
I thought Tory Europhiles could just about fit in a large taxi: Jane Ellison, Bob Walter,, Ken Clarke, ...
Excerpt from a Times story about Tory EU rebellions:
"There is now mounting anger among Tory Europhiles about the extent to which they believe anti-Europeans feel unconstrained about destabilising party unity.
“We are biting our lips, we are not going to play their irresponsible game of undermining the party this close to an election,” said one prominent MP. “But you wait until after the election. Whether we win or lose, I am going after them. There will be no compromise, this must be finished once and for all. These people cannot be allowed to go on for longer.”"
I don't think we can expect any more policies for a while from Labour now though.
Two is probably quite enough, and I suspect they are getting the one populist-ish treasury one out the way now so they can focus of areas of greater Labour strength in the run up to the election.
Your quite right Pulpstar. Just like the Energy Freeze policy which to most voters will see as fair, the Toff Tax Rise will resonate well with the majority. It has also pushed the Tory Party in a corner just like the energy freeze did as they will not want to be seen as sticking up for millionaires for many reasons.....and just like the Energy Freeze this will be the headline grabber for months. Wonder if we will see another coalition policy formulated on the hoof in response. Hopefully they will announce it without informing their junior partners again. Politics hey.
When Labour do it, it is disgraceful populist politics. When Gideon does it, he is a political master strategist....PB Hodges, hey.
“The economic logic behind his [Mr Balls’s] thinking would not get him a pass at GCSE economics,” Lord Myners said, "Ed Balls takes us back to old Labour and the politics of envy.”
Although, what I will say is, if Labour really DO go into the next election running on promises of huge cuts (which would be suicidal imo), then all of UKIP's Christmases will come early. They are gradually creeping towards a more leftwing stance on economic and welfare state issues, a la Marine le Pen (I even saw that Janice Atkinson, one of UKIP's candidates for the European elections, saying that the Tories were too harsh on benefit-claimants a while back). If Labour say that huge cuts are unavoidable, then Ukip will have an absolute field day, claiming all the parties are part of the same snobbish elite who wants to pull up the drawbridge on everyone else (and no doubt saying that, if we left Europe and clamped down on immigrants, we'd be able to afford all the things the mainstream parties are saying we can't afford), and they will become a huge hit among tradional WWC Labour voters as a result.
UKIP have the luxury of not being a likely party of power though. Like the Lib Dems thought they would be in the run up to the general election.
I don't think we can expect any more policies for a while from Labour now though.
Two is probably quite enough, and I suspect they are getting the one populist-ish treasury one out the way now so they can focus of areas of greater Labour strength in the run up to the election.
Your quite right Pulpstar. Just like the Energy Freeze policy which to most voters will see as fair, the Toff Tax Rise will resonate well with the majority. It has also pushed the Tory Party in a corner just like the energy freeze did as they will not want to be seen as sticking up for millionaires for many reasons.....and just like the Energy Freeze this will be the headline grabber for months. Wonder if we will see another coalition policy formulated on the hoof in response. Hopefully they will announce it without informing their junior partners again. Politics hey.
When Labour do it, it is disgraceful populist politics. When Gideon does it, he is a political master strategist....PB Hodges, hey.
“The economic logic behind his [Mr Balls’s] thinking would not get him a pass at GCSE economics,” Lord Myners said, "Ed Balls takes us back to old Labour and the politics of envy.”
Labour don't need a majority for Ed to be PM or Balls to be Chancellor. Thats one of the nice things about that bet. I have plenty others, might publish a full list the night before GE so we can see how I do. Only a conservative majority will leave me down a couple of hundred I think (A continuation of the coalition would be a net winner I think)
The tory majority bet might shorten though. What many people seem to have missed is that last year when the kipper vote got high enough (during the run up to the May local elections) it was taking an ever increasing chunk out of Labour's VI and the kipper VI is almost certainly going to get even higher for the EU elections in May. What that would mean is if that labour drop was repeated and even bigger then there might actually be a crossover next year. Since, though both the tories and labour will get hit by the kippers at the EU elections, when the kipper vote starts to drop again after the EU elections it it's the softer tory/kipper waverers that come back the quickest and strongest in line with that kipper drop.
Of course that also relies on other events not intruding and the tories not going into a blind panic so it's still an outside chance but it's far from impossible.
I don't think we can expect any more policies for a while from Labour now though.
Two is probably quite enough, and I suspect they are getting the one populist-ish treasury one out the way now so they can focus of areas of greater Labour strength in the run up to the election.
Your quite right Pulpstar. Just like the Energy Freeze policy which to most voters will see as fair, the Toff Tax Rise will resonate well with the majority. It has also pushed the Tory Party in a corner just like the energy freeze did as they will not want to be seen as sticking up for millionaires for many reasons.....and just like the Energy Freeze this will be the headline grabber for months. Wonder if we will see another coalition policy formulated on the hoof in response. Hopefully they will announce it without informing their junior partners again. Politics hey.
When Labour do it, it is disgraceful populist politics. When Gideon does it, he is a political master strategist....PB Hodges, hey.
“The economic logic behind his [Mr Balls’s] thinking would not get him a pass at GCSE economics,” Lord Myners said, "Ed Balls takes us back to old Labour and the politics of envy.”
Is Lord Myners a Hodge, compouter?
Quite evidently.
Being a former Labour City Minister, no doubt he is a Hedge Hodge.
I don't think we can expect any more policies for a while from Labour now though.
Two is probably quite enough, and I suspect they are getting the one populist-ish treasury one out the way now so they can focus of areas of greater Labour strength in the run up to the election.
Your quite right Pulpstar. Just like the Energy Freeze policy which to most voters will see as fair, the Toff Tax Rise will resonate well with the majority. It has also pushed the Tory Party in a corner just like the energy freeze did as they will not want to be seen as sticking up for millionaires for many reasons.....and just like the Energy Freeze this will be the headline grabber for months. Wonder if we will see another coalition policy formulated on the hoof in response. Hopefully they will announce it without informing their junior partners again. Politics hey.
When Labour do it, it is disgraceful populist politics. When Gideon does it, he is a political master strategist....PB Hodges, hey.
“The economic logic behind his [Mr Balls’s] thinking would not get him a pass at GCSE economics,” Lord Myners said, "Ed Balls takes us back to old Labour and the politics of envy.”
Is Lord Myners a Hodge, compouter?
Quite evidently.
Being a former Labour City Minister, no doubt he is a Hedge Hodge.
Really weird watching rugby sevens on an American football field with an Americanh commentator. Keep on expecting a cry of "Touchdown, or "First Down".
Excerpt from a Times story about Tory EU rebellions:
"There is now mounting anger among Tory Europhiles about the extent to which they believe anti-Europeans feel unconstrained about destabilising party unity.
“We are biting our lips, we are not going to play their irresponsible game of undermining the party this close to an election,” said one prominent MP. “But you wait until after the election. Whether we win or lose, I am going after them. There will be no compromise, this must be finished once and for all. These people cannot be allowed to go on for longer.”"
I thought Tory Europhiles could just about fit in a large taxi: Jane Ellison, Bob Walter,, Ken Clarke, ...
That was under the old definition of Europhile. Now it's just anyone who doesn't support OUT. Hence "anti-European" for Eurosceptics which is just another way of saying supporting OUT. It's no secret that those who are agitating the most against Cammie don't support staying IN.
Excerpt from a Times story about Tory EU rebellions:
"There is now mounting anger among Tory Europhiles about the extent to which they believe anti-Europeans feel unconstrained about destabilising party unity.
“We are biting our lips, we are not going to play their irresponsible game of undermining the party this close to an election,” said one prominent MP. “But you wait until after the election. Whether we win or lose, I am going after them. There will be no compromise, this must be finished once and for all. These people cannot be allowed to go on for longer.”"
I thought Tory Europhiles could just about fit in a large taxi: Jane Ellison, Bob Walter,, Ken Clarke, ...
And Anna Soubry. It's a curious feature of Broxtowe that it's had some of the most pro-EU representatives of both parties for the last 40 years (Jim Lester, me and AS), without the EU ever really being an issue that came up in selections, at least on the Labour side, or on the doorstep. If one's a Eurosceptic in the constituency, it must be irritating.
Excerpt from a Times story about Tory EU rebellions:
"There is now mounting anger among Tory Europhiles about the extent to which they believe anti-Europeans feel unconstrained about destabilising party unity.
“We are biting our lips, we are not going to play their irresponsible game of undermining the party this close to an election,” said one prominent MP. “But you wait until after the election. Whether we win or lose, I am going after them. There will be no compromise, this must be finished once and for all. These people cannot be allowed to go on for longer.”"
I thought Tory Europhiles could just about fit in a large taxi: Jane Ellison, Bob Walter,, Ken Clarke, ...
And Anna Soubry. It's a curious feature of Broxtowe that it's had some of the most pro-EU representatives of both parties for the last 40 years (Jim Lester, me and AS), without the EU ever really being an issue that came up in selections, at least on the Labour side, or on the doorstep. If one's a Eurosceptic in the constituency, it must be irritating.
Maybe something to do with the university. I know it's just in Nottingham South but it might exert more of an influence in Broxtowe.
Excerpt from a Times story about Tory EU rebellions:
"There is now mounting anger among Tory Europhiles about the extent to which they believe anti-Europeans feel unconstrained about destabilising party unity.
“We are biting our lips, we are not going to play their irresponsible game of undermining the party this close to an election,” said one prominent MP. “But you wait until after the election. Whether we win or lose, I am going after them. There will be no compromise, this must be finished once and for all. These people cannot be allowed to go on for longer.”"
I thought Tory Europhiles could just about fit in a large taxi: Jane Ellison, Bob Walter,, Ken Clarke, ...
And Anna Soubry. It's a curious feature of Broxtowe that it's had some of the most pro-EU representatives of both parties for the last 40 years (Jim Lester, me and AS), without the EU ever really being an issue that came up in selections, at least on the Labour side, or on the doorstep. If one's a Eurosceptic in the constituency, it must be irritating.
It's (more than) irritating for everyone who believes in our escape from the EU and freedom - not just those in Broxtowe.
Excerpt from a Times story about Tory EU rebellions:
"There is now mounting anger among Tory Europhiles about the extent to which they believe anti-Europeans feel unconstrained about destabilising party unity.
“We are biting our lips, we are not going to play their irresponsible game of undermining the party this close to an election,” said one prominent MP. “But you wait until after the election. Whether we win or lose, I am going after them. There will be no compromise, this must be finished once and for all. These people cannot be allowed to go on for longer.”"
I thought Tory Europhiles could just about fit in a large taxi: Jane Ellison, Bob Walter,, Ken Clarke, ...
And Anna Soubry. It's a curious feature of Broxtowe that it's had some of the most pro-EU representatives of both parties for the last 40 years (Jim Lester, me and AS), without the EU ever really being an issue that came up in selections, at least on the Labour side, or on the doorstep. If one's a Eurosceptic in the constituency, it must be irritating.
I make your chance of claiming Broxtowe around 70%. Confident ?
I used to be a Europhile until a few years ago, and I suspect I'm still a lot more pro-Europe than the average person. Also, I think we ought to take language teaching a lot more seriously, which has to mean starting at primary school. Eleven is far too old IMO.
And Anna Soubry. It's a curious feature of Broxtowe that it's had some of the most pro-EU representatives of both parties for the last 40 years (Jim Lester, me and AS), without the EU ever really being an issue that came up in selections, at least on the Labour side, or on the doorstep. If one's a Eurosceptic in the constituency, it must be irritating.
Maybe something to do with the university. I know it's just in Nottingham South but it might exert more of an influence in Broxtowe.
On the Tory side I think it's Ken C's influence. Anna Soubry has said publically that she "follows Ken Clarke in all things" and he's certainly the biggest Tory beast locally, and generally liked (I like him myself). Jim Lester nearly retired in 1997 but was persuaded to stand once more so he could be Ken's campaign manager if there was a leadership election. We had a remarkably friendly election, helped by the fact that I'd been on good terms with another liberal Tory, Nick Scott, who beat me in Chelsea in 1983 - we exchanged Christmas cards afterwards for years. Jim came to dinner at the Commons after 97 and told me that Nick S had recommended me as an amiable opponent. He could, I think, have made something of my obvious non-localism if he'd wanted to, but we agreed a personal non-aggression pact.
In my case it's just a coinicidence - the party decided they wanted an unusual challenger for Jim to break the pattern of Tory wins, and picking someone working in industrial management on the Continent fitted the bill, but with that background I was likely to be a Europhile.
Out of boredom, just had a look at Alastair Campbell's blog and found him chuntering on about Paul Dacre which looks like the VM* of the DM could be receiving unwelcome libel writs from Bulgaria and Romania.
Could be interesting on a couple of levels, the probable inaction of the PCC, the pressure to activate Leveson, promote the increasing perception of the DM to be a view of Paul Dacre's fantasy world. Can't imagine Rothermere being too happy either.
Can't believe it will be the straw to break the camel's back but it will add to the load it carries before PD disappears to his estate in the highlands.
Will continue to watch with amusement.
*See Private Eye passim (always wanted to write that)
Comments
They ignore the fact that static behaviour assumptions are silly and the OBR changed its view.
Unfortunately - but quite reasonably - normal people won't look into the detail. So Labour are left with the proposition "raising tax rates = raises more money" which sounds very plausible.
Once again they are creating a political dividing line by simply lying to the voters. And they will probably get away with it.
Meanwhile outside planet Hodges and his marginal polls:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
The old back is in bulk.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
The single biggest drop in tory polling since before the 2010 election.
That's how voters responded when the 50% tax rate was cut in Osbrowne's March 2012 omnishambles budget. We also aren't talking about one poll but ALL of them. Conclusive proof only PB Romneys like stuarttruth and Seth O Logue would be idiotic enough to dismiss.
The reason why the tory polling dropped so much is the aftermath of the omnishambles during which every incompetent blunder was then framed with Osbrowne's tax cut for the richest.
"we're all in this together."
That worked well, didn't it?
LOL
Make no mistake, Balls is a singularly unimpressive shadow chancellor so what he needs is for the tories to do all the work for him. Which they will do if they repeat their obvious mistakes from the omnishambles by incessantly rehashing every single argument in favour of keeping the tax cut for the richest as the voter looks on distinctly unimpressed.
The only real surprise is that after leaving it so long he didn't wait for the GE campaign to announce it since it so clearly plays well with the voters while putting the tories on the spot by letting them dig themselves as deep as possible. Just like they did during the omnishambles.
So why did Balls do it now? Probably because Balls is struggling himself and Osbrowne made it even easier for Labour by posturing on cutting the mimimum wage and backing labour, the TUC, and the lib dems position on it. So all the shrieking from the tories about despicable populism or socialism/communism just sounds laughable now.
I said at the time when Osbrowne was master strategising/triangulating on the minimum wage that just gave Labour the opportunity to push more populist policies forward. So it has proved.
Here's an IFS paper referencing HMRC (p.14). They don't have the actual numbers, but eyeballing the graph the central case (the blue line) peaks somewhere between 45% and 50%
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/budget2012/budget2012jamesbrowne.pdf&ei=R0vkUsHAEcjPhAfP2YG4Bw&usg=AFQjCNGMqD-Umw6ztQff1l-APZoD91ey4g&bvm=bv.59930103,d.ZG4
Coming back to your point. 57.8% is bad but 52.8% is good. Why not 47.8% or even lower ? Particularly for *ankers ?
In any case it's not 'in my mind'. It's observable behaviour; anyone who has sat in on a board meeting discussing bonuses will know exactly what I mean. The marginal tax take is shocking, even for 40% (indeed even for basic rate) taxpayers. People adjust their behaviour accordingly.
Tories look after their rich chums, As always.!
Here's a hint: politics and economics won't finish in May 2015. If you guys (God forbid) actually get into power, all this stuff will be your problem, and what seems 'smart' now definitely won't seem so smart then.
I can honestly say not one person mentioned the 40% tax rate.
The problem is they will claim it will raise £3bn and cite the OBR.
...
Once again they are creating a political dividing line by simply lying to the voters. And they will probably get away with it.
Well, Labour can't back away from the original assumptions Brown made when introducing the 50p rate in 2010.
These were: The difference between the National Accounts 'bottom line' and the Post behavioural yield (liabilities) are that the latter figures are a combination of accrual (PAYE) and cash (Self Assessment) figures whereas the former are accrual only. Basically Brown calculated that the 10% rise in rate would yield an extra £2.5 bn per year in tax revenues.
Brown's assumptions have subsequently proved to be false and the net benefit is now accepted to be only £100 million, a figure 'verified' by the OBR.
The reason for Brown's assumptions being wrong are many but the two principal causes are:
1. The group of high earners subject to the tax and the taxes they paid were based on 2007 (i.e. pre-recession) figures. They therefore overestimated the base yield;
2. The complex factor used by economists to calculate "Taxable Income Elasticity (TIE)" - or the reduction in yield due to the behavioural changes which result from an increase in tax - was deliberately chosen from the bottom of a range of academic estimates. In other words, Brown asked for a figure (0.35) that, whilst plausible, was least likely. A most likely or 'central' factor would have been around (0.6). In summary, the behavioural impacts were deliberately understated to inflate the forecast yield.
The OBR now accepts that the annual impact of the tax rise was to raise no more than £100 million per annum rather than the £2.5 billion forecast by Brown.
And this £100 million only takes into account the direct impact of Income Tax and National Insurance. It makes no attempt to quantify 'second-round' effects such as the reduction in consumption tax (e.g. VAT) receipts due to higher rate tax payers relocating out of the UK tax jurisdiction or potential inbound tax payers deciding not to locate here. Nor does it attempt to quantify wider macro-economic losses such as reduced foreign inbound investment and employment.
Labour, having cooked the books once to falsely justify the introduction of the higher rate cannot now, in light of subsequent analysis and accounting, recook them to claim a bigger benefit for their 2015 plans.
Lord Rennard, who masterminded some of the party’s most successful election campaigns, is said by allies to “know where the bodies are buried”, including details of a married Lib Dem peer who has had extramarital affairs, a married MP who had a sexual liaison with a Lib Dem peer, a former MP who was regarded as a sex pest and secret gay liaisons involving both MPs and peers.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1367820.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_01_25
What its not going to do is reduce the deficit though, so I'd like our Labour posters to provide some evidence of that. Perhaps rent caps might as it'll mean less housing benefit payout ? I've always thought Gov't cash heading straight to Landlords pockets is a pretty wank use of the countries money myself.
Why did Gordon Brown, advised by Ed Balls, 'cook the books' in 2010 when forecasting increases in tax yield from the 50p rate which never materialised?
Is lying a policy in the Labour party?
Basically, what you are saying is that the rich works harder when they pay less taxes, whereas the poor with benefits work harder when they get less money.
No wonder you insensitive bunch are so hated !!
However, I am still hoping the Labour high-command eventually see sense and realise it's self-defeating for them to posture on the deficit. Noone who has made up their mind that Labour will bankrupt the country is going to change their mind on the basis of some declaration of a surplus, especially when it comes from Ed Balls. And all this will do is make those who currently don't consider the deficit to be particularly important (which, again, I maintain is a far larger group than the media think), start thinking that it IS more important, simply because Labour are talking about it and making voters think about it more.
As things stand, my sense is that people would be nonplussed if either Labour or the Tories go into the next election promising yet more cuts (the Tories' announcement a few weeks ago didn't seem to cut through much). People might have grudgingly accepted the need for cuts when the Euro-crisis was in full flow and it was easy to say "just look at Greece! We might end up like them!". But, in 2015, if the politicians say more cuts need to be made because we can't afford to keep spending what we currently are, people will simply respond, "but we quite clearly can afford them, because we're paying for them right now and the universe isn't caving in".
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbKNICg-REA&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DcbKNICg-REA
It also means Clegg is in a totally unwinnable situation. If Clegg is forced to drop it all now he'll look terminally weak and it will just raise yet more questions about why the Rennard scandal was totally mishandled by Clegg and not properly investigated in the first place.
If he faces down Rennard then it just get's more and more ugly with Rennard lashing out and leaking yet more details of ever more lib dem scandals. Of which there will be plenty.
But I don't really care. I have enough to live on and run a small surplus most years.
Two is probably quite enough, and I suspect they are getting the one populist-ish treasury one out the way now so they can focus of areas of greater Labour strength in the run up to the election.
Avery, I sincerely hope Osborne and Cameron tell the public exactly the gumpf you have written above.
Basically, what you are saying is that the rich works harder when they pay less taxes, whereas the poor with benefits work harder when they get less money.
No wonder you insensitive bunch are so hated !!
Silly Surby!
It is a fact of nature that almost everyone works harder for a higher reward. Isn't that why you have just offered your employees such generous but tax-inefficient bonuses?
As to behavioural changes resulting from tax increases/decreases they are many and varied.
A key benefit of a lower income tax rate is that more people in the target group will pay tax. That is why London has attracted French nationals fleeing the 75% top rate in France in order to benefit from the 45% top rate (excl. NI) which applies in the UK. So the lower your top tax rate, and the more competitive it is relative to competitive jurisdictions, the more high earners will locate in your country. It should be noted that the UK has a top income tax rate which is near the top of G20 countries, so there is plenty more scope for additional reductions in the rate to encourage additional tax yield from inbound taxpayers.
Another benefit is that high earners are less inclined to arrange their tax affairs by using alternative lesser taxed forms of remuneration. For example to realise income through capital gains rather than PAYE or SA income. So the yield per tax payer goes up as rates come down.
I could go on and on, but will spare you on the grounds that the top two benefits should provide you with sufficient food for rethinking you absurby allegations.
When Labour do it, it is disgraceful populist politics. When Gideon does it, he is a political master strategist....PB Hodges, hey.
I feel I can see the arguments and tosh from both sides. Its not a bad viewpoint from here if I must say so myself
What Labour needs to prevent though is the charge that they are going to put up the 40p rate, or move the threshold further down with no change in the PA line to compensate. That will hit 'middle Britain' - a line for the conservatives to exploit potentially.
"There is now mounting anger among Tory Europhiles about the extent to which they believe anti-Europeans feel unconstrained about destabilising party unity.
“We are biting our lips, we are not going to play their irresponsible game of undermining the party this close to an election,” said one prominent MP. “But you wait until after the election. Whether we win or lose, I am going after them. There will be no compromise, this must be finished once and for all. These people cannot be allowed to go on for longer.”"
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dU-KtEVgK6sC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=differences+between+nuer+and+dinka&source=bl&ots=ZlXL8Ta2AC&sig=C6q0-6T-LeFgTdjDr1r00riNmDI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IFnkUuWoHIeN7QajzYH4Dw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=differences between nuer and dinka&f=false
You are trailing all your left colleagues on PB.
They have all moved on to anger, the second stage of grief.
You seem to be languishing behind them taking comfort from whimsical denial.
Is Lord Myners a Hodge, compouter?
Gays welcome at Olympics, but "should leave the children in peace":
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sochi/putin-says-gays-must-leave-children-in-peace-at-olympics-1.1643761
You can see for yourself here.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
Of course that also relies on other events not intruding and the tories not going into a blind panic so it's still an outside chance but it's far from impossible.
TSE must be out on the town
I make your chance of claiming Broxtowe around 70%. Confident
In my case it's just a coinicidence - the party decided they wanted an unusual challenger for Jim to break the pattern of Tory wins, and picking someone working in industrial management on the Continent fitted the bill, but with that background I was likely to be a Europhile.
http://britishinfluence.org/13-reasons-taking-daily-mail-press-complaints-commission/
http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2014/01/25/brilliant-debunking-of-immigration-lies-from-the-dacre-lie-machine/
Could be interesting on a couple of levels, the probable inaction of the PCC, the pressure to activate Leveson, promote the increasing perception of the DM to be a view of Paul Dacre's fantasy world. Can't imagine Rothermere being too happy either.
Can't believe it will be the straw to break the camel's back but it will add to the load it carries before PD disappears to his estate in the highlands.
Will continue to watch with amusement.
*See Private Eye passim (always wanted to write that)