Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The battle over Labour’s planned 50 percent tax rate: Day 3

SystemSystem Posts: 12,214
edited January 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The battle over Labour’s planned 50 percent tax rate: Day 3

I’ve just been on Radio 4′s the World at One talking about the polling on the 50% tax rate and Labour on the economy. I’ll post a link when it become avaiable.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited January 2014
    It's all about Rufus today no? I blame ITV not auntie...


    ITV‏@ITVJan 25
    A big exclusive from the brilliant @RufusHound on The Jonathan Ross Show next on @ITV so make sure you follow him on Twitter!
    Retweeted by Rufus Hound
    Expand Reply

    Rufus Hound‏@RufusHoundJan 25
    Hopefully, for anyone interested, this explains everything: http://rufushound.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/david-and-jeremy-want-your-kids-to-die-unless-youre-rich/

    Rufus Hound‏@RufusHoundJan 25
    David and Jeremy want your kids to die (unless you're rich) http://wp.me/pW8vl-1J

  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    edited January 2014
    Scrapheap_as_was said

    Spot the diff?

    BBC Newsnight‏@BBCNewsnight46 mins
    Why are some Tories who didn't want 50p tax dropped so quiet now that Labour's pledged to restore it? @maitlis writes http://bbc.in/19X5e7O

    BBC Newsnight‏@BBCNewsnight5 mins
    Why are some who opposed 50p tax rate being cut so quiet now Labour's pledged to restore it? @maitlis writes http://bbc.in/19X5e7O


    Wasn't 'caught red handed' a bbc programme ;-)
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    It's all about Rufus today no? I blame ITV not auntie...

    I wonder what the poor advertisers think of the programme they sponsor being used for a political stunt by a maverick comedian.
  • I'm assuming Rufus will soon receive Guido's OTT award to complete his day?
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Daniel Hannan ‏@DanHannanMEP 7 mins
    Opposing a 50p top tax rate makes you a "terrible human being", says @OwenJones84. Labour kept it at 40p for all but their last few weeks.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    They'll vote for themselves.

    Labour's challenge is establishing that they won't mess it all up again, meaning that everyone (or at least, most people), will be worse off.

    The Conservatives' challenge is establishing that even if things are getting better, and will continue to do so, the recovery will be felt by all fairly - rather than 'others are doing better but I'm not'.

    The Lib Dems' challenge is having a distinctive voice.
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    Mos people will vote for what is best for them at the current moment in time rather than what is best for them overall. It is called immediate (as opposed to delayed) gratification. (Psychologists use the same technique to find out the ability of 2 year olds by offering them one chocolate now or two in ten minutes. - which gives you some idea of the political nous of the UK electorate)
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited January 2014
    the 50bp debate shows to me how for labour, dogma is the more important than outcome.

    Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Cons need tax cuts for all/most.

    Raising the threshold is too slow - need a cut to 18p and 38p rates.



  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    Just like the Energy Freeze the crap Ed's are setting the political agenda.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    taffys said:

    the 50bp debate shows to me how for labour, dogma is the more important than outcome.

    Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?

    Taffys,you want a laugh -


    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/owen-jones-cruel-certainly-unforgivable-beyond-doubt-but-the-tories-arent-actually-evil-8724467.html

    ;-)
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Just like the Energy Freeze the crap Ed's are setting the political agenda.

    They certainly seem to have united the wealth creators and business communities on both topics.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    Just like the Energy Freeze the crap Ed's are setting the political agenda.

    I thought Martinez was setting the agenda with the baines signing a new 4 year contract ;-)
  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    edited January 2014
    Energy companies and Fund Managers......we only need to throw in estate agents and bankers and they will have the full house.

    Which party did voters say would maker their family better off again?
  • Just like the Energy Freeze the crap Ed's are setting the political agenda.

    Mooning at the queen would also set the political agenda... it's hardly saying you are fit to run a country.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    TGOHF said:

    Cons need tax cuts for all/most.

    Raising the threshold is too slow - need a cut to 18p and 38p rates.

    Yeah, cause that wouldn't completely undermine every economic argument the government's made for the last four years.

    Con need to paint Labour as economically illiterate and untrustworthy. Every spending plan needs to be pulled apart; every tax cut (or opposition to a tax rise) hit with 'black holes in their budget'.

    That would not sit well if the government was to splurge mightily on an unfunded tax cut itself.
  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371

    Just like the Energy Freeze the crap Ed's are setting the political agenda.

    I thought Martinez was setting the agenda with the baines signing a new 4 year contract ;-)
    I will be playing tomorrow night the way we are going on with injuries.

    Martinez is re-balancing the football economy with his brand of socialist playmaking. Everyone gets a pass of the ball no matter what social background they are from before it is smashed into the oppositions net :-)
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    On the subject of the proposed energy price freeze, can any one point me at the law that allows HMG to tell a company how much to charge for their goods/services?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Energy companies and Fund Managers......we only need to throw in estate agents and bankers and they will have the full house.

    Which party did voters say would maker their family better off again?

    Here's 1M families that are worse off under the coalition:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/one-in-three-londoners-on-sickness-benefits-deemed-fit-to-work-figures-reveal-9088043.html

    "More than a third of Londoners who claimed sickness benefits were found to be fit for work, new Whitehall figures revealed today.

    Over 121,400 people who signed on for the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) were deemed capable of working after checks and had their payments stopped.

    Another one in three claimants — 121,700 — dropped their weekly claims ahead of a face-to-face assessment of their ability to work, some because they found jobs and others because they said they no longer felt they required disability benefits.

    Ministers claimed the figures vindicated welfare reforms designed to encourage people back to work who might once have been signed off for life.

    Nationally, almost a million people who applied for ESA were found fit for work."
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,962
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Some good Scottish news: Allan McNish is joining the BBC F1 team, co-commentating on radio and providing expert insight across various media:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25913478

    It's odd how almost all the best people on the BBC's F1 coverage aren't English.

    McNish was one of the best guest co-commentators on radio last year. He knew his beans and put things concisely and clearly, a bit like an anti-matter version of Legard.
  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    edited January 2014
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544514/Government-workers-pursue-mentally-ill-woman-COMA-fit-work.html

    Get off that bed, and get to work.....and that coma isn't fooling anyone.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    edited January 2014

    TGOHF said:

    Cons need tax cuts for all/most.

    Raising the threshold is too slow - need a cut to 18p and 38p rates.

    Yeah, cause that wouldn't completely undermine every economic argument the government's made for the last four years.

    Con need to paint Labour as economically illiterate and untrustworthy. Every spending plan needs to be pulled apart; every tax cut (or opposition to a tax rise) hit with 'black holes in their budget'.

    That would not sit well if the government was to splurge mightily on an unfunded tax cut itself.
    Con need every spending plan pulled apart,that's what's worrying mr herdson,it never seems to happen and labour get's off with policy announcements to easily.

    Just look at the newsnight story,as the cons complained ?

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    You suggesting the public sector is crap at it's job ? Shame on you for degenerating those hard working angels of service.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    Looks like an incumbency bonus has just disappeared in another Lib Dem seat.

    Although in this case it might have been an incumbency disadvantage. And from the sound of it Hancock could yet stand as an independent.

    http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/portsmouth-lib-dems-to-seek-new-parliamentary-candidate-1-5835056
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited January 2014
    The reason why Ed scored so well with his energy price wheeze was that there was a temporary coalition of interests with the media.

    Newspapers and TV stations could benefit by taking up arms in the battle against price rises and show themselves to be champions of the people. Everyone was looking for an 'It was the 'Sun Wot Did It' splash. And it didn't harm Ed's cause that almost every journalist and presenter would personally benefit from any victory won.

    The 50p tax rate is a far more difficult sell. Economically Ed Balls's proposal is just as illiterate as Ed Miliband's energy price freeze, but the press and public are not interested in mass debate on economics.

    Without any benefit to deliver to viewers, except the vicarious pleasure of hitting the rich, this means the mediarati will be less inclined to support Ed Balls.

    This especially applies as all the big boys and girls, the editors and presenters, will be the among the very small group of 300,000 direct losers. And it is only this small group which will be directly affected, so there is no great public out there with a cause to die for.

    This is why Ed Balls and Labour are losing the media battle on the 50p rate. The key to winning the political debate on the economy is voter perception of competence.

    Although, in every discussion on the 50p rate, its wide popularity is acknowledged it is only after some articulate speaking head has denounced the proposal as a threat to the economic recovery and a danger for business and investment.

    Voters and journalists didn't mind whether Ed Miliband was right or wrong on his energy proposals. Provided they reaped the benefit of the pressure brought to bear on the coalition government, Ed could have his fifteen minutes of fame.

    This time it is different. Ed Balls has created a stick with which to be beaten every time the economy is debated in political terms. By the time of the General Election he will be both beaten and bruised.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    "Will people vote for the party that will deliver for the country as a whole or the one they perceive as being best for themselves and their family."

    The logic of austerity is that we all have to have it a bit crap for a while in order to dig the country out of the mess it was in. Thus, a person who believed the Government would successfully pursue a policy of austerity could simultaneously believe that the country would be better off, and that their family would be worse off - at least over a five year time horizon (sorting out the country would presumably bring individual benefits in the longer term).

    Insofar as the polling results are entirely consistent with the internal logic of austerity, prioritising the longer term over the short term, they shouldn't be a worry to the Conservatives.

    Where I think the Conservatives messed up was in abandoning the austerity rhetoric too early in the Parliament, and putting out mixed messages where they were attempting to argue that they could make the country better off and virtuous hard-workers better off by loading all the pain onto the undeserving. This then sends the message to anyone who financially loses out from austerity that the Government views them as an undeserving shirker - which is contrary to the initial austerity message of we're all in this together.

    I'm poorer because of Government policies since 2010. I'm the kind of person who could accept that if (a) the pain were evenly/fairly distributed and (b) it solved the problem by eliminating the deficit. The Government have had to put back the date by which they will achieve (b), and on (a) the Government are putting out the message that only shirking wasters are losing out, and good people are being protected. Nice.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    4% of Con, 7% of Lab and 16% of LD MPs now known not to be standing in GE 2015. As their party's candidate at least.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Why is so much of the debate here focussing on whether Labour would be any good in Gov't ?

    I don't think they will be much cop but it's irrelevant to the debate almost. The question to ask is whether or not they will make it to Gov't.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    4% of Con, 7% of Lab and 16% of LD MPs now known not to be standing in GE 2015. As their party's candidate at least.

    Does that include Munn in Sheffield ?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    edited January 2014
    Could 50p tax for Lab be a bit like immigration / benefits for Con?

    ie Strong immigration / benefits policies are popular on their own but give impression of "Nasty Party" so may actually be negative for Con.

    Ditto 50p tax is popular on its own but may give impression that Lab is high tax OVERALL (ie not just 50p) which may then be negative for Lab.

    Broad point is that people vote on general impression - not individual policies.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    The blue line needs some Viagra me thinks ;-)
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    On the subject of the proposed energy price freeze, can any one point me at the law that allows HMG to tell a company how much to charge for their goods/services?

    Presumably Labour would have to write such a law and have it passed by Parliament, via the normal procedures.

    Can you point me to an existing statute that would prevent them from doing so?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Though they might as well be, the amount of taxpayers money this Government doles out to them hand over fist, despite their rank incompetence.

    Should we go back to the old system H? is that going to be labour policy?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Hugh said:
    In 2015, maybe but then Labour's built in bias kicks in. The conservatives need plenty more than crossover.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    MikeL said:

    Could 50p tax for Lab be a bit like immigration / benefits for Con?

    ie Strong immigration / benefits policies are popular on their own but give impression of "Nasty Party" so may actually be negative for Con.

    Ditto 50p tax is popular on its own but may give impression that Lab is high tax OVERALL (ie not just 50p) which may then be negative for Lab.

    Broad point is that people vote on general impression - not individual policies.

    I think you might be on to something. I think a difference is perceived between a party wanting to pursue a policy because they think it is necessary, if regrettable, and for the general good, and between a party wanting to pursue a policy for ideological reasons, because they enjoy doing so.

    In Labour's example they would need to argue that they saw the tax increase as a regrettable but necessary step to balance the country's finances, and one that they would seek to reverse when conditions allowed them to do so. Unfortunately for them they have a few supporters who wish to tax the rich enough to make them squirm, and this has the danger of creating the wrong impression.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited January 2014
    Careful, compouter.

    Posting the link to that polling chart is Pork's prerogative.

    He may be snoring on his back with his tail curled and trotters folded neatly on his belly, but he will be a force to reckon with if he wakes to find his acorns have been pilfered.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    MikeL said:

    Could 50p tax for Lab be a bit like immigration / benefits for Con?

    ie Strong immigration / benefits policies are popular on their own but give impression of "Nasty Party" so may actually be negative for Con.

    Ditto 50p tax is popular on its own but may give impression that Lab is high tax OVERALL (ie not just 50p) which may then be negative for Lab.

    Broad point is that people vote on general impression - not individual policies.

    I think you might be on to something. I think a difference is perceived between a party wanting to pursue a policy because they think it is necessary, if regrettable, and for the general good, and between a party wanting to pursue a policy for ideological reasons, because they enjoy doing so.

    In Labour's example they would need to argue that they saw the tax increase as a regrettable but necessary step to balance the country's finances, and one that they would seek to reverse when conditions allowed them to do so. Unfortunately for them they have a few supporters who wish to tax the rich enough to make them squirm, and this has the danger of creating the wrong impression.
    There will be another years tax take data available in a couple of months. Suspect the 45p tax rate will again show an increase in revenue - which will be compelling.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Those of us who live on a public service pension have certainly been clobbered by the switch from RPI to CPI.The TUC estimate each pensioner has lost £25,000.
    So all us derided public sector workers have taken more than our fair share of the sacrifice needed,despite playing no part in the cause of the banking crisis.Gold-plated?The average local government pension is £70 a week.
    It's the bankers who have gotten away scot-free so far which makes the FTT so attractive.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    Hugh said:

    The 50p tax rate is a far more difficult sell

    Lol!

    Not to the Chief Political Commentator of the Daily Telegraph, it seems.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100256699/lets-support-ed-ballss-50p-tax-rate-instead-of-george-osbornes-shameful-attack-on-the-poor/

    " As we learnt during the Blair years, the very rich tend to support the government of the day. Some of them shamefully avoid paying tax. A Conservative Party with decent values should not reward these people. It should support hard-working, honest people. If the Chancellor understood this point, he would have taken middle earners out of the top rate of tax, not given a bonus to people who are already affluent. So well done Ed Balls, who has had a hard time lately. He has given ordinary, decent people a serious reason for voting Labour at the coming election."
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Those of us who live on a public service pension have certainly been clobbered by the switch from RPI to CPI.The TUC estimate each pensioner has lost £25,000.
    So all us derided public sector workers have taken more than our fair share of the sacrifice needed,despite playing no part in the cause of the banking crisis.Gold-plated?The average local government pension is £70 a week.
    It's the bankers who have gotten away scot-free so far which makes the FTT so attractive.

    Has any country actually brought in the FTT tax ?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    taffys said:

    the 50bp debate shows to me how for labour, dogma is the more important than outcome.

    Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?

    There is no evidence to support the contention that 45p rate raises more money than a 50p rate would. Who is being dogmatic now?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Lab internal support for 50p mixed ?

    "Michael Fabricant ‏@Mike_Fabricant 1m
    "How the hell can we be taken seriously as a future Gov't when we keep taking crap decisions on the economy?" a Shadow Cab member tells me.

    Michael Fabricant ‏@Mike_Fabricant 3m
    Humungous row now developing in Labour over 50% tax plan. Maybe popular but making same mistake as the French just been told by Lab Shad Cab"
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,962
    Mr. Flashman (deceased), I'm reasonably sure there was an attempt to bring it in by a group of eurozone countries. Not sure if that actually went through or not.

    For some reason Europe's very keen to tax something that mostly happens in Britain.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Am I the only person who thinks a 45 or 50p top tax rate is neither here nor there ?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Neil said:

    taffys said:

    the 50bp debate shows to me how for labour, dogma is the more important than outcome.

    Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?

    There is no evidence to support the contention that 45p rate raises more money than a 50p rate would. Who is being dogmatic now?

    Andrew Neil ‏@afneil Jan 26

    HMRC revenues from top taxpayers: 2011/12: £41.3bn (50% rate); 12/13: £41.6bn (50%); 13/14: £49.36bn (45% top rate).
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Looks like an incumbency bonus has just disappeared in another Lib Dem seat.

    Although in this case it might have been an incumbency disadvantage. And from the sound of it Hancock could yet stand as an independent.

    http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/portsmouth-lib-dems-to-seek-new-parliamentary-candidate-1-5835056

    I thought that the Lib Dem council leader was being groomed (unfortunate phrase) as candidate for a long time. Indeed I wondered whether their rock solid support for Hancock in the face of everything had anything to do with ensuring a smooth transition in candidature (Hancock is yet another Lib Dem at retirement age).

  • That picture of Dave - is he a sleeper agent for the Russian secret service?

    :)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,536
    Neil said:

    Looks like an incumbency bonus has just disappeared in another Lib Dem seat.

    Although in this case it might have been an incumbency disadvantage. And from the sound of it Hancock could yet stand as an independent.

    http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/portsmouth-lib-dems-to-seek-new-parliamentary-candidate-1-5835056

    I thought that the Lib Dem council leader was being groomed (unfortunate phrase) as candidate for a long time. Indeed I wondered whether their rock solid support for Hancock in the face of everything had anything to do with ensuring a smooth transition in candidature (Hancock is yet another Lib Dem at retirement age).

    Were he to stand in 2015, I imagine there'd be a negative incumbency effect with Hancock.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    taffys said:

    the 50bp debate shows to me how for labour, dogma is the more important than outcome.

    Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?

    There is no evidence to support the contention that 45p rate raises more money than a 50p rate would. Who is being dogmatic now?

    Andrew Neil ‏@afneil Jan 26

    HMRC revenues from top taxpayers: 2011/12: £41.3bn (50% rate); 12/13: £41.6bn (50%); 13/14: £49.36bn (45% top rate).
    That's proof that the rich are getting richer not proof that 45p raises more than 50p would. As I'm sure you know.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,954
    taffys said:

    Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?

    That's what is so stupid about the debate, nobody seems to being arguing about the actual effect, that is how much it raises and "costs", but only about the abstract notion of what is the right level in a moral sense. To me that is plainly a bonkers way to go about setting taxes.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,536
    Hugh said:

    Interesting aspect of the polling above is that people tend to think Labour are doing this to target the rich rather than to raise money, but are hugely supportive of it anyway.

    There is huge appetite out there for the rich to take a bit more of the pain, people just don't see them doing their bit, quite the opposite.

    Tax rises (and public spending cuts) for *other people* are always popular.

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited January 2014

    MikeL said:

    Could 50p tax for Lab be a bit like immigration / benefits for Con?

    ie Strong immigration / benefits policies are popular on their own but give impression of "Nasty Party" so may actually be negative for Con.

    Ditto 50p tax is popular on its own but may give impression that Lab is high tax OVERALL (ie not just 50p) which may then be negative for Lab.

    Broad point is that people vote on general impression - not individual policies.

    I think you might be on to something. I think a difference is perceived between a party wanting to pursue a policy because they think it is necessary, if regrettable, and for the general good, and between a party wanting to pursue a policy for ideological reasons, because they enjoy doing so.

    In Labour's example they would need to argue that they saw the tax increase as a regrettable but necessary step to balance the country's finances, and one that they would seek to reverse when conditions allowed them to do so. Unfortunately for them they have a few supporters who wish to tax the rich enough to make them squirm, and this has the danger of creating the wrong impression.
    The other problem for Labour is that there is no evidence that the tax increase would help the country's finances. All available evidence suggests the contrary,: that fewer high earners will pay less tax, both proportionally and in absolute terms, as a result of a rate hike.

    Even Balls has admitted that the deficit won't be lowered by raising the tax. His justification is that it is popular amongst Labour's core vote.

    So not a regrettable but necessary tax, but a regrettable and unnecessary additional cost.

  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    TGOHF said:

    4% of Con, 7% of Lab and 16% of LD MPs now known not to be standing in GE 2015. As their party's candidate at least.

    Does that include Munn in Sheffield ?
    Aye.

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    That's proof that the rich are getting richer not proof that 45p raises more than 50p would. As I'm sure you know.

    ??? Is it? how do you know that?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    taffys said:

    the 50bp debate shows to me how for labour, dogma is the more important than outcome.

    Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?

    There is no evidence to support the contention that 45p rate raises more money than a 50p rate would. Who is being dogmatic now?

    Andrew Neil ‏@afneil Jan 26

    HMRC revenues from top taxpayers: 2011/12: £41.3bn (50% rate); 12/13: £41.6bn (50%); 13/14: £49.36bn (45% top rate).
    That's proof that the rich are getting richer not proof that 45p raises more than 50p would. As I'm sure you know.
    Unless you run two parallel economies identical bar the tax rate you wont get any better evidence than that.

    By the GE there will be 3 data points at the 45p rate..
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Those of us who live on a public service pension have certainly been clobbered by the switch from RPI to CPI.The TUC estimate each pensioner has lost £25,000.
    So all us derided public sector workers have taken more than our fair share of the sacrifice needed,despite playing no part in the cause of the banking crisis.Gold-plated?The average local government pension is £70 a week.
    It's the bankers who have gotten away scot-free so far which makes the FTT so attractive.

    You have to admire the chutzpah of a PM who makes his new year pitch to the important demographic of retirees that he will retain for the next term his pension promise that screwed them over this term.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    FPT @HurstLlama
    "Much simpler to tax residential property properly. It's clear, there is a known value ..."


    Mr. Charles,

    A known value, really? Then what is the value of my house? Is it what I paid for it? Is it what I could sell it for, now? Is it what a spiv of an estate agent says it is worth? Is it what a chap from the council values it at? That's four different figures already and then there are still the issue of a properties condition. Should it be valued if it were in tip-top condition or as found? A known value? I don't think so.

    For tax purposes the value of a residential property can only be assessed in quite broad bands and those already exist. Isn't what you are suggesting just a massive increase in council tax called by a different name? Furthermore wouldn't your suggestion result in local councils being even more reliant on central government?
    My view would be on last sale price (this also has the advantage of addressing the 'widow in big house' problem). The downside is that the tax take ramps up only over time as properties get sold. You would probably need to include a mechanism for an uprating for any new building/extensions. Perhaps include a mechanism for it to increase each year by RPI or CPI.

    In terms of local council spending, this falls into two categories: (a) mandated expenditure by central government and (b) discretionary spending. Category (a) should be funded by central government - category (b) should be raised locally.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    taffys said:

    That's proof that the rich are getting richer not proof that 45p raises more than 50p would. As I'm sure you know.

    ??? Is it? how do you know that?

    In Neil world someone paying more tax than the year before must be "getting richer" ..
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    taffys said:

    That's proof that the rich are getting richer not proof that 45p raises more than 50p would. As I'm sure you know.

    ??? Is it? how do you know that?

    Because it shows that the highest earners are earning more. It doesnt show what yield would have been at 50p so it doesnt support the contention that the 45p rate raises more.
  • TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    taffys said:

    the 50bp debate shows to me how for labour, dogma is the more important than outcome.

    Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?

    There is no evidence to support the contention that 45p rate raises more money than a 50p rate would. Who is being dogmatic now?

    Andrew Neil ‏@afneil Jan 26

    HMRC revenues from top taxpayers: 2011/12: £41.3bn (50% rate); 12/13: £41.6bn (50%); 13/14: £49.36bn (45% top rate).
    That's proof that the rich are getting richer not proof that 45p raises more than 50p would. As I'm sure you know.
    Unless you run two parallel economies identical bar the tax rate you wont get any better evidence than that.

    By the GE there will be 3 data points at the 45p rate..
    Hollande is carrying out the parallel test.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    taffys said:

    the 50bp debate shows to me how for labour, dogma is the more important than outcome.

    Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?

    There is no evidence to support the contention that 45p rate raises more money than a 50p rate would. Who is being dogmatic now?

    Andrew Neil ‏@afneil Jan 26

    HMRC revenues from top taxpayers: 2011/12: £41.3bn (50% rate); 12/13: £41.6bn (50%); 13/14: £49.36bn (45% top rate).
    That's proof that the rich are getting richer not proof that 45p raises more than 50p would. As I'm sure you know.
    Unless you run two parallel economies identical bar the tax rate you wont get any better evidence than that.

    By the GE there will be 3 data points at the 45p rate..
    It's actually a pretty poor measure for evaluating the impact of changing the 50p rate. We dont have a counterfactual but there are a lot better ways of unpicking the different effects.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    Pulpstar said:

    Why is so much of the debate here focussing on whether Labour would be any good in Gov't ?

    I don't think they will be much cop but it's irrelevant to the debate almost. The question to ask is whether or not they will make it to Gov't.

    Because if the public thinks Labour won't / wouldn't be any good in govt, they won't vote for them - or not in sufficient numbers. (There is, of course, a difference between whether we think Labour would be any good and whether the public thinks so).
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    taffys said:

    the 50bp debate shows to me how for labour, dogma is the more important than outcome.

    Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?

    There is no evidence to support the contention that 45p rate raises more money than a 50p rate would. Who is being dogmatic now?

    Andrew Neil ‏@afneil Jan 26

    HMRC revenues from top taxpayers: 2011/12: £41.3bn (50% rate); 12/13: £41.6bn (50%); 13/14: £49.36bn (45% top rate).
    That's proof that the rich are getting richer not proof that 45p raises more than 50p would. As I'm sure you know.
    Unless you run two parallel economies identical bar the tax rate you wont get any better evidence than that.

    By the GE there will be 3 data points at the 45p rate..
    Hollande is carrying out the parallel test.
    The France experience is probably the only thing holding back Ed and Ed from a 75p+ rate...
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    TGOHF said:

    taffys said:

    That's proof that the rich are getting richer not proof that 45p raises more than 50p would. As I'm sure you know.

    ??? Is it? how do you know that?

    In Neil world someone paying more tax than the year before must be "getting richer" ..
    Well, yes, that's pretty much it.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    taffys said:

    the 50bp debate shows to me how for labour, dogma is the more important than outcome.

    Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?

    There is no evidence to support the contention that 45p rate raises more money than a 50p rate would. Who is being dogmatic now?

    Andrew Neil ‏@afneil Jan 26

    HMRC revenues from top taxpayers: 2011/12: £41.3bn (50% rate); 12/13: £41.6bn (50%); 13/14: £49.36bn (45% top rate).
    That's proof that the rich are getting richer not proof that 45p raises more than 50p would. As I'm sure you know.
    Unless you run two parallel economies identical bar the tax rate you wont get any better evidence than that.

    By the GE there will be 3 data points at the 45p rate..
    Mr Flashman, I dare say you could get some economists to try and factor in the relative state of the economy to take into account inflation, economic growth etc and produce a more educated estimate.

    Although it's very possible you'd run into a case of pick your economist for your answer. "Which raises more cash" is not exactly simple.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    edited January 2014
    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    taffys said:

    the 50bp debate shows to me how for labour, dogma is the more important than outcome.

    Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?

    There is no evidence to support the contention that 45p rate raises more money than a 50p rate would. Who is being dogmatic now?

    Andrew Neil ‏@afneil Jan 26

    HMRC revenues from top taxpayers: 2011/12: £41.3bn (50% rate); 12/13: £41.6bn (50%); 13/14: £49.36bn (45% top rate).
    That's proof that the rich are getting richer not proof that 45p raises more than 50p would. As I'm sure you know.

    It's also to do with Osborne announcing the cut a year in advance and a lot of people deferring bonuses, commissions etc until the new tax year.

    Is there a 10/11 figure?

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    taffys said:

    the 50bp debate shows to me how for labour, dogma is the more important than outcome.

    Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?

    There is no evidence to support the contention that 45p rate raises more money than a 50p rate would. Who is being dogmatic now?

    Andrew Neil ‏@afneil Jan 26

    HMRC revenues from top taxpayers: 2011/12: £41.3bn (50% rate); 12/13: £41.6bn (50%); 13/14: £49.36bn (45% top rate).
    That's proof that the rich are getting richer not proof that 45p raises more than 50p would. As I'm sure you know.
    Unless you run two parallel economies identical bar the tax rate you wont get any better evidence than that.

    By the GE there will be 3 data points at the 45p rate..
    It's actually a pretty poor measure for evaluating the impact of changing the 50p rate. We dont have a counterfactual but there are a lot better ways of unpicking the different effects.
    Neil

    When the proportion of income tax paid by the top 1% rises and its aggregate contribution to the Exchequer increases by £8 bn then the onus of proof falls on the doubters.

    Few governments want to waste money investigating successful outcomes.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    Sean F,

    "Tax rises (and public spending cuts) for *other people* are always popular."

    Exactly. As my mother used to day ... misery loves company.

    But one big difference nowadays is the degree of active whingeing. The flood victims are all over the news again, their property damage being discussed at high level.

    OK, it's bad, but in 1953, we had floods and we were too busy burying the dead (we had over 400 drowned) to have time to whinge about a bit of property damage. "Oh woe is me, my prize dahlias have been waterlogged."

    Is it the media, or have we always been this wimpish?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834

    On the subject of the proposed energy price freeze, can any one point me at the law that allows HMG to tell a company how much to charge for their goods/services?

    Presumably Labour would have to write such a law and have it passed by Parliament, via the normal procedures.

    Can you point me to an existing statute that would prevent them from doing so?
    The government intervenes in all sorts of prices, from rail fares to social housing rents to labour costs.

    A government is perfectly entitled to put legislation to parliament to set the cost of a product at a set price, and to whip that legislation onto the statute book. Whether it would be sensible to do so is another matter.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    corporeal said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    taffys said:

    the 50bp debate shows to me how for labour, dogma is the more important than outcome.

    Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?

    There is no evidence to support the contention that 45p rate raises more money than a 50p rate would. Who is being dogmatic now?

    Andrew Neil ‏@afneil Jan 26

    HMRC revenues from top taxpayers: 2011/12: £41.3bn (50% rate); 12/13: £41.6bn (50%); 13/14: £49.36bn (45% top rate).
    That's proof that the rich are getting richer not proof that 45p raises more than 50p would. As I'm sure you know.
    Unless you run two parallel economies identical bar the tax rate you wont get any better evidence than that.

    By the GE there will be 3 data points at the 45p rate..
    Mr Flashman, I dare say you could get some economists to try and factor in the relative state of the economy to take into account inflation, economic growth etc and produce a more educated estimate.

    Although it's very possible you'd run into a case of pick your economist for your answer. "Which raises more cash" is not exactly simple.
    Yes - well only if you stick to the blind dogma that the tax rates and the health of the economy are unrelated...

  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    Neil said:

    Looks like an incumbency bonus has just disappeared in another Lib Dem seat.

    Although in this case it might have been an incumbency disadvantage. And from the sound of it Hancock could yet stand as an independent.

    http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/portsmouth-lib-dems-to-seek-new-parliamentary-candidate-1-5835056

    I thought that the Lib Dem council leader was being groomed (unfortunate phrase) as candidate for a long time. Indeed I wondered whether their rock solid support for Hancock in the face of everything had anything to do with ensuring a smooth transition in candidature (Hancock is yet another Lib Dem at retirement age).

    Interesting that the same meeting that effectively deselected Hancock felt it necessary to pass a vote of confidence in the council leader, given the criticism of him over his handling of the whole matter. It shows that the scandal is no longer just about Hancock, but also about the cover up. I'd have thought that the council leader would be the last person the LDs should put up if they are concerned to start afresh.
  • AveryLP said:

    MikeL said:

    Could 50p tax for Lab be a bit like immigration / benefits for Con?

    ie Strong immigration / benefits policies are popular on their own but give impression of "Nasty Party" so may actually be negative for Con.

    Ditto 50p tax is popular on its own but may give impression that Lab is high tax OVERALL (ie not just 50p) which may then be negative for Lab.

    Broad point is that people vote on general impression - not individual policies.

    I think you might be on to something. I think a difference is perceived between a party wanting to pursue a policy because they think it is necessary, if regrettable, and for the general good, and between a party wanting to pursue a policy for ideological reasons, because they enjoy doing so.

    In Labour's example they would need to argue that they saw the tax increase as a regrettable but necessary step to balance the country's finances, and one that they would seek to reverse when conditions allowed them to do so. Unfortunately for them they have a few supporters who wish to tax the rich enough to make them squirm, and this has the danger of creating the wrong impression.
    The other problem for Labour is that there is no evidence that the tax increase would help the country's finances. All available evidence suggests the contrary,: that fewer high earners will pay less tax, both proportionally and in absolute terms, as a result of a rate hike.

    Even Balls has admitted that the deficit won't be lowered by raising the tax. His justification is that it is popular amongst Labour's core vote.

    So not a regrettable but necessary tax, but a regrettable and unnecessary additional cost.

    Balls didn't say that – at least not in his extended interview with Marr yesterday. What he did say was that he didn't know how much it would raise – the only truthful answer as we don't know how many people will qualify for the tax/take steps to avoid it until we get there. But I think he expects it to reduce the deficit somewhat, albeit not by a massive amount.

    It was actually a pretty good interview by Balls – you should watch it.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    AveryLP said:



    When the proportion of income tax paid by the top 1% rises and its aggregate contribution to the Exchequer increases by £8 bn then the onus of proof falls on the doubters.

    Avery, we all know that if you could prove the opposite you'd have gotten the yellow boxes out by now. Their absence is all the proof I need.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited January 2014
    In Neil world someone paying more tax than the year before must be "getting richer"

    If lower rates do not yield more than higher rates, then George Osborne must be insane. Why else would he have risked dreadful publicity by cutting the top rate in the teeth of a huge austerity drive?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:

    taffys said:

    That's proof that the rich are getting richer not proof that 45p raises more than 50p would. As I'm sure you know.

    ??? Is it? how do you know that?

    In Neil world someone paying more tax than the year before must be "getting richer" ..
    Well, yes, that's pretty much it.
    Tell that to Elton John ;)
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Neil said:

    Looks like an incumbency bonus has just disappeared in another Lib Dem seat.

    Although in this case it might have been an incumbency disadvantage. And from the sound of it Hancock could yet stand as an independent.

    http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/portsmouth-lib-dems-to-seek-new-parliamentary-candidate-1-5835056

    I thought that the Lib Dem council leader was being groomed (unfortunate phrase) as candidate for a long time. Indeed I wondered whether their rock solid support for Hancock in the face of everything had anything to do with ensuring a smooth transition in candidature (Hancock is yet another Lib Dem at retirement age).

    Interesting that the same meeting that effectively deselected Hancock felt it necessary to pass a vote of confidence in the council leader, given the criticism of him over his handling of the whole matter. It shows that the scandal is no longer just about Hancock, but also about the cover up. I'd have thought that the council leader would be the last person the LDs should put up if they are concerned to start afresh.
    Yes, it could be that the long planned succession may not be the wisest course of action! I wonder how much this issue has impacted locally though. It hasnt been felt in local election results (and it's been known about for ages).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Neil said:

    AveryLP said:



    When the proportion of income tax paid by the top 1% rises and its aggregate contribution to the Exchequer increases by £8 bn then the onus of proof falls on the doubters.

    Avery, we all know that if you could prove the opposite you'd have gotten the yellow boxes out by now. Their absence is all the proof I need.
    I'm sure there will be some stats and yellow heading our way shortly...
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    TGOHF said:

    corporeal said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    taffys said:

    the 50bp debate shows to me how for labour, dogma is the more important than outcome.

    Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?

    There is no evidence to support the contention that 45p rate raises more money than a 50p rate would. Who is being dogmatic now?

    Andrew Neil ‏@afneil Jan 26

    HMRC revenues from top taxpayers: 2011/12: £41.3bn (50% rate); 12/13: £41.6bn (50%); 13/14: £49.36bn (45% top rate).
    That's proof that the rich are getting richer not proof that 45p raises more than 50p would. As I'm sure you know.
    Unless you run two parallel economies identical bar the tax rate you wont get any better evidence than that.

    By the GE there will be 3 data points at the 45p rate..
    Mr Flashman, I dare say you could get some economists to try and factor in the relative state of the economy to take into account inflation, economic growth etc and produce a more educated estimate.

    Although it's very possible you'd run into a case of pick your economist for your answer. "Which raises more cash" is not exactly simple.
    Yes - well only if you stick to the blind dogma that the tax rates and the health of the economy are unrelated...

    No, just if you think that the top tax rate is not the be all and end all of the health of the economy.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    edited January 2014

    Pulpstar said:

    Why is so much of the debate here focussing on whether Labour would be any good in Gov't ?

    I don't think they will be much cop but it's irrelevant to the debate almost. The question to ask is whether or not they will make it to Gov't.

    Because if the public thinks Labour won't / wouldn't be any good in govt, they won't vote for them - or not in sufficient numbers. (There is, of course, a difference between whether we think Labour would be any good and whether the public thinks so).
    Hmm - The (Degree to which) Liberals getting their 2010 voters back and the Conservatives getting their kippers back NET is what will decide it I think :)
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    corporeal said:

    TGOHF said:

    corporeal said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    taffys said:

    the 50bp debate shows to me how for labour, dogma is the more important than outcome.

    Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?

    There is no evidence to support the contention that 45p rate raises more money than a 50p rate would. Who is being dogmatic now?

    Andrew Neil ‏@afneil Jan 26

    HMRC revenues from top taxpayers: 2011/12: £41.3bn (50% rate); 12/13: £41.6bn (50%); 13/14: £49.36bn (45% top rate).
    That's proof that the rich are getting richer not proof that 45p raises more than 50p would. As I'm sure you know.
    Unless you run two parallel economies identical bar the tax rate you wont get any better evidence than that.

    By the GE there will be 3 data points at the 45p rate..
    Mr Flashman, I dare say you could get some economists to try and factor in the relative state of the economy to take into account inflation, economic growth etc and produce a more educated estimate.

    Although it's very possible you'd run into a case of pick your economist for your answer. "Which raises more cash" is not exactly simple.
    Yes - well only if you stick to the blind dogma that the tax rates and the health of the economy are unrelated...

    No, just if you think that the top tax rate is not the be all and end all of the health of the economy.
    There were two changes to the tax rate that year - an increase in the allowance and the top rate cut...

    Economy does better in Uk when taxes are cut. Economy did worse in France as taxes were raised.

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited January 2014
    Neil said:

    taffys said:

    That's proof that the rich are getting richer not proof that 45p raises more than 50p would. As I'm sure you know.

    ??? Is it? how do you know that?

    Because it shows that the highest earners are earning more. It doesnt show what yield would have been at 50p so it doesnt support the contention that the 45p rate raises more.
    Neil

    The 2012 Treasury Report lists tens of academic papers on this issue.

    Brown overestimated the yield from the rise to 50% by using 2007 pre-recession figures as his baseline and by applying the lowest plausible TIE factor to the figures in order to underestimate the negative impact of behavioural response.

    Brown overcooked the books and now Balls is being forced to eat a dry and unappetising pudding.

  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    taffys said:

    In Neil world someone paying more tax than the year before must be "getting richer"

    If lower rates do not yield more than higher rates, then George Osborne must be insane. Why else would he have risked dreadful publicity by cutting the top rate in the teeth of a recession??

    I think you're confusing people being insane with people having different opinions about economics.

    George Osborne believing something doesn't make it true.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,566
    Hugh said:

    It's a re-run of Ed's energy price freeze masterstroke.

    The more Tories and their super-rich mates and donors bluster and whine, the more it sets the agenda, and the better for Labour as they are on the right side of the argument.

    I suspect it might end up the same way, eventually leading to Cameron and Osborne coming out with some watered-down version of their own, some sort of tokenistic land tax or summat.

    That's right. Three days of broadsides (and counting) by the Tories and the super-rich is much, much better than people vaguely saying "Yeah, whatever" and changing the subject (which is probably what most people on £150,000+ actually DO say). Let's argue about it for months, like the energy freeze.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    edited January 2014
    taffys said:

    In Neil world someone paying more tax than the year before must be "getting richer"

    If lower rates do not yield more than higher rates, then George Osborne must be insane. Why else would he have risked dreadful publicity by cutting the top rate in the teeth of a huge austerity drive?

    While we dont have the proof after the event we do know that Osborne himself expected that reducing the rate to 45p would lose money. This is because that is what underpinned his red book for that budget (the OBR estimated that it would cost hundreds of milllions).

    You may like to call George Osborne insane for doing it anyway, I couldnt possibly comment.

    What is certainly a lie is people saying that he did it to raise money - we know he expected it to lose money.
  • Neil said:

    AveryLP said:



    When the proportion of income tax paid by the top 1% rises and its aggregate contribution to the Exchequer increases by £8 bn then the onus of proof falls on the doubters.

    Avery, we all know that if you could prove the opposite you'd have gotten the yellow boxes out by now. Their absence is all the proof I need.
    Interesting logic - if only Labour had use the same, think of all those years they could have been taking 50%, why not 75%, who cares, off the rich to 'invest' more during their 13 years in power.... it sure is a shame for all the teachers and nurses that they only realised it so late in the day.

    Or maybe they too knew it was bad economics but mendacious politics to bring in 50%?

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983



    Or maybe they too knew it was bad economics but mendacious politics to bring in 50%?

    I think their argument was that it wasnt needed. The deficit was largely under control and debt was low. It was only brought it in once the deficit was gaping and something had to be done about it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Neil said:

    taffys said:

    the 50bp debate shows to me how for labour, dogma is the more important than outcome.

    Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?

    There is no evidence to support the contention that 45p rate raises more money than a 50p rate would. Who is being dogmatic now?
    The OBR's view was that a 50% rate raised £100m more - so just rounding error
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Neil said:

    taffys said:

    In Neil world someone paying more tax than the year before must be "getting richer"

    If lower rates do not yield more than higher rates, then George Osborne must be insane. Why else would he have risked dreadful publicity by cutting the top rate in the teeth of a huge austerity drive?

    While we dont have the proof after the event we do know that Osborne himself expected that reducing the rate to 45p would lose money. This is because that is what underpinned his red book for that budget (the OBR estimated that it would cost hundreds of milllions).

    You may like to call George Osborne insane for doing it anyway, I couldnt possibly comment.

    What is certainly a lie is people saying that he did it to raise money - we know he expected it to lose money.
    We do have proof after the event - the tax take went UP even after two tax cuts.

  • Neil said:



    Or maybe they too knew it was bad economics but mendacious politics to bring in 50%?

    I think their argument was that it wasnt needed. The deficit was largely under control and debt was low. It was only brought it in once the deficit was gaping and something had to be done about it.
    Welcome to PB, Ed Balls.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    taffys said:

    In Neil world someone paying more tax than the year before must be "getting richer"

    If lower rates do not yield more than higher rates, then George Osborne must be insane. Why else would he have risked dreadful publicity by cutting the top rate in the teeth of a huge austerity drive?

    While we dont have the proof after the event we do know that Osborne himself expected that reducing the rate to 45p would lose money. This is because that is what underpinned his red book for that budget (the OBR estimated that it would cost hundreds of milllions).

    You may like to call George Osborne insane for doing it anyway, I couldnt possibly comment.

    What is certainly a lie is people saying that he did it to raise money - we know he expected it to lose money.
    We do have proof after the event - the tax take went UP even after two tax cuts.

    No, that's not proof of the impact of the 45p rate. It's already been explained why it isnt.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    "The deficit is big so we have to switch back to the system where less revenue was taken"

    Lolz.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Neil said:



    Or maybe they too knew it was bad economics but mendacious politics to bring in 50%?

    I think their argument was that it wasnt needed. The deficit was largely under control and debt was low. It was only brought it in once the deficit was gaping and something had to be done about it.
    Welcome to PB, Ed Balls.
    Ed Balls is a PB Tory! Whatever next!

  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited January 2014
    Labour's argument is very sophisticated.

    George O forgot he was a politician and just cut the rate to 45% to reward his Christmas card list....

    It's the same intellect and authenticity as the budget surplus they now promise by 2020
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited January 2014
    Neil said:

    AveryLP said:



    When the proportion of income tax paid by the top 1% rises and its aggregate contribution to the Exchequer increases by £8 bn then the onus of proof falls on the doubters.

    Avery, we all know that if you could prove the opposite you'd have gotten the yellow boxes out by now. Their absence is all the proof I need.
    Neil

    You have to be a Midlands Misanthrope to get your own personalised yellow box.

    Elephant and Castle doesn't cut it.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469
    Pulpstar said:

    Am I the only person who thinks a 45 or 50p top tax rate is neither here nor there ?

    I agree. As I said the other day, it's as much how it is sold as to the actual price. There are two things we could probably broadly agree on:

    1) An 80p top rate would probably mean less tax collected.
    2) A 30p top rate would probably mean less tax collected (leaving aside the lower rates for lower earners).

    The sweet spot of maximum revenue will lie somewhere between the two. The key to maximising revenue at a higher top rate is to counteract the fear: let the people paying the rate know that there are absolutely no plans to increase it further, and also to ease other things, for instance the problems businesses face. Encourage them to stay and pay tax instead of moving their business to more competitive regimes. The stick is the 50p rate, the carrot (say) a reduction in employment taxes.

    The way to reduce the take is to make it into a class warfare thing; add in a mansion tax and other things that will scare top-rate taxpayers.

    All IMHO.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    TGOHF said:

    corporeal said:

    TGOHF said:

    corporeal said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    taffys said:

    the 50bp debate shows to me how for labour, dogma is the more important than outcome.

    Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?

    There is no evidence to support the contention that 45p rate raises more money than a 50p rate would. Who is being dogmatic now?

    Andrew Neil ‏@afneil Jan 26

    HMRC revenues from top taxpayers: 2011/12: £41.3bn (50% rate); 12/13: £41.6bn (50%); 13/14: £49.36bn (45% top rate).
    That's proof that the rich are getting richer not proof that 45p raises more than 50p would. As I'm sure you know.
    Unless you run two parallel economies identical bar the tax rate you wont get any better evidence than that.

    By the GE there will be 3 data points at the 45p rate..
    Mr Flashman, I dare say you could get some economists to try and factor in the relative state of the economy to take into account inflation, economic growth etc and produce a more educated estimate.

    Although it's very possible you'd run into a case of pick your economist for your answer. "Which raises more cash" is not exactly simple.
    Yes - well only if you stick to the blind dogma that the tax rates and the health of the economy are unrelated...

    No, just if you think that the top tax rate is not the be all and end all of the health of the economy.
    There were two changes to the tax rate that year - an increase in the allowance and the top rate cut...

    Economy does better in Uk when taxes are cut. Economy did worse in France as taxes were raised.

    You mean there's another variable involved? That doesn't muddy the waters at all.

    Economics is, as they say, f*cking complicated. There isn't a simple handbook of turn dial A and get output B. There's a thousand handbooks saying varying things, and offering all kinds of different predictions.

    So Labour believe in higher taxes than the Conservatives? Well yes. That's the basis of the whole left-right spectrum thing we have in politics, they have different opinions about what works. And is their politics involved in economic choices sure, obviously.

    But what you're declaring as "proof" is a laughably low standard.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    TGOHF said:
    @TGOHF Sorry to say this but I think you're losing the argument if you start quoting a Dan Hodges piece...
This discussion has been closed.