Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The battle over Labour’s planned 50 percent tax rate: Day 3
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.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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
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 ;-)
I wonder what the poor advertisers think of the programme they sponsor being used for a political stunt by a maverick comedian.
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.
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.
Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?
Raising the threshold is too slow - need a cut to 18p and 38p rates.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/owen-jones-cruel-certainly-unforgivable-beyond-doubt-but-the-tories-arent-actually-evil-8724467.html
;-)
Which party did voters say would maker their family better off again?
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.
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 :-)
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."
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.
Get off that bed, and get to work.....and that coma isn't fooling anyone.
Just look at the newsnight story,as the cons complained ?
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
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.
Squirreltastic!
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.
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.
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.
The blue line needs some Viagra me thinks ;-)
Can you point me to an existing statute that would prevent them from doing so?
Should we go back to the old system H? is that going to be labour policy?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukipwatch/100256765/meet-ukip-britains-most-working-class-party/
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.
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.
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.
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."
"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"
For some reason Europe's very keen to tax something that mostly happens in Britain.
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).
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.
??? Is it? how do you know that?
By the GE there will be 3 data points at the 45p rate..
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.
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.
Is there a 10/11 figure?
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.
"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?
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.
It was actually a pretty good interview by Balls – you should watch it.
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?
Economy does better in Uk when taxes are cut. Economy did worse in France as taxes were raised.
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.
George Osborne believing something doesn't make it true.
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.
Or maybe they too knew it was bad economics but mendacious politics to bring in 50%?
Lolz.
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
You have to be a Midlands Misanthrope to get your own personalised yellow box.
Elephant and Castle doesn't cut it.
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.
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.