There are three reasons for not liking the 50% tax rate:
1. It is inefficient. Tax policy should be about raising maximum revenues, not about making the country 'fairer'.
2. It causes people to act differently to avoid it. This is particularly true if people believe the tax will only last a short time, and therefore will avoid paying money out of companies to save tax. Longer-term, people will develop all kinds of systems to avoid paying tax - if the tax level is set at such a level that avoidance becomes worthwhile. So company owners will sell their stakes to OffShore Company (Bermuda), so that profits pile-up off-shore rather than on-shore.
3. It can have long-term effects on people's willingness to invest in a country. Income tax is a tax on work. If you tax cigarettes, you get less smoking. If you tax petrol, you get less driving. And the more you tax work, the less will be done. Obviously, there is a balance, but once (after employers' and employees' NI) you start taking almost 60%, then 'work' in this country becomes increasingly expensive.
There are three reasons for not liking the 50% tax rate:
1. It is inefficient. Tax policy should be about raising maximum revenues, not about making the country 'fairer'.
2. It causes people to act differently to avoid it. This is particularly true if people believe the tax will only last a short time, and therefore will avoid paying money out of companies to save tax. Longer-term, people will develop all kinds of systems to avoid paying tax - if the tax level is set at such a level that avoidance becomes worthwhile. So company owners will sell their stakes to OffShore Company (Bermuda), so that profits pile-up off-shore rather than on-shore.
3. It can have long-term effects on people's willingness to invest in a country. Income tax is a tax on work. If you tax cigarettes, you get less smoking. If you tax petrol, you get less driving. And the more you tax work, the less will be done. Obviously, there is a balance, but once (after employers' and employees' NI) you start taking almost 60%, then 'work' in this country becomes increasingly expensive.
There is a big difference between 45% and 50%. 45% is the same rate as China, Germany and Australia, 50% or more is the same rate as Cuba and exceeded or matched only by Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands and France (under Hollande) and Spain (because of austerity)
C4 Facthcheck confirms Ed Balls should resign or be sacked for incompetence or deliberate misleading then.
No, hang on a minute, he's doing fine....
The verdict It’s not just business leaders who don’t like Labour’s latest idea. The IFS is broadly on the side of the government on this one, although all economists stress the deep uncertainty which underlies this educated guesswork.
The think tank has also put a hole in Labour’s theory that more recent numbers suggest an increased rake for the taxman in the 50p years. Mr Phillips diplomatically puts this down to a “misunderstanding” of the research.
'So I had to say what I think, which is that it would be better for the country if David Cameron were to continue as Prime Minister next year.' - John Rentoul
I was interested in your accusation that I make up my mind before entering a discussion.
Do you make the same charge against Avery ?
If I've misrepresented your position, I apologise: it is only my impression.
The sense I have got is that you have decided that Osborne and Cameron are bad'uns and therefore everything they do is tainted rather than looking at specific topics.
Avery - possibly. I don't really pay attention to his non-economics posts though (and I do skip over the yellow boxes). On economics he is clearly a fellow traveler with the Boy, so whether that is prejudging the situation or whether its just agreeing with him is more difficult to call.
'So I had to say what I think, which is that it would be better for the country if David Cameron were to continue as Prime Minister next year.' - John Rentoul
I am paying tax at an effective rate of 58% thanks to 2 kids child benefits to repay.
Welcome back Bobajob.
Don't know who Bobajob is. The 58% figure comes from the IFS.
A former (lamented) pposter who used to whinge about child benefit withdrawal and high marginal tax rates. Without stopping to reflect that he earned substantially more than the vast majority of people in the UK.
With my salary I am in a very privileged position. I know that. But there is a basic illogic about the Tories position on this. 50% tax for their donors and patrons is the End Of The World. 57% tax for me on a third of their salary is only fair as my wife is a scrounger for taking Child Benefit as her sole income.
You want to know why the polls show so many Tory voters supporting a 50% tax rate? How many Tory voters like me can't believe their party thinks its OK to tax them hard but to insist 7% less tax on £100k more salary is deeply wrong. This disparity of policies is patently absurd and if PB Tories wiped the froth from their mouths and actually thought this one through for a minute they'd understand too.
Taxing me and 640,000 other likely Tory voters at 51%/58%/65%/71% depending on the number of kids, yet defending 45% for the same people who donate hundreds of thousands to party coffers is stupid politics. Out of touch, unfair, for the rich opposed to the middle class - call it what you want. Then you wonder how they failed to win the last election and look set to lose the next one too.
As I've said before I am not a fan of how the CB reforms have been structured. If high marginal rates are such a bad thing when you get income support withdrawal, then they are also a bad thing at CB withdrawal.
I generally stick to my philosophy that - regardless of the level of income - it is a bad thing if the government is taking more than half of someone extra earnings from an extra hour of work. There's no real rationale behind that specific number, but it just feels greedy.
'So I had to say what I think, which is that it would be better for the country if David Cameron were to continue as Prime Minister next year.' - John Rentoul
'So I had to say what I think, which is that it would be better for the country if David Cameron were to continue as Prime Minister next year.' - John Rentoul
'So I had to say what I think, which is that it would be better for the country if David Cameron were to continue as Prime Minister next year.' - John Rentoul
I generally stick to my philosophy that - regardless of the level of income - it is a bad thing if the government is taking more than half of someone extra earnings from an extra hour of work. There's no real rationale behind that specific number, but it just feels greedy.
My wife, who is generally a lot more left wing than me, is of exactly the same mind. Her view is that marginal tax rates should never exceed 50%.
I agree - could be another horrible demolition with us being stuffed or a thrilling draw. In no scenario do I see us winning tho would help if Negredo is still out.
'So I had to say what I think, which is that it would be better for the country if David Cameron were to continue as Prime Minister next year.' - John Rentoul
I generally stick to my philosophy that - regardless of the level of income - it is a bad thing if the government is taking more than half of someone extra earnings from an extra hour of work. There's no real rationale behind that specific number, but it just feels greedy.
My wife, who is generally a lot more left wing than me, is of exactly the same mind. Her view is that marginal tax rates should never exceed 50%.
Of course Rentoul supports Cameron, the Coalition is a Blairite government in all but name, opposed by the Brownite Miliband and Balls-led Labour Party on the one side and the Thatcherite Farage and UKIP on the other!
I generally stick to my philosophy that - regardless of the level of income - it is a bad thing if the government is taking more than half of someone extra earnings from an extra hour of work. There's no real rationale behind that specific number, but it just feels greedy.
My wife, who is generally a lot more left wing than me, is of exactly the same mind. Her view is that marginal tax rates should never exceed 50%.
They already do, thanks to David Cameron and George Osborne.
Muppet - it was your fruitcakes who gave us 62% marginal rates of tax which is still a table topper unless you've got a bundle of kids....
I generally stick to my philosophy that - regardless of the level of income - it is a bad thing if the government is taking more than half of someone extra earnings from an extra hour of work. There's no real rationale behind that specific number, but it just feels greedy.
My wife, who is generally a lot more left wing than me, is of exactly the same mind. Her view is that marginal tax rates should never exceed 50%.
They already do, thanks to David Cameron and George Osborne.
And, under Blair and Brown, they were often above 100% four people coming off benefits at the low end of the wage scale. What's your point?
I generally stick to my philosophy that - regardless of the level of income - it is a bad thing if the government is taking more than half of someone extra earnings from an extra hour of work. There's no real rationale behind that specific number, but it just feels greedy.
My wife, who is generally a lot more left wing than me, is of exactly the same mind. Her view is that marginal tax rates should never exceed 50%.
They already do, thanks to David Cameron and George Osborne.
Exactly ! Ask those whose income is betwwen £50k and £60k and in receipt of child benefit. What is their marginal rate of tax ? Close to 70%.
Lots of fun things to come and see: dodo skeletons, inuit art, Darwin's egg, a telescope that has orbited the earth, etc. Plus our rather modest London pad ;-)
I generally stick to my philosophy that - regardless of the level of income - it is a bad thing if the government is taking more than half of someone extra earnings from an extra hour of work. There's no real rationale behind that specific number, but it just feels greedy.
My wife, who is generally a lot more left wing than me, is of exactly the same mind. Her view is that marginal tax rates should never exceed 50%.
They already do, thanks to David Cameron and George Osborne.
Exactly ! Ask those whose income is betwwen £50k and £60k and in receipt of child benefit. What is their marginal rate of tax ? Close to 70%.
Not this again.................................................... this explains the marginal rates based on 1, 2, 3 or 4 children...
If you can get your parents or grandparents or even you to pay in to a pension for the person affected, then it's a great tax relief as you get the child ben back too on each £ you get closer to £50k from £60k adjusted earnings!
A 50% tax sounds about right to me. Us little folk are getting squeezed, seems only fair to me that the rich get a bit of grief too. After all, we are all in it together, ain't we?
Even if it doesn't raise anything?
That's the thing, isn't it? It's all politics, as no ones seems to know, do they? As someone said below, 45 or 50% is neither here nor there, its all about how it looks.
Mr TFS,I usually agree with most things you post but on the 50 percent tax rate,I just think when it got cut to 45,it sent a message round the world,Britain is open for business and going back would send a negative message.
There is a big difference between 45% and 50%. 45% is the same rate as China, Germany and Australia, 50% or more is the same rate as Cuba and exceeded or matched only by Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands and France (under Hollande) and Spain (because of austerity)
Countries scoring high on competitiveness: You will find Sweden, Denmark high on that list.
A 50% tax sounds about right to me. Us little folk are getting squeezed, seems only fair to me that the rich get a bit of grief too. After all, we are all in it together, ain't we?
Even if it doesn't raise anything?
That's the thing, isn't it? It's all politics, as no ones seems to know, do they? As someone said below, 45 or 50% is neither here nor there, its all about how it looks.
Mr TFS,I usually agree with most things you post but on the 50 percent tax rate,I just think when it got cut to 45,it sent a message round the world,Britain is open for business and going back would send a negative message.
Only a hamfisted Brownite would want to follow the Hollande-model of anti-business at the same time as the man himself backtracks over the channel.
Mr TFS,I usually agree with most things you post but on the 50 percent tax rate,I just think when it got cut to 45,it sent a message round the world,Britain is open for business and going back would send a negative message.
Another Labour government being elected will send that message no matter what the top rate of income tax is.
I was interested in your accusation that I make up my mind before entering a discussion.
Do you make the same charge against Avery ?
If I've misrepresented your position, I apologise: it is only my impression.
The sense I have got is that you have decided that Osborne and Cameron are bad'uns and therefore everything they do is tainted rather than looking at specific topics.
I'm willing to give fair praise where I think its due. For example I applaud both the rises in the VAT rate and tax threshold. While in other areas some good work is being done in both education and social security.
My general grievance is that I see no difference between Blair/Brown and Cameron/Osborne. Cameron, as in his own words, sees himself as the 'Heir to Blair' ie a stylish figurehead. Whereas Osborne is merely the Conservative version of Brown ie political tactics first, last and always.
Now if we judge Osborne on his economic record, which is after all what he should be concentrating on, how does his record match his targets:
1) Deficit reduction = fail 2) Rebalancing the economy = fail 3) 'March of the Makers' = fail 4) Maintaining the AAA rating = fail
Before anyone starts making excuses I'll say it doesn't matter - Osborne set his own targets, a luxury few workers have, and he has missed them.
Now perhaps some people might regard rising house prices as a target, in which case Osborne has succeeded there. But I view that as a band thing for both economic and social reasons.
My big issue has always been 'living within your means'. It might be an unfashionable thing but it has been the basis of my family's climb from renting miner's cottages a century ago to owning nice houses in nice areas now.
Unlike some people here I don't rant with fury about the 'other' side's failures and then turn a blind eye when 'my' side does likewise. I try to judge them all by the same standard.
And I see no understanding from Osborne that 'living within your means' is a worthwhile concept. Instead all I see is a willingness to spend money as the political tactics require.
That is why I have lost all respect for Osborne and likewise why I lost all respect for Cameron when he claimed to be "paying down Britain's debts" and finally why Avery aggravates me with his misuse and manipulation of the ONS data.
I generally stick to my philosophy that - regardless of the level of income - it is a bad thing if the government is taking more than half of someone extra earnings from an extra hour of work. There's no real rationale behind that specific number, but it just feels greedy.
My wife, who is generally a lot more left wing than me, is of exactly the same mind. Her view is that marginal tax rates should never exceed 50%.
They already do, thanks to David Cameron and George Osborne.
Exactly ! Ask those whose income is betwwen £50k and £60k and in receipt of child benefit. What is their marginal rate of tax ? Close to 70%.
Not this again.................................................... this explains the marginal rates based on 1, 2, 3 or 4 children...
If you can get your parents or grandparents or even you to pay in to a pension for the person affected, then it's a great tax relief as you get the child ben back too on each £ you get closer to £50k from £60k adjusted earnings!
They can't use that income though as it's tied up in a pension. What's the significance of parents/grandparents*?
*I declare an interest here - I have just filled in an SA form to change my tax code, as I am in the Child Benefit Tax zone too
Imo, this week could potentially decide the election. The business community and super-rich are out to destroy Labour's chances, and how Ed Miliband responds will be crucial. There's no doubt that, on the face of it, the 50p tax is extremely popular. However, as always in politics, the tone and how you present a policy matter almost as much. as the policy itself. And it has to be said, Labour's public defence has been deeply unimpressive. Ed Balls' performance on Andrew Marr yesterday was a carcrash: apologetic and defensive, it wasn't going to appease the critics and it wasn't strong or clear enough to appeal to the many people who think the rich should be paying a lot more. The sight of Labour allowing themselves to be bullied and cave in to the super-rich would be fatal.
Ed Miliband needs to give these selfish, greedy people the News International/energy companies/Daily Mail treatment, and publicly criticise them. It's time for a mainstream politician to say that it's time for the rich to stop thinking they can throw a party at everyone else's expense, that they don't have duties to the rest of society, that they can override the democratic will of everyone else. If he does that, he can define the election as "who will be hardest on the rich", a battle which I think would be popular and which Labour would be favourites to win.
Imo, this week could potentially decide the election. The business community and super-rich are out to destroy Labour's chances, and how Ed Miliband responds will be crucial. There's no doubt that, on the face of it, the 50p tax is extremely popular. However, as always in politics, the tone and how you present a policy matter almost as much. as the policy itself. And it has to be said, Labour's public defence has been deeply unimpressive. Ed Balls' performance on Andrew Marr yesterday was a carcrash: apologetic and defensive, it wasn't going to appease the critics and it wasn't strong or clear enough to appeal to the many people who think the rich should be paying a lot more. The sight of Labour allowing themselves to be bullied and cave in to the super-rich would be fatal.
Ed Miliband needs to give these selfish, greedy people the News International/energy companies/Daily Mail treatment, and publicly criticise them. It's time for a mainstream politician to say that it's time for the rich to stop thinking they can throw a party at everyone else's expense, that they don't have duties to the rest of society, that they can override the democratic will of everyone else. If he does that, he can define the election as "who will be hardest on the rich", a battle which I think would be popular and which Labour would be favourites to win.
Imo, this week could potentially decide the election. The business community and super-rich are out to destroy Labour's chances, and how Ed Miliband responds will be crucial. There's no doubt that, on the face of it, the 50p tax is extremely popular. However, as always in politics, the tone and how you present a policy matter almost as much. as the policy itself. And it has to be said, Labour's public defence has been deeply unimpressive. Ed Balls' performance on Andrew Marr yesterday was a carcrash: apologetic and defensive, it wasn't going to appease the critics and it wasn't strong or clear enough to appeal to the many people who think the rich should be paying a lot more. The sight of Labour allowing themselves to be bullied and cave in to the super-rich would be fatal.
Ed Miliband needs to give these selfish, greedy people the News International/energy companies/Daily Mail treatment, and publicly criticise them. It's time for a mainstream politician to say that it's time for the rich to stop thinking they can throw a party at everyone else's expense, that they don't have duties to the rest of society, that they can override the democratic will of everyone else. If he does that, he can define the election as "who will be hardest on the rich", a battle which I think would be popular and which Labour would be favourites to win.
I must have been watching another interview because I thought Balls was pretty good on Marr.
I was interested in your accusation that I make up my mind before entering a discussion.
Do you make the same charge against Avery ?
Avery - possibly. I don't really pay attention to his non-economics posts though (and I do skip over the yellow boxes). On economics he is clearly a fellow traveler with the Boy, so whether that is prejudging the situation or whether its just agreeing with him is more difficult to call.
I'm not sure whether Avery believes everything he says economically, whether he's doing out os some party loyalty or whether he's doing it for a laugh.
But he's clearly made up his mind whichever reason or reasons it is to laud Osborne to the heavens.
The problem this gives him is that he's committed to proving such an absolute picture of perfection out of less than perfect materials that it makes it easy to knock holes in.
And please don't refer to Osborne as the 'Boy' as it makes you sound like tim.
I generally stick to my philosophy that - regardless of the level of income - it is a bad thing if the government is taking more than half of someone extra earnings from an extra hour of work. There's no real rationale behind that specific number, but it just feels greedy.
My wife, who is generally a lot more left wing than me, is of exactly the same mind. Her view is that marginal tax rates should never exceed 50%.
I would agree with your wife and Charles and that's why Labour's proposal seems 'fair'.
I'm willing to give fair praise where I think its due. For example I applaud both the rises in the VAT rate and tax threshold. While in other areas some good work is being done in both education and social security.
My general grievance is that I see no difference between Blair/Brown and Cameron/Osborne. Cameron, as in his own words, sees himself as the 'Heir to Blair' ie a stylish figurehead. Whereas Osborne is merely the Conservative version of Brown ie political tactics first, last and always.
Now if we judge Osborne on his economic record, which is after all what he should be concentrating on, how does his record match his targets:
1) Deficit reduction = fail 2) Rebalancing the economy = fail 3) 'March of the Makers' = fail 4) Maintaining the AAA rating = fail
Before anyone starts making excuses I'll say it doesn't matter - Osborne set his own targets, a luxury few workers have, and he has missed them.
Now perhaps some people might regard rising house prices as a target, in which case Osborne has succeeded there. But I view that as a band thing for both economic and social reasons.
My big issue has always been 'living within your means'. It might be an unfashionable thing but it has been the basis of my family's climb from renting miner's cottages a century ago to owning nice houses in nice areas now.
Unlike some people here I don't rant with fury about the 'other' side's failures and then turn a blind eye when 'my' side does likewise. I try to judge them all by the same standard.
And I see no understanding from Osborne that 'living within your means' is a worthwhile concept. Instead all I see is a willingness to spend money as the political tactics require.
That is why I have lost all respect for Osborne and likewise why I lost all respect for Cameron when he claimed to be "paying down Britain's debts" and finally why Avery aggravates me with his misuse and manipulation of the ONS data.
Do you have any background in economics? I only ask, because you seem to expect an unfeasibly high degree of accuracy. Most economic forecasts are really a combination of extrapolation and guessing.
Rather than comparing it to forecasts I try to look at the outcome:
1) Deficit reduction - moving in the right direction 2) Growth - no double dip recession (albeit mighty close) and now rebounding 3) Employment - big shift from public to private sector 4) Rebalancing of the economy - some progress, but still much to do.
Would have it been great if he could have reduced the deficit faster while not impacting growth? Yes, sure. Would it have been great if growth had been higher, or employment higher or the economy better position. Sure. But we have made very good progress over where we were, in a very difficult environment. Osborne is by no means "near perfect" but he has done a solid job. Cameron's a w*nker though.
I generally stick to my philosophy that - regardless of the level of income - it is a bad thing if the government is taking more than half of someone extra earnings from an extra hour of work. There's no real rationale behind that specific number, but it just feels greedy.
My wife, who is generally a lot more left wing than me, is of exactly the same mind. Her view is that marginal tax rates should never exceed 50%.
They already do, thanks to David Cameron and George Osborne.
Exactly ! Ask those whose income is betwwen £50k and £60k and in receipt of child benefit. What is their marginal rate of tax ? Close to 70%.
Not this again.................................................... this explains the marginal rates based on 1, 2, 3 or 4 children...
If you can get your parents or grandparents or even you to pay in to a pension for the person affected, then it's a great tax relief as you get the child ben back too on each £ you get closer to £50k from £60k adjusted earnings!
They can't use that income though as it's tied up in a pension. What's the significance of parents/grandparents*?
*I declare an interest here - I have just filled in an SA form to change my tax code, as I am in the Child Benefit Tax zone too
Doesn't have to be you paying in to your pension to then benefit from having reduced earned income! So if bank of mum and dad gift say £300pm from their bank account in to your personal pension that becomes £375pm in your pension with the basic rate tax relief and your adjusted income for tax and child benefit purposes reduces by £4,500 (£375 x12).
You've got more in your pension, you've got your child benefit back and you are due a tax refund on the 20% higher rate tax contribution. All thanks to your parents generosity.
Surbiton, But Cuba and France which also tax 50% or more? I also forgot to add Portugal, Israel, Aruba and Senegal not that it makes much difference other than those additional 4 all other nations' top rate is below 50%!
If the political polling analysts are right then we should expect the Lab lead under Comres to significantly widen. If not then the Balls 50% trick may have failed.
Wouldn't the fieldwork have been before 50% move ?
If the political polling analysts are right then we should expect the Lab lead under Comres to significantly widen. If not then the Balls 50% trick may have failed.
Wouldn't the fieldwork have been before 50% move ?
The fieldwork was between the 24th and 26th so ended yesterday
So the bulk would have been after EdBalls announcement. It has also had a lot of publicity.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 4 mins As a general rule sensational polls turn out to be outliers. In 2013 3 pollsters had LAB & CON level-pegging before returning "normal"
I generally stick to my philosophy that - regardless of the level of income - it is a bad thing if the government is taking more than half of someone extra earnings from an extra hour of work. There's no real rationale behind that specific number, but it just feels greedy.
My wife, who is generally a lot more left wing than me, is of exactly the same mind. Her view is that marginal tax rates should never exceed 50%.
They already do, thanks to David Cameron and George Osborne.
Exactly ! Ask those whose income is betwwen £50k and £60k and in receipt of child benefit. What is their marginal rate of tax ? Close to 70%.
Not this again.................................................... this explains the marginal rates based on 1, 2, 3 or 4 children...
If you can get your parents or grandparents or even you to pay in to a pension for the person affected, then it's a great tax relief as you get the child ben back too on each £ you get closer to £50k from £60k adjusted earnings!
They can't use that income though as it's tied up in a pension. What's the significance of parents/grandparents*?
*I declare an interest here - I have just filled in an SA form to change my tax code, as I am in the Child Benefit Tax zone too
Doesn't have to be you paying in to your pension to then benefit from having reduced earned income! So if bank of mum and dad gift say £300pm from their bank account in to your personal pension that becomes £375pm in your pension with the basic rate tax relief and your adjusted income for tax and child benefit purposes reduces by £4,500 (£375 x12).
You've got more in your pension, you've got your child benefit back and you are due a tax refund on the 20% higher rate tax contribution. All thanks to your parents generosity.
Thanks. But why would my income fall when my parents give into my pension?
Surely must be good for the Tories, OGH is downplaying it...
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB5 mins As a general rule sensational polls turn out to be outliers. In 2013 3 pollsters had LAB & CON level-pegging before returning "normal" Expand
Either a Tory lead (which looks likely due to the tweet mentioned below) or a big Lab lead are probably outliers. Unless YouGov backs them. Populus today showed no movement.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB As a general rule sensational polls turn out to be outliers. In 2013 3 pollsters had LAB & CON level-pegging before returning "normal"
If its a ComRes crossover, surely we can expect YouGov to have a Labour lead of 8-10%
I very much doubt the poll is anything like sensational ....
I fear small polling earthquake in PB but life and death it isn't !! .... so on the basis of some movement from the last COMRES offering let's opt for a narrowing of the Labour lead to 6-8 points.
Very serious subject of course, but on BBC News talking about the Holocaust Clive Myrie introduced one of his guests as having escaped from "French occupied France".
I very much doubt the poll is anything like sensational ....
I fear small polling earthquake in PB but life and death it isn't !! .... so on the basis of some movement from the last COMRES offering let's opt for a narrowing of the Labour lead to 6-8 points.
That wouldn't be in any way sensational, even in the warped world of PB. A guy on Twitter has already effectively leaked that it's a Tory lead - as he works for MSN News I am inclined to believe him.
I generally stick to my philosophy that - regardless of the level of income - it is a bad thing if the government is taking more than half of someone extra earnings from an extra hour of work. There's no real rationale behind that specific number, but it just feels greedy.
My wife, who is generally a lot more left wing than me, is of exactly the same mind. Her view is that marginal tax rates should never exceed 50%.
They already do, thanks to David Cameron and George Osborne.
Exactly ! Ask those whose income is betwwen £50k and £60k and in receipt of child benefit. What is their marginal rate of tax ? Close to 70%.
Not this again.................................................... this explains the marginal rates based on 1, 2, 3 or 4 children...
If you can get your parents or grandparents or even you to pay in to a pension for the person affected, then it's a great tax relief as you get the child ben back too on each £ you get closer to £50k from £60k adjusted earnings!
They can't use that income though as it's tied up in a pension. What's the significance of parents/grandparents*?
*I declare an interest here - I have just filled in an SA form to change my tax code, as I am in the Child Benefit Tax zone too
Doesn't have to be you paying in to your pension to then benefit from having reduced earned income! So if bank of mum and dad gift say £300pm from their bank account in to your personal pension that becomes £375pm in your pension with the basic rate tax relief and your adjusted income for tax and child benefit purposes reduces by £4,500 (£375 x12).
You've got more in your pension, you've got your child benefit back and you are due a tax refund on the 20% higher rate tax contribution. All thanks to your parents generosity.
Thanks. But why would my income fall when my parents give into my pension?
Because it's treated by HMRC as coming from you. Think about it - there's no point your parents paying in £300pm to your bank account to then see you pay £300pm in to your pension - this just makes it simpler but it's a win/win/win/win (even more so if relatives have IHT issues too).
Nick Sutton @suttonnick Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "Economy is growing at fastest pace since crash" #tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/Z2dIwulZYL
Theuniondivvie I doubt the fate of the 300 year old Act of Union will rest on one Comres, in any case if the Tories are ahead the result would be more like another Tory-LD Coalition than a Tory majority unless the Tories have a really big lead!
Theuniondivvie I doubt the fate of the 250 year old Act of Union will rest on one Comres, in any case if the Tories are ahead the result would be more like another Tory-LD Coalition than a Tory majority unless the Tories have a really big lead!
You need to read this piece from last summer, written by one of PB's most intelligent and perceptive posters, ahem
'Mundell has become London's poster child for keeping the United Kingdom united, and has spent part of December carrying that message to Washington in meetings at think tanks and influential congressional offices. A lifelong Scotsman, Mundell is the only Conservative MP who represents a Scottish constituency, making him an ideal courier for David Cameron's anti-independence message... Mundell was gearing up for a talk at the Brookings Institution the next day, where his intellectual rival, First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond, spoke earlier in the year.'
I very much doubt the poll is anything like sensational ....
I fear small polling earthquake in PB but life and death it isn't !! .... so on the basis of some movement from the last COMRES offering let's opt for a narrowing of the Labour lead to 6-8 points.
Jack maybe they are going to reveal your date of birth!!
'Mundell has become London's poster child for keeping the United Kingdom united, and has spent part of December carrying that message to Washington in meetings at think tanks and influential congressional offices. A lifelong Scotsman, Mundell is the only Conservative MP who represents a Scottish constituency, making him an ideal courier for David Cameron's anti-independence message... Mundell was gearing up for a talk at the Brookings Institution the next day, where his intellectual rival, First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond, spoke earlier in the year.'
No nighthawks tonight, i'll add it into tomorrow's nighthawks.
I did write a piece, but never published saying, that if Yes were only 10% behind when the campaign proper starts in June, then Yes would win, because Salmond would be able to get that kind of swing, as no has no-one who can compete with him.
I very much doubt the poll is anything like sensational ....
I fear small polling earthquake in PB but life and death it isn't !! .... so on the basis of some movement from the last COMRES offering let's opt for a narrowing of the Labour lead to 6-8 points.
Jack maybe they are going to reveal your date of birth!!
LOL ...
But it's a state secret .... filed away in a secret pocket of Mrs JackW's bloomers !!
Do you have any background in economics? I only ask, because you seem to expect an unfeasibly high degree of accuracy. Most economic forecasts are really a combination of extrapolation and guessing.
Rather than comparing it to forecasts I try to look at the outcome:
1) Deficit reduction - moving in the right direction 2) Growth - no double dip recession (albeit mighty close) and now rebounding 3) Employment - big shift from public to private sector 4) Rebalancing of the economy - some progress, but still much to do.
Would have it been great if he could have reduced the deficit faster while not impacting growth? Yes, sure. Would it have been great if growth had been higher, or employment higher or the economy better position. Sure. But we have made very good progress over where we were, in a very difficult environment. Osborne is by no means "near perfect" but he has done a solid job. Cameron's a w*nker though.
I have done more than the odd economics and financial course during my life.
And while it would be stupid to expect accuracy in an economics forecast it is reasonable to assume that a forecast gets things roughly right. If not then what's the point in the taxpayer paying for the OBR quango to create more economic forecasts ?
I will also point out that you can miss your forecasts on the good side as well as the bad ie that deficit reduction and growth might have been better than forecast not worse.
Osborne set his own targets and must be judged on them.
Lets compare your 4 points:
1) Deficit reduction - moving in the right direction isn't hard when you start with a deficit of £155bn is it. As it is deficit reduction is happening way behind schedule and the government debt percentage might well still be increasing when the next recession hits.
2) Growth - again below predictions. Now rebounding as you say but based upon what - rising house prices and increasing consumer spending. Exactly the same fundamental excesses which casued the last recession.
3) Employment - agreed but the public sector is now increasing employment again while there has been a collapse in productivity growth (may even be negative under this government).
4) Rebalancing the economy - no progress whatsoever in fact the economy is MORE unbalanced. Industrial production is down and consumer spending is up while the trade deficit has become perpetual.
Comments
1. It is inefficient. Tax policy should be about raising maximum revenues, not about making the country 'fairer'.
2. It causes people to act differently to avoid it. This is particularly true if people believe the tax will only last a short time, and therefore will avoid paying money out of companies to save tax. Longer-term, people will develop all kinds of systems to avoid paying tax - if the tax level is set at such a level that avoidance becomes worthwhile. So company owners will sell their stakes to OffShore Company (Bermuda), so that profits pile-up off-shore rather than on-shore.
3. It can have long-term effects on people's willingness to invest in a country. Income tax is a tax on work. If you tax cigarettes, you get less smoking. If you tax petrol, you get less driving. And the more you tax work, the less will be done. Obviously, there is a balance, but once (after employers' and employees' NI) you start taking almost 60%, then 'work' in this country becomes increasingly expensive.
You'll get us into trouble.
Bloody Tories...
No, hang on a minute, he's doing fine....
The verdict
It’s not just business leaders who don’t like Labour’s latest idea. The IFS is broadly on the side of the government on this one, although all economists stress the deep uncertainty which underlies this educated guesswork.
The think tank has also put a hole in Labour’s theory that more recent numbers suggest an increased rake for the taxman in the 50p years. Mr Phillips diplomatically puts this down to a “misunderstanding” of the research.
'So I had to say what I think, which is that it would be better for the country if David Cameron were to continue as Prime Minister next year.' - John Rentoul
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/01/blairite-openly-endorses-cameron.html
The sense I have got is that you have decided that Osborne and Cameron are bad'uns and therefore everything they do is tainted rather than looking at specific topics.
Avery - possibly. I don't really pay attention to his non-economics posts though (and I do skip over the yellow boxes). On economics he is clearly a fellow traveler with the Boy, so whether that is prejudging the situation or whether its just agreeing with him is more difficult to call.
I generally stick to my philosophy that - regardless of the level of income - it is a bad thing if the government is taking more than half of someone extra earnings from an extra hour of work. There's no real rationale behind that specific number, but it just feels greedy.
God knows what will happen on Wednesday.
But I've backed Spurs to win (@ 14/5 with bet365) and I've also backed City to score 4 or more goals @ 7/1 with William Hill
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/tottenham-v-man-city/total-away-goals
Our latest exhibition opens this week (until April). Free entry - highly recommended.
Lots of fun things to come and see: dodo skeletons, inuit art, Darwin's egg, a telescope that has orbited the earth, etc. Plus our rather modest London pad ;-)
http://www.twotempleplace.org/exhibitions/cornwall-exhibition/
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6527
If you can get your parents or grandparents or even you to pay in to a pension for the person affected, then it's a great tax relief as you get the child ben back too on each £ you get closer to £50k from £60k adjusted earnings!
French unemployment at record high
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25922231#
French unemployment has hit a record high with more than 3.3 million people now registered as out of work.
In December, 10,200 more people were listed as jobless, breaking President Francois Hollande's promise joblessness would fall by the year end.
The French unemployment rate is now 11.1%. It went up by 5.7% in 2013, and rose 0.3% in December.
We should also get YouGov so that will tell us whether it's a rogue or a trend we should be looking out for.
My general grievance is that I see no difference between Blair/Brown and Cameron/Osborne. Cameron, as in his own words, sees himself as the 'Heir to Blair' ie a stylish figurehead. Whereas Osborne is merely the Conservative version of Brown ie political tactics first, last and always.
Now if we judge Osborne on his economic record, which is after all what he should be concentrating on, how does his record match his targets:
1) Deficit reduction = fail
2) Rebalancing the economy = fail
3) 'March of the Makers' = fail
4) Maintaining the AAA rating = fail
Before anyone starts making excuses I'll say it doesn't matter - Osborne set his own targets, a luxury few workers have, and he has missed them.
Now perhaps some people might regard rising house prices as a target, in which case Osborne has succeeded there. But I view that as a band thing for both economic and social reasons.
My big issue has always been 'living within your means'. It might be an unfashionable thing but it has been the basis of my family's climb from renting miner's cottages a century ago to owning nice houses in nice areas now.
Unlike some people here I don't rant with fury about the 'other' side's failures and then turn a blind eye when 'my' side does likewise. I try to judge them all by the same standard.
And I see no understanding from Osborne that 'living within your means' is a worthwhile concept. Instead all I see is a willingness to spend money as the political tactics require.
That is why I have lost all respect for Osborne and likewise why I lost all respect for Cameron when he claimed to be "paying down Britain's debts" and finally why Avery aggravates me with his misuse and manipulation of the ONS data.
*I declare an interest here - I have just filled in an SA form to change my tax code, as I am in the Child Benefit Tax zone too
Ed Miliband needs to give these selfish, greedy people the News International/energy companies/Daily Mail treatment, and publicly criticise them. It's time for a mainstream politician to say that it's time for the rich to stop thinking they can throw a party at everyone else's expense, that they don't have duties to the rest of society, that they can override the democratic will of everyone else. If he does that, he can define the election as "who will be hardest on the rich", a battle which I think would be popular and which Labour would be favourites to win.
Then the country is ****ed. Look at France.
But he's clearly made up his mind whichever reason or reasons it is to laud Osborne to the heavens.
The problem this gives him is that he's committed to proving such an absolute picture of perfection out of less than perfect materials that it makes it easy to knock holes in.
And please don't refer to Osborne as the 'Boy' as it makes you sound like tim.
What we have as a problem here is the NI issue.
Con 32, Lab 37, LD 9, UKIP 10
Rather than comparing it to forecasts I try to look at the outcome:
1) Deficit reduction - moving in the right direction
2) Growth - no double dip recession (albeit mighty close) and now rebounding
3) Employment - big shift from public to private sector
4) Rebalancing of the economy - some progress, but still much to do.
Would have it been great if he could have reduced the deficit faster while not impacting growth? Yes, sure. Would it have been great if growth had been higher, or employment higher or the economy better position. Sure. But we have made very good progress over where we were, in a very difficult environment. Osborne is by no means "near perfect" but he has done a solid job. Cameron's a w*nker though.
Hmm Can't see on UKPR.
My guess is Con 36, Lab 35..
You've got more in your pension, you've got your child benefit back and you are due a tax refund on the 20% higher rate tax contribution. All thanks to your parents generosity.
This is the December poll
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/12/17/the-final-phone-poll-of-2013-has-almost-no-change-on-november/
If not then the Balls 50% trick may have failed.
We respect the embargo, other people do not.
By my calculation, I think tonight's ComRes poll boasts something we haven't seen since September 2010.
I'm guessing he has an embargoed copy and he's leaking onto twitter that CON have a lead :P
Nick Sutton @suttonnick 30m
Tuesday's Independent front page - "Exclusive - Lib Dems declare war on the rich" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers pic.twitter.com/EhfRyDepnE
As a general rule sensational polls turn out to be outliers. In 2013 3 pollsters had LAB & CON level-pegging before returning "normal"
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB5 mins
As a general rule sensational polls turn out to be outliers. In 2013 3 pollsters had LAB & CON level-pegging before returning "normal"
Expand
As a general rule sensational polls turn out to be outliers. In 2013 3 pollsters had LAB & CON level-pegging before returning "normal"
If its a ComRes crossover, surely we can expect YouGov to have a Labour lead of 8-10%
I very much doubt the poll is anything like sensational ....
I fear small polling earthquake in PB but life and death it isn't !! .... so on the basis of some movement from the last COMRES offering let's opt for a narrowing of the Labour lead to 6-8 points.
I'm here all week.
Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "Economy is growing at fastest pace since crash" #tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/Z2dIwulZYL
That said, the tweet about "first since September 2010" doesn't make sense -- ComRes last showed a Tory lead in early 2012.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/07/21/an-improving-economy-the-biggest-threat-to-the-future-of-the-uk/
If you're doing a Nighthawks you might want to add this to the 'As others see Us' comedy section.
http://tinyurl.com/n5mu3fz
'Mundell has become London's poster child for keeping the United Kingdom united, and has spent part of December carrying that message to Washington in meetings at think tanks and influential congressional offices. A lifelong Scotsman, Mundell is the only Conservative MP who represents a Scottish constituency, making him an ideal courier for David Cameron's anti-independence message...
Mundell was gearing up for a talk at the Brookings Institution the next day, where his intellectual rival, First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond, spoke earlier in the year.'
I did write a piece, but never published saying, that if Yes were only 10% behind when the campaign proper starts in June, then Yes would win, because Salmond would be able to get that kind of swing, as no has no-one who can compete with him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25921603
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead drops to just two points: CON 35%, LAB 37%, LD 9%, UKIP 13%
But it's a state secret .... filed away in a secret pocket of Mrs JackW's bloomers !!
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/01/poll-shows-yes-camp-are-within-striking-distance-of-victory/
And while it would be stupid to expect accuracy in an economics forecast it is reasonable to assume that a forecast gets things roughly right. If not then what's the point in the taxpayer paying for the OBR quango to create more economic forecasts ?
I will also point out that you can miss your forecasts on the good side as well as the bad ie that deficit reduction and growth might have been better than forecast not worse.
Osborne set his own targets and must be judged on them.
Lets compare your 4 points:
1) Deficit reduction - moving in the right direction isn't hard when you start with a deficit of £155bn is it. As it is deficit reduction is happening way behind schedule and the government debt percentage might well still be increasing when the next recession hits.
2) Growth - again below predictions. Now rebounding as you say but based upon what - rising house prices and increasing consumer spending. Exactly the same fundamental excesses which casued the last recession.
3) Employment - agreed but the public sector is now increasing employment again while there has been a collapse in productivity growth (may even be negative under this government).
4) Rebalancing the economy - no progress whatsoever in fact the economy is MORE unbalanced. Industrial production is down and consumer spending is up while the trade deficit has become perpetual.