Howdy, Stranger!

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

Why tax cuts might not be a panacea for the Tories – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 12 in General
Why tax cuts might not be a panacea for the Tories – politicalbetting.com

Yesterday it was reported that Jeremy Hunt was considering larger spending cuts in order to fund tax cuts – but asked which they think the government should prioritise, most Britons say funding public servicesFunding public services: 57%Tax cuts: 27%https://t.co/LeDrV77e9b pic.twitter.com/kioaUp39RE

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Test to see if the comments work.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,513

    Test to see if the comments work.

    I believe you.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,745
    Given the amount Hunt has taken they are hardly tax cuts. A small rebate might be nearer the mark.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,075

    Test to see if the comments work.

    Nothing works. Hence the polling results in the thread header.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,927
    Tax cuts, somewhat ironic given how high the tax take is isn't it.

    Anyway what people say versus what they do are usually two different things.

    People are all in favour of higher spending and higher taxes as long as it does not affect them.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041
    Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,309
    edited February 20
    Whatever people say to pollsters, and however fiscally irresponsible it would be to slash taxes on the basis of fictional and eye watering spending cuts post election, I think it’s still probably the government’s best chance of closing some of the gap.

    Bad news mainly for Lib Dems in the South East, unless the backlash to a tax cut is carefully calibrated.

  • Given the amount Hunt has taken they are hardly tax cuts. A small rebate might be nearer the mark.

    Yes. And people know this. They spun that they put through a tax cut in January. Cut? From a previous proposal, maybe. But in practice? Taxes went up. So when Tories keep talking up tax cuts voters assume they are stupid, or lying, or increasingly both.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,745
    edited February 20

    Good morning everybody!

    Surely, it’s not so much that the taxes are high, but they’re not seen to be fair. People who are already rich can avoid tax, or at least that is the public perception. People who are not, cannot.
    And VAT is currently twice what it was when it was introduced!

    No, taxes are high and the services are poor to indifferent. Meanwhile -bar soundbites- none of the political parties has a plan to do much about it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,763
    Given the state of the finances, perhaps a ground-up review of the scope of government is more in order. But good luck with that in an election year, it should really have been done some time ago.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041
    Nothing about investment in infrastructure and business.

    Though TBF, given how many billions this government has wasted on failed projects..
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865
    edited February 20

    Good morning everybody!

    Surely, it’s not so much that the taxes are high, but they’re not seen to be fair. People who are already rich can avoid tax, or at least that is the public perception. People who are not, cannot.
    And VAT is currently twice what it was when it was introduced!

    No, taxes are high and the services are poor to indifferent. Meanwhile -bar soundbites- none of the political parties has a plan to do much about it.
    I’m not disputing, that taxes are, in fact, high; the problem is exacerbated by the perception that, rightly or wrongly, as a proportion, the rich pay less than the poor.
    And, yes, I agree with you, wholeheartedly, services are poor!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    The state of public services suggests that cutting further would be suicidal. For a start, there is *already* a real risk of widespread collapse of local government.

    But - if it salted the earth for Labour, I can imagine this lot doing it.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,513
    Nigelb said:

    Nothing about investment in infrastructure and business.

    Though TBF, given how many billions this government has wasted on failed projects..

    The government is anticipated to commit £20 billion to carbon capture and storage this side of an autumn election.

    I don't just mean announce it again - actually sign contracts.

    Then Labour will have to find the money.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,745

    Good morning everybody!

    Surely, it’s not so much that the taxes are high, but they’re not seen to be fair. People who are already rich can avoid tax, or at least that is the public perception. People who are not, cannot.
    And VAT is currently twice what it was when it was introduced!

    No, taxes are high and the services are poor to indifferent. Meanwhile -bar soundbites- none of the political parties has a plan to do much about it.
    I’m not disputing, that taxes are, in fact, high; the problem is exacerbated by the perception that, rightly or wrongly, as a proportion, the rich pay less than the poor.
    And, yes, I agree with you, wholeheartedly, services are poor!
    That sort of depends on your definition of rich. The bigger issue I see is corporations not paying their fair whack, US tech co.s in particular.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041

    Nigelb said:

    Nothing about investment in infrastructure and business.

    Though TBF, given how many billions this government has wasted on failed projects..

    The government is anticipated to commit £20 billion to carbon capture and storage this side of an autumn election.

    I don't just mean announce it again - actually sign contracts.

    Then Labour will have to find the money.
    Or cancel it.
    Complete waste of money, IMO.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,745
    ydoethur said:

    The state of public services suggests that cutting further would be suicidal. For a start, there is *already* a real risk of widespread collapse of local government.

    But - if it salted the earth for Labour, I can imagine this lot doing it.

    Maybe, but all we are seeing is the economic model both Labour and Conservatives have followed for the last 30 years no longer works. Its main failings have been suppressing growth and wages and therefore there is less money circulating in voters pockets or to pay for services. Neither party has a plan to change the model.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,169
    I think people want the personal allowance restored and "normality" to tax returned rather than a headline cut. That's what the Conservatives should target via a LTEP.

    I also liked @Jonathan suggestion the other day of hypothecating an emergency rise to the defence budget with any structural surplus to put it on a path to boost the forces back to early noughties levels.

    It needs to be accompanied with a careful plan for MoD reform and infrastructure so it doesn't get absorbed by inflation.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041
    Labour should that any such large scale contracts signed between now and the election may be cancelled and any penalty clauses set aside.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,745
    Nigelb said:

    Labour should that any such large scale contracts signed between now and the election may be cancelled and any penalty clauses set aside.

    Lawyers will love that.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865

    Good morning everybody!

    Surely, it’s not so much that the taxes are high, but they’re not seen to be fair. People who are already rich can avoid tax, or at least that is the public perception. People who are not, cannot.
    And VAT is currently twice what it was when it was introduced!

    No, taxes are high and the services are poor to indifferent. Meanwhile -bar soundbites- none of the political parties has a plan to do much about it.
    I’m not disputing, that taxes are, in fact, high; the problem is exacerbated by the perception that, rightly or wrongly, as a proportion, the rich pay less than the poor.
    And, yes, I agree with you, wholeheartedly, services are poor!
    That sort of depends on your definition of rich. The bigger issue I see is corporations not paying their fair whack, US tech co.s in particular.
    Quite; I include corporations in my definition of “rich”!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,745
    DavidL said:

    The reason the majority want more spent rather than tax cuts is that very few public services work (in the sense of providing an adequate service) and the standard excuse for the ineptitude is "cuts".

    The real problems are much more complex involving poor management, unfocused thinking, absurd numbers of add- ons which have distracted from the original task, pointless bureaucracy and data collection, general inefficiency and laziness, ridiculous overheads arising from human resources, welfare and countless other well meaning interventions, etc etc.

    These problems are not capable of easy resolution. Although considerable progress was made in the Osborne years where the size of the Civil Service was shrunk drastically, all of that good work has now been undone and then some. We pay more and more for services which are often producing less and less.

    The idea that a bit more money could fix any of this is as pervasive as it is naive. But attitudes will not change before the election.

    Of course, as a sound money hawk I have a whole series of other reasons why a government that is running an eyewatering deficit should not be cutting taxes outside a recession. But that, I accept, is a minority viewpoint.

    Count me in on that
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,639
    The service cuts and tax rises imposed in Birmingham following bankruptcy are absolutely brutal. Who will get more blame - the Labour Council or Conservative central government? Important city for both parties.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,164
    The lead is absolutely on the money.

    Meanwhile, it transpires that Cammo’s majority governmenr KNEW, yet did nothing.

    Puts Davey’s involvement well into the shade.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041

    I think people want the personal allowance restored and "normality" to tax returned rather than a headline cut. That's what the Conservatives should target via a LTEP.

    I also liked @Jonathan suggestion the other day of hypothecating an emergency rise to the defence budget with any structural surplus to put it on a path to boost the forces back to early noughties levels.

    It needs to be accompanied with a careful plan for MoD reform and infrastructure so it doesn't get absorbed by inflation.

    That is begging the question.

    Reform needs to precede any large increase in spending, otherwise it won't happen.

    If you're advocating emergency spending, then buying munitions would give the most rapid direct return on investment. Many of our weapons systems don't have enough to fight fur more than a few days.

  • OT someone has leaked Chinese government hacking details

    Here is a thread with translations showing China's capabilities
    https://twitter.com/AzakaSekai_/status/1759326049262019025?s=20
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041
    edited February 20

    Nigelb said:

    Labour should that any such large scale contracts signed between now and the election may be cancelled and any penalty clauses set aside.

    Lawyers will love that.
    Legislation can tell them to go do one.

    There's absolutely no justification for this failed government - a few months ahead of an election - to commit tens of billions to a deeply questionable spending on making fossil fuels yet more expensive.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,164
    edited February 20
    FPT:

    Last night I dreamed I got a tax cut. But when I woke up, it wasn’t there.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,169
    I think people want the personal allowance restored and "no
    Nigelb said:

    I think people want the personal allowance restored and "normality" to tax returned rather than a headline cut. That's what the Conservatives should target via a LTEP.

    I also liked @Jonathan suggestion the other day of hypothecating an emergency rise to the defence budget with any structural surplus to put it on a path to boost the forces back to early noughties levels.

    It needs to be accompanied with a careful plan for MoD reform and infrastructure so it doesn't get absorbed by inflation.

    That is begging the question.

    Reform needs to precede any large increase in spending, otherwise it won't happen.

    If you're advocating emergency spending, then buying munitions would give the most rapid direct return on investment. Many of our weapons systems don't have enough to fight fur more than a few days.

    It's complex. We've sold off a lot of MoD estate over the last 25 years so you need the infrastructure as well as the men, and then you need the people to train them and plans to deploy them. Plus, you have the British disease of gold-plating every spec and not making any decision at all if you can avoid it.

    There needs to be recruitment of great project and programme leaders first under a talented Chief who can lead a reconstitution board with lots of delegated authority.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,147
    edited February 20
    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation*.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    *Proper generation, not a Scot Nat one.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,094
    As ever, a thoughtful piece from John Harris on the by-election in Wellingborough. Streets ahead of most political commentators.


    "The byelection results, the Labour leader says, “show people want change”. But what exactly is it, and when will it come? Wellingborough, like so many other places, will soon demand an answer."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/18/wellingborough-keir-starmer-labour-byelections
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,745
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Labour should that any such large scale contracts signed between now and the election may be cancelled and any penalty clauses set aside.

    Lawyers will love that.
    Legislation can tell them to go do one.

    There's absolutely no justification for this failed government - a few months ahead of an election - to commit tens of billions to a deeply questionable spending on making fossil fuels yet more expensive.
    There isnt any money to spend
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,164

    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    A party with such ability to think and plan for the long term should be put into power immediately!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,169
    DavidL said:

    The reason the majority want more spent rather than tax cuts is that very few public services work (in the sense of providing an adequate service) and the standard excuse for the ineptitude is "cuts".

    The real problems are much more complex involving poor management, unfocused thinking, absurd numbers of add- ons which have distracted from the original task, pointless bureaucracy and data collection, general inefficiency and laziness, ridiculous overheads arising from human resources, welfare and countless other well meaning interventions, etc etc.

    These problems are not capable of easy resolution. Although considerable progress was made in the Osborne years where the size of the Civil Service was shrunk drastically, all of that good work has now been undone and then some. We pay more and more for services which are often producing less and less.

    The idea that a bit more money could fix any of this is as pervasive as it is naive. But attitudes will not change before the election.

    Of course, as a sound money hawk I have a whole series of other reasons why a government that is running an eyewatering deficit should not be cutting taxes outside a recession. But that, I accept, is a minority viewpoint.

    Like @Sean_F has said before it'd be very easy for us to get Scandinavian levels of tax but American levels of public services.

    I'd guess the "value" of any extra pound of tax we put into public services at the moment is probably 30p (at best) terms of extra output. The rest just gets absorbed by wages, backroom roles, inflation and overhead.
  • IanB2 said:

    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    A party with such ability to think and plan for the long term should be put into power immediately!
    Indeed, as a republican she got rid of the Queen as well.
  • I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041

    I think people want the personal allowance restored and "no

    Nigelb said:

    I think people want the personal allowance restored and "normality" to tax returned rather than a headline cut. That's what the Conservatives should target via a LTEP.

    I also liked @Jonathan suggestion the other day of hypothecating an emergency rise to the defence budget with any structural surplus to put it on a path to boost the forces back to early noughties levels.

    It needs to be accompanied with a careful plan for MoD reform and infrastructure so it doesn't get absorbed by inflation.

    That is begging the question.

    Reform needs to precede any large increase in spending, otherwise it won't happen.

    If you're advocating emergency spending, then buying munitions would give the most rapid direct return on investment. Many of our weapons systems don't have enough to fight fur more than a few days.

    It's complex. We've sold off a lot of MoD estate over the last 25 years so you need the infrastructure as well as the men, and then you need the people to train them and plans to deploy them. Plus, you have the British disease of gold-plating every spec and not making any decision at all if you can avoid it.

    There needs to be recruitment of great project and programme leaders first under a talented Chief who can lead a reconstitution board with lots of delegated authority.
    Yes, it's complex.
    That's why an 'emergency' rush to increase spending risks wasting most of the money.

    There's comparatively easy stuff like munitions (shells; missiles etc) which can be done quickly, and which will improve capability.

    Anything beyond that needs a great deal of debate. An incoming set of ministers probably with no experience of either government or defence procurement are just going to do what their civil servants and service chiefs advise - with predictable consequences.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,513
    Nigelb said:

    I think people want the personal allowance restored and "normality" to tax returned rather than a headline cut. That's what the Conservatives should target via a LTEP.

    I also liked @Jonathan suggestion the other day of hypothecating an emergency rise to the defence budget with any structural surplus to put it on a path to boost the forces back to early noughties levels.

    It needs to be accompanied with a careful plan for MoD reform and infrastructure so it doesn't get absorbed by inflation.

    That is begging the question.

    Reform needs to precede any large increase in spending, otherwise it won't happen.

    If you're advocating emergency spending, then buying munitions would give the most rapid direct return on investment. Many of our weapons systems don't have enough to fight fur more than a few days.

    "the most rapid direct return on investment"

    In other words, more bang for your buck.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Labour should that any such large scale contracts signed between now and the election may be cancelled and any penalty clauses set aside.

    Lawyers will love that.
    Legislation can tell them to go do one.

    There's absolutely no justification for this failed government - a few months ahead of an election - to commit tens of billions to a deeply questionable spending on making fossil fuels yet more expensive.
    There isnt any money to spend
    That is the point.
    The current lot have already salted the ground. They shouldn't be allowed to make it worse.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,513

    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    The rich will circulate some of their tax cut to the Conservative Party.

  • I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,164
    Roger said:
    Some of the analysis - as one aspect of the problem - is likely sound, but half way through the article spins off into the author’s pet project.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,309

    I think people want the personal allowance restored and "normality" to tax returned rather than a headline cut. That's what the Conservatives should target via a LTEP.

    I also liked @Jonathan suggestion the other day of hypothecating an emergency rise to the defence budget with any structural surplus to put it on a path to boost the forces back to early noughties levels.

    It needs to be accompanied with a careful plan for MoD reform and infrastructure so it doesn't get absorbed by inflation.

    Yes, the system has got progressively distorted over the last few years and no longer makes much sense. You wouldn’t start from here. Might as well use the final budget to attempt to rectify some of this.

    As commented on by a tax professional this morning in CityAM.

    https://x.com/cityam/status/1759839804357837157?s=46
  • TimS said:

    Whatever people say to pollsters, and however fiscally irresponsible it would be to slash taxes on the basis of fictional and eye watering spending cuts post election, I think it’s still probably the government’s best chance of closing some of the gap.

    Bad news mainly for Lib Dems in the South East, unless the backlash to a tax cut is carefully calibrated.

    I have to disagree. Tax cuts would likely be manna from heaven for the LibDems in the South East. The population there is generally the most politically aware and relatively affluent in the country. Tax cuts (IHT excepted) would have only marginal importance to their finances, whilst they are increasingly annoyed by the appalling state of public services.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,169
    .

    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
    The problem is that "the rich" are now considered to be anyone earning more than 100k, which, post-inflation, is probably only equivalent to 70k a few years ago.

    I've just been put on a K-code for FY24-25 which is a negative personal allowance- I.e. they artificially raise my income so I get to pay extra tax.

    It's why I'm seriously eyeing up Canada, the US and Oz now, even though I don't want to.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 3,630
    Most people engage with public services, whether that is healthcare, local council, public transport, etc. etc. Most people do not feel the benefit of a 2% tax cut, especially if the energy price cap will just go up again (as it did in January) and so on.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455
    Britain is so comprehensively fucked we need some kind of miracle to save us

    Weirdly, however, that might be happening. AI is a technological miracle

    What we have singularly failed to do in many decades - raise UK productivity - AI can do virtually overnight. Tho it will be crap for everyone that loses a job they love
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,309

    TimS said:

    Whatever people say to pollsters, and however fiscally irresponsible it would be to slash taxes on the basis of fictional and eye watering spending cuts post election, I think it’s still probably the government’s best chance of closing some of the gap.

    Bad news mainly for Lib Dems in the South East, unless the backlash to a tax cut is carefully calibrated.

    I have to disagree. Tax cuts would likely be manna from heaven for the LibDems in the South East. The population there is generally the most politically aware and relatively affluent in the country. Tax cuts (IHT excepted) would have only marginal importance to their finances, whilst they are increasingly annoyed by the appalling state of public services.
    My scar tissue from a couple of decades of Lib Dem membership tells me this one core truth: if something can go wrong, it usually does.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,986

    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
    In a 2010 report, the IFS concluded that the tax cuts had "a small positive effect on economic growth" and that they "increased government revenue in the short term, but in the long term they had a small negative effect on revenue."
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    DavidL said:

    The reason the majority want more spent rather than tax cuts is that very few public services work (in the sense of providing an adequate service) and the standard excuse for the ineptitude is "cuts".

    The real problems are much more complex involving poor management, unfocused thinking, absurd numbers of add- ons which have distracted from the original task, pointless bureaucracy and data collection, general inefficiency and laziness, ridiculous overheads arising from human resources, welfare and countless other well meaning interventions, etc etc.

    These problems are not capable of easy resolution. Although considerable progress was made in the Osborne years where the size of the Civil Service was shrunk drastically, all of that good work has now been undone and then some. We pay more and more for services which are often producing less and less.

    The idea that a bit more money could fix any of this is as pervasive as it is naive. But attitudes will not change before the election.

    Of course, as a sound money hawk I have a whole series of other reasons why a government that is running an eyewatering deficit should not be cutting taxes outside a recession. But that, I accept, is a minority viewpoint.

    The DfE has grown in size by 60% since 2010.

    Admittedly this is balanced by drastic cuts in LEAs - many of which have effectively ceased to function as a result - but I'm not convinced replacing a load of cheap local government administrators scattered across the country with expensive core civil servants based in London is exactly a good use of resources.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,983

    .

    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
    The problem is that "the rich" are now considered to be anyone earning more than 100k, which, post-inflation, is probably only equivalent to 70k a few years ago.

    I've just been put on a K-code for FY24-25 which is a negative personal allowance- I.e. they artificially raise my income so I get to pay extra tax.

    It's why I'm seriously eyeing up Canada, the US and Oz now, even though I don't want to.
    I've been in this situation for years, yet despite being a woke lefty who no doubt hates Britain I am happy to contribute to our national coffers and have no intention of leaving. PB flag shaggers please explain!
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,116

    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
    Having a Laff eh?

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,169
    .
    TimS said:

    I think people want the personal allowance restored and "normality" to tax returned rather than a headline cut. That's what the Conservatives should target via a LTEP.

    I also liked @Jonathan suggestion the other day of hypothecating an emergency rise to the defence budget with any structural surplus to put it on a path to boost the forces back to early noughties levels.

    It needs to be accompanied with a careful plan for MoD reform and infrastructure so it doesn't get absorbed by inflation.

    Yes, the system has got progressively distorted over the last few years and no longer makes much sense. You wouldn’t start from here. Might as well use the final budget to attempt to rectify some of this.

    As commented on by a tax professional this morning in CityAM.

    https://x.com/cityam/status/1759839804357837157?s=46
    No chance. The defining characteristic of our politicians today is ignorance and lack of courage.

    Anything that requires a difficult argument to be made in public, hard work, and a degree of bravery can be flushed straight out the window.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,866
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    The reason the majority want more spent rather than tax cuts is that very few public services work (in the sense of providing an adequate service) and the standard excuse for the ineptitude is "cuts".

    The real problems are much more complex involving poor management, unfocused thinking, absurd numbers of add- ons which have distracted from the original task, pointless bureaucracy and data collection, general inefficiency and laziness, ridiculous overheads arising from human resources, welfare and countless other well meaning interventions, etc etc.

    These problems are not capable of easy resolution. Although considerable progress was made in the Osborne years where the size of the Civil Service was shrunk drastically, all of that good work has now been undone and then some. We pay more and more for services which are often producing less and less.

    The idea that a bit more money could fix any of this is as pervasive as it is naive. But attitudes will not change before the election.

    Of course, as a sound money hawk I have a whole series of other reasons why a government that is running an eyewatering deficit should not be cutting taxes outside a recession. But that, I accept, is a minority viewpoint.

    The DfE has grown in size by 60% since 2010.

    Admittedly this is balanced by drastic cuts in LEAs - many of which have effectively ceased to function as a result - but I'm not convinced replacing a load of cheap local government administrators scattered across the country with expensive core civil servants based in London is exactly a good use of resources.
    That’s only half of the additional costs - don’t forget all the costs the multi academy trusts create as well.

    Then you have the secondary issue of little jeopardy within those trusts, school doesn’t work out just dump it on another trust wishing to expand
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,169

    .

    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
    The problem is that "the rich" are now considered to be anyone earning more than 100k, which, post-inflation, is probably only equivalent to 70k a few years ago.

    I've just been put on a K-code for FY24-25 which is a negative personal allowance- I.e. they artificially raise my income so I get to pay extra tax.

    It's why I'm seriously eyeing up Canada, the US and Oz now, even though I don't want to.
    I've been in this situation for years, yet despite being a woke lefty who no doubt hates Britain I am happy to contribute to our national coffers and have no intention of leaving. PB flag shaggers please explain!
    Who isn't happy to contribute? But do you think there's no upper limit to that?

    When you're paying 60% or 70% effective taxation then work doesn't pay.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,639
    IanB2 said:

    The lead is absolutely on the money.

    Meanwhile, it transpires that Cammo’s majority governmenr KNEW, yet did nothing.

    Puts Davey’s involvement well into the shade.

    The BBC article also implies the Horizon Inquiry is deliberately minimising scrutiny of government involvement in the scandal

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68146054
  • I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
    America has also had tax cuts. 40 seconds of AOC on the consequences
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/axdQmbCh-Io
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466
    edited February 20

    .

    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
    The problem is that "the rich" are now considered to be anyone earning more than 100k, which, post-inflation, is probably only equivalent to 70k a few years ago.

    I've just been put on a K-code for FY24-25 which is a negative personal allowance- I.e. they artificially raise my income so I get to pay extra tax.

    It's why I'm seriously eyeing up Canada, the US and Oz now, even though I don't want to.
    I've been in this situation for years, yet despite being a woke lefty who no doubt hates Britain I am happy to contribute to our national coffers and have no intention of leaving. PB flag shaggers please explain!
    One has to try not to get knocked down in the Gadarene stampede of Brexiters throwing petrol and lit matches around and then screaming 'Fire!' in a crowded auditorium and rushing for the exit.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,169

    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
    America has also had tax cuts. 40 seconds of AOC on the consequences
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/axdQmbCh-Io
    As soon as I saw "AOC" I ignored the link.

    It's like listening to Jeremy Corbyn on the matter.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,818
    It’s been suggested in here before that the spending by government should be itemised on tax bills to show the areas that each taxpayer is contributing to in proportion and I think it’s a great idea.

    The first page of everyone’s tax bill each year should show in bold what you have to pay and then below a breakdown of areas such as Education, NHs, Defence etc with the % of gov spending on it and the actual figure from your tax that corresponds to.

    This way everyone gets to see the real effect of what their tax pays for. They might think, “that’s cool, I’m glad so much of my hard earned goes on the NHS and pensions” or they might think that there are some issues with such huge spending on certain areas and so, as better informed, they can lobby or vote for those who support or want to change these things.

    Now someone will pint out that it already happens in the UK and I will feel like a total moron.
  • On topic, you need to be very careful about tax and spend polling, as you get wildly different results depending on how the question is framed. This one has an element of "Do you believe the Government should prioritise public services... or are you a selfish arsehole?"

    If Hunt does go for tax cuts, he's not going to frame it as, "I'm sacking nurses so bankers can have extra jam!" He'll say something like, "We're targeting waste, and have an economic plan that is working, so I'm delighted to be able to say that, as well as record spending on schools and hospitals, I can give something back to you, the hardworking families of Britain."

    Others will try to frame it differently, of course - but Hunt gets first go at it, and has a fair bit of the press onside.

    Additionally, Conservatives will reason, not without justification, that people are in fact rather more selfish than they admit to pollsters.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,986
    Barnesian said:

    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
    In a 2010 report, the IFS concluded that the tax cuts had "a small positive effect on economic growth" and that they "increased government revenue in the short term, but in the long term they had a small negative effect on revenue."
    As Chair of a public company Remuneration Committee I was aware that any declared reduction in income tax or capital gains tax would lead to senior management asking for a delay in payment of their bonuses to the next year. This was a widespread practice and reduced the tax take in the earlier higher tax year and increased it in the following lower tax year. It was an artificial effect.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,530
    Leon said:

    Britain is so comprehensively fucked we need some kind of miracle to save us

    Weirdly, however, that might be happening. AI is a technological miracle

    What we have singularly failed to do in many decades - raise UK productivity - AI can do virtually overnight. Tho it will be crap for everyone that loses a job they love

    So to summarise
    • AI will bring mass unemployment bringing social unrest
    • And the enormous problems inherent when no image, audio or video is trustable
    • But productivity will go up
    • So that's OK
    Hmm.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,530

    ydoethur said:

    The state of public services suggests that cutting further would be suicidal. For a start, there is *already* a real risk of widespread collapse of local government.

    But - if it salted the earth for Labour, I can imagine this lot doing it.

    Maybe, but all we are seeing is the economic model both Labour and Conservatives have followed for the last 30 years no longer works. Its main failings have been suppressing growth and wages and therefore there is less money circulating in voters pockets or to pay for services. Neither party has a plan to change the model.
    Yup
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455
    viewcode said:

    Leon said:

    Britain is so comprehensively fucked we need some kind of miracle to save us

    Weirdly, however, that might be happening. AI is a technological miracle

    What we have singularly failed to do in many decades - raise UK productivity - AI can do virtually overnight. Tho it will be crap for everyone that loses a job they love

    So to summarise
    • AI will bring mass unemployment bringing social unrest
    • And the enormous problems inherent when no image, audio or video is trustable
    • But productivity will go up
    • So that's OK
    Hmm.
    I've been researching AI and I am trying to be cheerful

    It is, I confess, easy to see a much more dystopian outcome - you are right

    Either way, the tech revolution is about to render much of our parochial economic discourse completely irrelevant and trivially unimportant
  • boulay said:

    It’s been suggested in here before that the spending by government should be itemised on tax bills to show the areas that each taxpayer is contributing to in proportion and I think it’s a great idea.

    The first page of everyone’s tax bill each year should show in bold what you have to pay and then below a breakdown of areas such as Education, NHs, Defence etc with the % of gov spending on it and the actual figure from your tax that corresponds to.

    This way everyone gets to see the real effect of what their tax pays for. They might think, “that’s cool, I’m glad so much of my hard earned goes on the NHS and pensions” or they might think that there are some issues with such huge spending on certain areas and so, as better informed, they can lobby or vote for those who support or want to change these things.

    Now someone will pint out that it already happens in the UK and I will feel like a total moron.

    It does already happen in the UK. It's on your annual tax summary. Arguably, it should be made more prominent, but it's there.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455

    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
    America has also had tax cuts. 40 seconds of AOC on the consequences
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/axdQmbCh-Io
    As soon as I saw "AOC" I ignored the link.

    It's like listening to Jeremy Corbyn on the matter.
    Hmm

    She's a lot easier on the eye....
  • eekeek Posts: 24,866

    .

    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
    The problem is that "the rich" are now considered to be anyone earning more than 100k, which, post-inflation, is probably only equivalent to 70k a few years ago.

    I've just been put on a K-code for FY24-25 which is a negative personal allowance- I.e. they artificially raise my income so I get to pay extra tax.

    It's why I'm seriously eyeing up Canada, the US and Oz now, even though I don't want to.
    I’m also on a K code - which is ironic because it’s only there as HMRC have made invalid assumptions. Come April 6th HMRC owe me £5000
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,309

    .

    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
    The problem is that "the rich" are now considered to be anyone earning more than 100k, which, post-inflation, is probably only equivalent to 70k a few years ago.

    I've just been put on a K-code for FY24-25 which is a negative personal allowance- I.e. they artificially raise my income so I get to pay extra tax.

    It's why I'm seriously eyeing up Canada, the US and Oz now, even though I don't want to.
    I've been in this situation for years, yet despite being a woke lefty who no doubt hates Britain I am happy to contribute to our national coffers and have no intention of leaving. PB flag shaggers please explain!
    2 scenarios would push me to leave the country and become someone else’s
    immigrant. Either:

    1. The UK ceases to be a free democracy (I become an asylum seeker), or
    2. The economy collapses so far that my family’s livelihood is at risk (I become an economic migrant)

    Obviously aside from that there are plenty of of pull factors like retirement somewhere warm, exciting new job etc but those would be the two push factors.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,542
    edited February 20
    The first thing to fix in public services is staff retention. That will cost money upfront, but it is cheaper in the long run than ridiculous schemes where we pay the same people who have left, doing the same job, 3 or 4x their salary as contractors whilst losing control of their hours and creating understandable jealousy from the remaining permanent contracted staff. So because we don't want to pay them 7% more we pay a proportion of them 200-300% more and the others 4-5% more after long strikes.

    It is an easy, if initially costly, fix, that does start saving money further down the line.

    That would be my priority with any fiscal headroom.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 3,630

    .

    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
    The problem is that "the rich" are now considered to be anyone earning more than 100k, which, post-inflation, is probably only equivalent to 70k a few years ago.

    I've just been put on a K-code for FY24-25 which is a negative personal allowance- I.e. they artificially raise my income so I get to pay extra tax.

    It's why I'm seriously eyeing up Canada, the US and Oz now, even though I don't want to.
    Someone earning £100k is in the top 5% of earners in the UK.

    This is where, I fear, the level of income on this forum being wildly out of sync with the vast majority of people leads to a huge bias against taxing and spending. Most people want more taxes on the richest people, not less.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/are-taxes-on-the-rich-too-high-or-low-in-britain

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/which-annual-income-bracket-should-be-significantly-taxed-more
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,818

    boulay said:

    It’s been suggested in here before that the spending by government should be itemised on tax bills to show the areas that each taxpayer is contributing to in proportion and I think it’s a great idea.

    The first page of everyone’s tax bill each year should show in bold what you have to pay and then below a breakdown of areas such as Education, NHs, Defence etc with the % of gov spending on it and the actual figure from your tax that corresponds to.

    This way everyone gets to see the real effect of what their tax pays for. They might think, “that’s cool, I’m glad so much of my hard earned goes on the NHS and pensions” or they might think that there are some issues with such huge spending on certain areas and so, as better informed, they can lobby or vote for those who support or want to change these things.

    Now someone will pint out that it already happens in the UK and I will feel like a total moron.

    It does already happen in the UK. It's on your annual tax summary. Arguably, it should be made more prominent, but it's there.
    Thanks, I shall now retire to ConHome where my ignorance won’t be noticed.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466
    boulay said:

    boulay said:

    It’s been suggested in here before that the spending by government should be itemised on tax bills to show the areas that each taxpayer is contributing to in proportion and I think it’s a great idea.

    The first page of everyone’s tax bill each year should show in bold what you have to pay and then below a breakdown of areas such as Education, NHs, Defence etc with the % of gov spending on it and the actual figure from your tax that corresponds to.

    This way everyone gets to see the real effect of what their tax pays for. They might think, “that’s cool, I’m glad so much of my hard earned goes on the NHS and pensions” or they might think that there are some issues with such huge spending on certain areas and so, as better informed, they can lobby or vote for those who support or want to change these things.

    Now someone will pint out that it already happens in the UK and I will feel like a total moron.

    It does already happen in the UK. It's on your annual tax summary. Arguably, it should be made more prominent, but it's there.
    Thanks, I shall now retire to ConHome where my ignorance won’t be noticed.
    If it's any consolation, I was admiring the subtle irony of your post!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455
    Overlooked in the fuss over OpenAI's Sora is DeepMind's Gemini 1.5 Pro - which was unveiled, literally, 2 hours prior

    In a very dfferent way it is equally incredible - it can process, summarise and extract information with stunning ease


    eg To demo Gemini 1.5’s capabilities, Google fed it the entire 402 page transcript of the Apollo 11 mission. They then asked Gemini to find “three comedic moments” within that text.

    It did so, in 30 seconds – eg it found astronaut Michael Collins “betting someone a cup of coffee”

    This bears repeating, Google didn’t search for specific words, the researchers asked a machine to find “three funny bits” in 402 pages. It did so.

    And this is my fave bit, they also showed Gemini a simple and rubbish drawing, apparently by a 4 year old, of what could be a treading boot. They asked Gemini to identify this moment in the document, using just the child-like drawing. Gemini correctly identified it as picturing the moment Neil Armstrong stepped on to the lunar surface

    https://blog.google/technology/ai/google-gemini-next-generation-model-february-2024/?utm_source=gdm&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=gemini24
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,983

    .

    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
    The problem is that "the rich" are now considered to be anyone earning more than 100k, which, post-inflation, is probably only equivalent to 70k a few years ago.

    I've just been put on a K-code for FY24-25 which is a negative personal allowance- I.e. they artificially raise my income so I get to pay extra tax.

    It's why I'm seriously eyeing up Canada, the US and Oz now, even though I don't want to.
    I've been in this situation for years, yet despite being a woke lefty who no doubt hates Britain I am happy to contribute to our national coffers and have no intention of leaving. PB flag shaggers please explain!
    Who isn't happy to contribute? But do you think there's no upper limit to that?

    When you're paying 60% or 70% effective taxation then work doesn't pay.
    Yeah it is annoying, I probably pay about 60-70% of my income in tax once you add up the income tax, NI, VAT, stamp duty etc etc. And for that I get crumbling and understaffed schools, doctors I can't get a appointment at, roads full of potholes, and police that are never around when kids are getting mugged in our neighbourhood. But that's what happens when you have a government that keeps making stupid decisions, from Brexit downwards. The solution is to get a government that's not venal and dumb, and stay and work hard and contribute so the country has a chance of improving. You seem to have a genuine love of your country (even though you seem to also hate some parts of it) so I am surprised you're ready to jack it all in and go somewhere else - especially when your lot have been in charge for all this time.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,169

    On topic, you need to be very careful about tax and spend polling, as you get wildly different results depending on how the question is framed. This one has an element of "Do you believe the Government should prioritise public services... or are you a selfish arsehole?"

    If Hunt does go for tax cuts, he's not going to frame it as, "I'm sacking nurses so bankers can have extra jam!" He'll say something like, "We're targeting waste, and have an economic plan that is working, so I'm delighted to be able to say that, as well as record spending on schools and hospitals, I can give something back to you, the hardworking families of Britain."

    Others will try to frame it differently, of course - but Hunt gets first go at it, and has a fair bit of the press onside.

    Additionally, Conservatives will reason, not without justification, that people are in fact rather more selfish than they admit to pollsters.

    Carnyx said:

    .

    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
    The problem is that "the rich" are now considered to be anyone earning more than 100k, which, post-inflation, is probably only equivalent to 70k a few years ago.

    I've just been put on a K-code for FY24-25 which is a negative personal allowance- I.e. they artificially raise my income so I get to pay extra tax.

    It's why I'm seriously eyeing up Canada, the US and Oz now, even though I don't want to.
    I've been in this situation for years, yet despite being a woke lefty who no doubt hates Britain I am happy to contribute to our national coffers and have no intention of leaving. PB flag shaggers please explain!
    One has to try not to get knocked down in the Gadarene stampede of Brexiters throwing petrol and lit matches around and then screaming 'Fire!' in a crowded auditorium and rushing for the exit.
    The real tragedy is that you think this is a clever and witty post.

    The 100k personal allowance withdrawal policy was brought in during 2009.
  • I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
    America has also had tax cuts. 40 seconds of AOC on the consequences
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/axdQmbCh-Io
    As soon as I saw "AOC" I ignored the link.

    It's like listening to Jeremy Corbyn on the matter.
    Not worth risking 40 seconds in case she is right? You can always play it at a higher speed.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,169

    On topic, you need to be very careful about tax and spend polling, as you get wildly different results depending on how the question is framed. This one has an element of "Do you believe the Government should prioritise public services... or are you a selfish arsehole?"

    If Hunt does go for tax cuts, he's not going to frame it as, "I'm sacking nurses so bankers can have extra jam!" He'll say something like, "We're targeting waste, and have an economic plan that is working, so I'm delighted to be able to say that, as well as record spending on schools and hospitals, I can give something back to you, the hardworking families of Britain."

    Others will try to frame it differently, of course - but Hunt gets first go at it, and has a fair bit of the press onside.

    Additionally, Conservatives will reason, not without justification, that people are in fact rather more selfish than they admit to pollsters.

    Tax rises are popular for other people.

    By the same token, tax cuts are popular for those who might benefit from them.

    What people want is great public services and cash benefits but not to pay for them.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455
    If your job involves extracting, analysing or summarising information - visual or textual - you too are fucked


    "This was pretty amazing: I got access to the 1 million token Gemini Pro, and fed in the 20 papers and books that made up my academic work prior to 2022, over 1000+ pages of PDFs

    It was able to extract direct quotes & find themes across all of them with only quite minor errors..."

    https://x.com/emollick/status/1759774087767900346?s=20


    Historians are screwed?
  • Leon said:

    Overlooked in the fuss over OpenAI's Sora is DeepMind's Gemini 1.5 Pro - which was unveiled, literally, 2 hours prior

    In a very dfferent way it is equally incredible - it can process, summarise and extract information with stunning ease


    eg To demo Gemini 1.5’s capabilities, Google fed it the entire 402 page transcript of the Apollo 11 mission. They then asked Gemini to find “three comedic moments” within that text.

    It did so, in 30 seconds – eg it found astronaut Michael Collins “betting someone a cup of coffee”

    This bears repeating, Google didn’t search for specific words, the researchers asked a machine to find “three funny bits” in 402 pages. It did so.

    And this is my fave bit, they also showed Gemini a simple and rubbish drawing, apparently by a 4 year old, of what could be a treading boot. They asked Gemini to identify this moment in the document, using just the child-like drawing. Gemini correctly identified it as picturing the moment Neil Armstrong stepped on to the lunar surface

    https://blog.google/technology/ai/google-gemini-next-generation-model-february-2024/?utm_source=gdm&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=gemini24

    Deep Mind was another British firm sold to America (in this case, Google). Great for the founders; good for AI; bad for this country's long term prospects.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,955
    Taz said:

    Tax cuts, somewhat ironic given how high the tax take is isn't it.

    Anyway what people say versus what they do are usually two different things.

    People are all in favour of higher spending and higher taxes as long as it does not affect them.

    That is the orthodoxy, but this government have already tried "tax cuts"* and they didn't do them much good. Maybe, after Truss, with things as bad as they are with public services, the public might temporarily have a different view.

    * Although I think it's also important to now that fiscal drag means that taxes have actually gone up, not been cut, and this will likely continue to be true, regardless of any headline cut to tax rates. Being told your taxes have been cut, but having less money leftover, would certainly make me irate.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,169
    .

    .

    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
    The problem is that "the rich" are now considered to be anyone earning more than 100k, which, post-inflation, is probably only equivalent to 70k a few years ago.

    I've just been put on a K-code for FY24-25 which is a negative personal allowance- I.e. they artificially raise my income so I get to pay extra tax.

    It's why I'm seriously eyeing up Canada, the US and Oz now, even though I don't want to.
    I've been in this situation for years, yet despite being a woke lefty who no doubt hates Britain I am happy to contribute to our national coffers and have no intention of leaving. PB flag shaggers please explain!
    Who isn't happy to contribute? But do you think there's no upper limit to that?

    When you're paying 60% or 70% effective taxation then work doesn't pay.
    Yeah it is annoying, I probably pay about 60-70% of my income in tax once you add up the income tax, NI, VAT, stamp duty etc etc. And for that I get crumbling and understaffed schools, doctors I can't get a appointment at, roads full of potholes, and police that are never around when kids are getting mugged in our neighbourhood. But that's what happens when you have a government that keeps making stupid decisions, from Brexit downwards. The solution is to get a government that's not venal and dumb, and stay and work hard and contribute so the country has a chance of improving. You seem to have a genuine love of your country (even though you seem to also hate some parts of it) so I am surprised you're ready to jack it all in and go somewhere else - especially when your lot have been in charge for all this time.
    Which government brought in the 100k withdrawal policy?

    This isn't a partisan dig by the way, but it wasn't this one - although I do blame this one for not reversing it - and I don't have much confidence in any government of any stripe to take the tough decisions needed.
  • On topic, you need to be very careful about tax and spend polling, as you get wildly different results depending on how the question is framed. This one has an element of "Do you believe the Government should prioritise public services... or are you a selfish arsehole?"

    If Hunt does go for tax cuts, he's not going to frame it as, "I'm sacking nurses so bankers can have extra jam!" He'll say something like, "We're targeting waste, and have an economic plan that is working, so I'm delighted to be able to say that, as well as record spending on schools and hospitals, I can give something back to you, the hardworking families of Britain."

    Others will try to frame it differently, of course - but Hunt gets first go at it, and has a fair bit of the press onside.

    Additionally, Conservatives will reason, not without justification, that people are in fact rather more selfish than they admit to pollsters.

    Tax rises are popular for other people.

    By the same token, tax cuts are popular for those who might benefit from them.

    What people want is great public services and cash benefits but not to pay for them.
    Yes but given a forced choice, say at an election, polling suggests they will vote for better services.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,818
    Carnyx said:

    boulay said:

    boulay said:

    It’s been suggested in here before that the spending by government should be itemised on tax bills to show the areas that each taxpayer is contributing to in proportion and I think it’s a great idea.

    The first page of everyone’s tax bill each year should show in bold what you have to pay and then below a breakdown of areas such as Education, NHs, Defence etc with the % of gov spending on it and the actual figure from your tax that corresponds to.

    This way everyone gets to see the real effect of what their tax pays for. They might think, “that’s cool, I’m glad so much of my hard earned goes on the NHS and pensions” or they might think that there are some issues with such huge spending on certain areas and so, as better informed, they can lobby or vote for those who support or want to change these things.

    Now someone will pint out that it already happens in the UK and I will feel like a total moron.

    It does already happen in the UK. It's on your annual tax summary. Arguably, it should be made more prominent, but it's there.
    Thanks, I shall now retire to ConHome where my ignorance won’t be noticed.
    If it's any consolation, I was admiring the subtle irony of your post!
    Wait, what, I can do subtle irony?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,164

    On topic, you need to be very careful about tax and spend polling, as you get wildly different results depending on how the question is framed. This one has an element of "Do you believe the Government should prioritise public services... or are you a selfish arsehole?"

    If Hunt does go for tax cuts, he's not going to frame it as, "I'm sacking nurses so bankers can have extra jam!" He'll say something like, "We're targeting waste, and have an economic plan that is working, so I'm delighted to be able to say that, as well as record spending on schools and hospitals, I can give something back to you, the hardworking families of Britain."

    Others will try to frame it differently, of course - but Hunt gets first go at it, and has a fair bit of the press onside.

    Additionally, Conservatives will reason, not without justification, that people are in fact rather more selfish than they admit to pollsters.

    Carnyx said:

    .

    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
    The problem is that "the rich" are now considered to be anyone earning more than 100k, which, post-inflation, is probably only equivalent to 70k a few years ago.

    I've just been put on a K-code for FY24-25 which is a negative personal allowance- I.e. they artificially raise my income so I get to pay extra tax.

    It's why I'm seriously eyeing up Canada, the US and Oz now, even though I don't want to.
    I've been in this situation for years, yet despite being a woke lefty who no doubt hates Britain I am happy to contribute to our national coffers and have no intention of leaving. PB flag shaggers please explain!
    One has to try not to get knocked down in the Gadarene stampede of Brexiters throwing petrol and lit matches around and then screaming 'Fire!' in a crowded auditorium and rushing for the exit.
    The real tragedy is that you think this is a clever and witty post.

    The 100k personal allowance withdrawal policy was brought in during 2009.
    During all these years, what have the Tories done about it?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,302
    boulay said:

    It’s been suggested in here before that the spending by government should be itemised on tax bills to show the areas that each taxpayer is contributing to in proportion and I think it’s a great idea.

    The first page of everyone’s tax bill each year should show in bold what you have to pay and then below a breakdown of areas such as Education, NHs, Defence etc with the % of gov spending on it and the actual figure from your tax that corresponds to.

    This way everyone gets to see the real effect of what their tax pays for. They might think, “that’s cool, I’m glad so much of my hard earned goes on the NHS and pensions” or they might think that there are some issues with such huge spending on certain areas and so, as better informed, they can lobby or vote for those who support or want to change these things.

    Now someone will pint out that it already happens in the UK and I will feel like a total moron.

    It happens locally - at least my council does it in a leaflet with council tax statements, spelling out in detail exactly where council tax money is spent. It'ss a little booklet, with easily-understandable charts. I regret to say that I've never met anyone who mentioned even seeing it, let alone reading it.

    If people were able to influence how, say, 10% of their tax money was spent, I'm sure there'd be more interest, but that would skew spending to whatever the richest want.
  • Leon said:

    If your job involves extracting, analysing or summarising information - visual or textual - you too are fucked


    "This was pretty amazing: I got access to the 1 million token Gemini Pro, and fed in the 20 papers and books that made up my academic work prior to 2022, over 1000+ pages of PDFs

    It was able to extract direct quotes & find themes across all of them with only quite minor errors..."

    https://x.com/emollick/status/1759774087767900346?s=20


    Historians are screwed?

    They said that when Google itself was launched, and again when Google started digitising everything it could lay its hands on, yet historians still run loose among us.
  • CleitophonCleitophon Posts: 194
    The tories are not fighting a general election, but a civil war to determine the type of conservativism that will be dominant in opposition. I think reform will lose in the long run as it has an ageing voter base that will nor endure. On the other hand, I think the centrist conservatives will increasingly pivot to a millenial voting base over the next parliamentary terms.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455

    Leon said:

    Overlooked in the fuss over OpenAI's Sora is DeepMind's Gemini 1.5 Pro - which was unveiled, literally, 2 hours prior

    In a very dfferent way it is equally incredible - it can process, summarise and extract information with stunning ease


    eg To demo Gemini 1.5’s capabilities, Google fed it the entire 402 page transcript of the Apollo 11 mission. They then asked Gemini to find “three comedic moments” within that text.

    It did so, in 30 seconds – eg it found astronaut Michael Collins “betting someone a cup of coffee”

    This bears repeating, Google didn’t search for specific words, the researchers asked a machine to find “three funny bits” in 402 pages. It did so.

    And this is my fave bit, they also showed Gemini a simple and rubbish drawing, apparently by a 4 year old, of what could be a treading boot. They asked Gemini to identify this moment in the document, using just the child-like drawing. Gemini correctly identified it as picturing the moment Neil Armstrong stepped on to the lunar surface

    https://blog.google/technology/ai/google-gemini-next-generation-model-february-2024/?utm_source=gdm&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=gemini24

    Deep Mind was another British firm sold to America (in this case, Google). Great for the founders; good for AI; bad for this country's long term prospects.
    They are still very much based in London

    "DeepMind is opening a huge new London headquarters in 2020
    The Alphabet-owned artificial intelligence startup is expanding to an 11-storey building in Kings Cross"

    Deep Mind is Britain's best hope of significant gain at the cutting edge of AI

    https://www.wired.co.uk/article/deepmind-new-london-headquarters
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455
    I believe our very own @rcs1000 is a friend of Demis, the DeepMind guy?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455

    Leon said:

    If your job involves extracting, analysing or summarising information - visual or textual - you too are fucked


    "This was pretty amazing: I got access to the 1 million token Gemini Pro, and fed in the 20 papers and books that made up my academic work prior to 2022, over 1000+ pages of PDFs

    It was able to extract direct quotes & find themes across all of them with only quite minor errors..."

    https://x.com/emollick/status/1759774087767900346?s=20


    Historians are screwed?

    They said that when Google itself was launched, and again when Google started digitising everything it could lay its hands on, yet historians still run loose among us.
    They said that when machines started doing all the farmwork, that it would push millions of rural peasants off the countryside and

    Oh

    You don't see many peasants sowing barley in the English shires, these days
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,983

    .

    .

    I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.

    Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.

    Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
    You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.
    The problem is that "the rich" are now considered to be anyone earning more than 100k, which, post-inflation, is probably only equivalent to 70k a few years ago.

    I've just been put on a K-code for FY24-25 which is a negative personal allowance- I.e. they artificially raise my income so I get to pay extra tax.

    It's why I'm seriously eyeing up Canada, the US and Oz now, even though I don't want to.
    I've been in this situation for years, yet despite being a woke lefty who no doubt hates Britain I am happy to contribute to our national coffers and have no intention of leaving. PB flag shaggers please explain!
    Who isn't happy to contribute? But do you think there's no upper limit to that?

    When you're paying 60% or 70% effective taxation then work doesn't pay.
    Yeah it is annoying, I probably pay about 60-70% of my income in tax once you add up the income tax, NI, VAT, stamp duty etc etc. And for that I get crumbling and understaffed schools, doctors I can't get a appointment at, roads full of potholes, and police that are never around when kids are getting mugged in our neighbourhood. But that's what happens when you have a government that keeps making stupid decisions, from Brexit downwards. The solution is to get a government that's not venal and dumb, and stay and work hard and contribute so the country has a chance of improving. You seem to have a genuine love of your country (even though you seem to also hate some parts of it) so I am surprised you're ready to jack it all in and go somewhere else - especially when your lot have been in charge for all this time.
    Which government brought in the 100k withdrawal policy?

    This isn't a partisan dig by the way, but it wasn't this one - although I do blame this one for not reversing it - and I don't have much confidence in any government of any stripe to take the tough decisions needed.
    It is a dumb policy, if you believe in progressive taxation as I do it is nonsensical for those on incomes around 100k to pay a higher marginal tax rate than those on 200k. It's also damaging for incentives to have such high marginal tax rates. My view is that the top rate of income tax+NIC should be 50% but not above. Your lot have had a very long time to sort this out, though!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,164
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    If your job involves extracting, analysing or summarising information - visual or textual - you too are fucked


    "This was pretty amazing: I got access to the 1 million token Gemini Pro, and fed in the 20 papers and books that made up my academic work prior to 2022, over 1000+ pages of PDFs

    It was able to extract direct quotes & find themes across all of them with only quite minor errors..."

    https://x.com/emollick/status/1759774087767900346?s=20


    Historians are screwed?

    They said that when Google itself was launched, and again when Google started digitising everything it could lay its hands on, yet historians still run loose among us.
    They said that when machines started doing all the farmwork, that it would push millions of rural peasants off the countryside and

    Oh

    You don't see many peasants sowing barley in the English shires, these days
    Yet we have near full employment.

    You should be careful of going so far down the rabbit hole of your latest obsession that you are unable to see any sort of bigger picture.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 3,931
    edited February 20
    Someone upthread mentioned gold plating. We need to get to the root of why it is more expensive to build or produce things here. Is it civil servants, politicians, planners or the public who demand gold plated services and infrastructure? Can we find out and solve it, so we can get more built more quickly?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,901

    The first thing to fix in public services is staff retention. That will cost money upfront, but it is cheaper in the long run than ridiculous schemes where we pay the same people who have left, doing the same job, 3 or 4x their salary as contractors whilst losing control of their hours and creating understandable jealousy from the remaining permanent contracted staff. So because we don't want to pay them 7% more we pay a proportion of them 200-300% more and the others 4-5% more after long strikes.

    It is an easy, if initially costly, fix, that does start saving money further down the line.

    That would be my priority with any fiscal headroom.

    Cutting out agencies in education would be a start. Their staff aren't paid any more, but the agency takes a huge cut.
    There are schools where nearly 50% of the TA's are agency on any given day.
    It's also hugely disruptive to the education.
    Pay TA's more than ALDI, and put them on contracts.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    If your job involves extracting, analysing or summarising information - visual or textual - you too are fucked


    "This was pretty amazing: I got access to the 1 million token Gemini Pro, and fed in the 20 papers and books that made up my academic work prior to 2022, over 1000+ pages of PDFs

    It was able to extract direct quotes & find themes across all of them with only quite minor errors..."

    https://x.com/emollick/status/1759774087767900346?s=20


    Historians are screwed?

    They said that when Google itself was launched, and again when Google started digitising everything it could lay its hands on, yet historians still run loose among us.
    They said that when machines started doing all the farmwork, that it would push millions of rural peasants off the countryside and

    Oh

    You don't see many peasants sowing barley in the English shires, these days
    Horses, but yes.
This discussion has been closed.