Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
This shows why even many advocates for limiting tax relief are only talking about 30 per cent. Still, that triple lock, eh!
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
I may need to look at these games, and pulling my kids out of private school, when we get to the Autumn and we know the lie of the land in the budget. Already tough as it is. It will get harder.
Of course, that will mean much less tax for the exchequer, and a bigger burden on the State, but hey ho, that's what you get when you try and squeeze people dry.
Nearly two thirds of Republican voters polled either strongly, or somewhat support term limits. Their Presidential candidate, and representatives in Congress don't, of course.
A third of Republican voters would also support the impeachment of Clarence Thomas.
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
Presumably its the cliff edge that you're worried about more than the extra 20% saving?
Make pension relief 20% and use that money to eliminate the cliff edges seems like a logical solution.
Yes you’d absolutely need to do both. Getting rid of all the cliff edges would be hugely beneficial, and 20% tax relief on pensions is still significant.
The £100k cutoff in particular, removing close to five figures of free childcare entitlement as well as the 65% marginal tax rate, will drive a lot of decision-making to work 4.5 or 4 days a week if not addressed.
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
You might not go for a 20% cut in income. But there will be many people who try quite hard to keep income under that level and choose to do less work as the amount they earn approaches the threshold. There are lots of ways this can be done. Many people will get to choose how much work they do. Personally, I'm through the stage of parenthood which demands a shortened working week. I could go back up to full hours. But I'm not going to do 10% more work for 5% more money. (Figures plucked out of my fat Mancunian arse.)
The biggest problems are the cliff edges, doing 25% extra work for effectively no extra money (or even less money after added costs).
Its these cliff edges that create the distortions, any serious reform needs to eliminate the cliff edges.
Every time I turn on to BBC to see some olympics there's just people talking.
I can't be alone in thinking this is far worse than previous years?
Bloody Claire Balding is bloody awful. She doesn't appear to actually like sport - she's trying to make everything into a human interest story. I mean, I don't mind a bit of backstory, but the balance of sport/chat ought to be at least 80% in sport's favour. It's less than 50/50 at the moment. However, there is the iplayer coverage, which ameliorates this a bit.
Not only that her surname is totally inappropriate. She has a fine head of hair.
But, yes, this trend to make everything a human interest story is not only a little tedious it is clearly just padding. Summer schedules need to be filled I guess and extra padding saves a repeat of Cash in the Attic. Everything has to be a journey. Triumph over adversity. I find I could not care less now.
I also find the search function on Iplayer bloody awkward. Either inches forward or zooms forward. No middle ground.
Every time I turn on to BBC to see some olympics there's just people talking.
I can't be alone in thinking this is far worse than previous years?
Bloody Claire Balding is bloody awful. She doesn't appear to actually like sport - she's trying to make everything into a human interest story. I mean, I don't mind a bit of backstory, but the balance of sport/chat ought to be at least 80% in sport's favour. It's less than 50/50 at the moment. However, there is the iplayer coverage, which ameliorates this a bit.
Not only that her surname is totally inappropriate. She has a fine head of hair.
But, yes, this trend to make everything a human interest story is not only a little tedious it is clearly just padding. Summer schedules need to be filled I guess and extra padding saves a repeat of Cash in the Attic. Everything has to be a journey. Triumph over adversity. I find I could not care less now.
I also find the search function on Iplayer bloody awkward. Either inches forward or zooms forward. No middle ground.
I presume it's the heat but I see all the moaners and whingers have moved on from Rachel Reeves to the Olympics via the BBC coverage.
I'd love to see more of the less well known sports on the BBC such as handball (very big in Europe) but given the breadth and depth of what's on offer I appreciate there's only so much to be shown in the time available.
For me, the sport coverage this week will be Goodwood on ITV - a Glorious start indeed to the meeting. KYPRIOS to win the Goodwood Cup? Probably and all the big players on here can indulge at 4/9 but it's not for me. The Lennox is much more open - AUDIENCE perhaps an each way alternative to ENGLISH OAK and KINROSS.
Nearly two thirds of Republican voters polled either strongly, or somewhat support term limits. Their Presidential candidate, and representatives in Congress don't, of course.
A third of Republican voters would also support the impeachment of Clarence Thomas.
Those are very promising numbers giving Kamala Harris permission to make changes that currently underpin MAGA's grasp on power - if she can get elected.
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
This shows why even many advocates for limiting tax relief are only talking about 30 per cent. Still, that triple lock, eh!
30% would still result in me paying tax on money I'm not seeing immediately - heck implemented badly I would be seeing my income and spending reduced by £6,000 this year while I save money for the 20 years hence...
~£10bn of the "blackhole" is due to Labour's bumper increase in public sector pay. It's completely optional and they could hold back more than half of that figure. If the public sector doesn't like it they can move to the private sector.
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
You might not go for a 20% cut in income. But there will be many people who try quite hard to keep income under that level and choose to do less work as the amount they earn approaches the threshold. There are lots of ways this can be done. Many people will get to choose how much work they do. Personally, I'm through the stage of parenthood which demands a shortened working week. I could go back up to full hours. But I'm not going to do 10% more work for 5% more money. (Figures plucked out of my fat Mancunian arse.)
Don't worry - wait a few years and when the children have finished university and the mortgage paid off, a shorter week with more time for travel / hobbies may become attractive, especially when the impact on income isn't that significant thanks to lower outgoings...
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
You might not go for a 20% cut in income. But there will be many people who try quite hard to keep income under that level and choose to do less work as the amount they earn approaches the threshold. There are lots of ways this can be done. Many people will get to choose how much work they do. Personally, I'm through the stage of parenthood which demands a shortened working week. I could go back up to full hours. But I'm not going to do 10% more work for 5% more money. (Figures plucked out of my fat Mancunian arse.)
The biggest problems are the cliff edges, doing 25% extra work for effectively no extra money (or even less money after added costs).
Its these cliff edges that create the distortions, any serious reform needs to eliminate the cliff edges.
I've decided that my situation is complex enough I'm going to need independent advice. The thing about being complex is that it prevents people from earning more which then reduces tax intake. Anything that can simplify things will surely bring in more for the government.
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
I may need to look at these games, and pulling my kids out of private school, when we get to the Autumn and we know the lie of the land in the budget. Already tough as it is. It will get harder.
Of course, that will mean much less tax for the exchequer, and a bigger burden on the State, but hey ho, that's what you get when you try and squeeze people dry.
There was an opportunity to reset the tax narrative for Labour and remove the cliff edges but they've failed to do so. Another 5 years at least with people going part time or using tax avoidance at £100k.
I've shifted down to 3.5 days per week in my new job to stay below the cliff edge from an earlier agreed 4 day week. I now get Wednesday afternoon and Fridays with my kids which I think is a better use of my time than working so I can give the government 62% of the increment.
Nearly two thirds of Republican voters polled either strongly, or somewhat support term limits. Their Presidential candidate, and representatives in Congress don't, of course.
A third of Republican voters would also support the impeachment of Clarence Thomas.
Those are very promising numbers giving Kamala Harris permission to make changes that currently underpin MAGA's grasp on power - if she can get elected.
(Spoiler: she will...)
Presumably to do anything effective though she needs majorities (and in some cases, supermajorities) in the House and Senate?
Even if she manages a victory over Trump, the best she is likely to get is a 50-50 Senate, and a small majority in the House.
Nearly two thirds of Republican voters polled either strongly, or somewhat support term limits. Their Presidential candidate, and representatives in Congress don't, of course.
A third of Republican voters would also support the impeachment of Clarence Thomas.
Those are very promising numbers giving Kamala Harris permission to make changes that currently underpin MAGA's grasp on power - if she can get elected.
Matthew Mott has stepped down as coach of the England men’s white-ball team with immediate effect, following crisis talks with the ECB’s Rob Key over the weekend.
The team’s assistant coach Marcus Trescothick has taken over on an interim basis to lead the team through the three T20s and five ODIs they will play against Australia in September.
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
You might not go for a 20% cut in income. But there will be many people who try quite hard to keep income under that level and choose to do less work as the amount they earn approaches the threshold. There are lots of ways this can be done. Many people will get to choose how much work they do. Personally, I'm through the stage of parenthood which demands a shortened working week. I could go back up to full hours. But I'm not going to do 10% more work for 5% more money. (Figures plucked out of my fat Mancunian arse.)
Don't worry - wait a few years and when the children have finished university and the mortgage paid off, a shorter week with more time for travel / hobbies may become attractive, especially when the impact on income isn't that significant thanks to lower outgoings...
A good friend of mine does contracting, and now sets himself up to take three months off in the summer and six weeks over Christmas almost every year. Terrible marginal tax rates encourage that sort of behaviour change, which is great for him in terms of work/life balance, but terrible for both the Treasury and the balance of payments as he spends so much time abroad.
Every time I turn on to BBC to see some olympics there's just people talking.
I can't be alone in thinking this is far worse than previous years?
Bloody Claire Balding is bloody awful. She doesn't appear to actually like sport - she's trying to make everything into a human interest story. I mean, I don't mind a bit of backstory, but the balance of sport/chat ought to be at least 80% in sport's favour. It's less than 50/50 at the moment. However, there is the iplayer coverage, which ameliorates this a bit.
Not only that her surname is totally inappropriate. She has a fine head of hair.
But, yes, this trend to make everything a human interest story is not only a little tedious it is clearly just padding. Summer schedules need to be filled I guess and extra padding saves a repeat of Cash in the Attic. Everything has to be a journey. Triumph over adversity. I find I could not care less now.
I also find the search function on Iplayer bloody awkward. Either inches forward or zooms forward. No middle ground.
Clare Balding made her name at the Beijing Olympics when she was the only (or one of few) who'd bothered to bone up on the minor sports. The trouble is, she does tend to decide the story in advance and not deviate from it, even if a bigger story appears.
Just an impression you sometimes give off @MaxPB and @BartholomewRoberts Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick. 👍
I am in agreement with Max and Bart. All benefits including child allowance and state pension should be means tested. At the same time end the myth about NI and accept it is just another tax. Scrap voluntary contributions and make the pension available to everyone who meets the means tested criteria irrespectve of how much they have worked or paid.
Easy to say when you are loaded, amazing the fcukwits on here , dripping with money who pontificate about taxing poor pensioners on a pitiful pension. Especially given they have paid 50 years for it.
Malcolm displaying his normal porridge brains lack of logic.
If I were loaded (which I am not) then I would be one of those losing any benefits or state pension. That is the whole point. Don't give benefits and state pension to those who don't need them.
Oh and the whole point of the original state pension system when it was set up post war was that current earners are paying for current pensioners, not saving for their own.
Why should someone earning £25K a year, unable to even think about getting on the housing ladder, be paying for the state pension of someone who already has a massive company pension and is living in a mortgage free house?
State handouts should be a safety net, nothing more. If you don't need them you don't get them. That way there is either more money to spend on those who do need it or you can reduce taxes. Eitrher is a better option than handing over taxpayers money to rich pensioners.
Quite so. I am pretty sure malc says he drives a Porsche. If as seems reasonably probable I have that sort of income at 67 I will either not take the state pension or pass it on to food banks. Ludicrous system ATM.
Hopefully the next Labour tax increase will be a massive rise in rates for little-dick status gas-guzzlers like, e.g. Porsches. It'd be worth it just to annoy Malc as well as helping the treasury and the environment.
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
I may need to look at these games, and pulling my kids out of private school, when we get to the Autumn and we know the lie of the land in the budget. Already tough as it is. It will get harder.
Of course, that will mean much less tax for the exchequer, and a bigger burden on the State, but hey ho, that's what you get when you try and squeeze people dry.
There was an opportunity to reset the tax narrative for Labour and remove the cliff edges but they've failed to do so. Another 5 years at least with people going part time or using tax avoidance at £100k.
I've shifted down to 3.5 days per week in my new job to stay below the cliff edge from an earlier agreed 4 day week. I now get Wednesday afternoon and Fridays with my kids which I think is a better use of my time than working so I can give the government 62% of the increment.
I'm rapidly approaching the same conclusion.
F**k this. I've been away from them on-site for the past 9 days and haven't even seen them.
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
If you can make it work financially I can recommend a four day week regardless of exactly where it puts you relative to tax thresholds. (I've been on a four day week for decades for medical reasons. But the quality of life improvement is worth a lot to me too.)
~£10bn of the "blackhole" is due to Labour's bumper increase in public sector pay. It's completely optional and they could hold back more than half of that figure. If the public sector doesn't like it they can move to the private sector.
The figures are the recommended ones from the independent pay review bodies - so they need to be implemented.
I posted earlier that the figures were probably sent to the Government in mid May - so it may explain the sudden desire for a general election because otherwise the Tory party would be offering 3% (i.e. the amount budgeted) and would be entering the autumn with multiple public sector strikes...
Question, how do you run an election when local government officers are on strike every Thursday in November / December...
"Veteran forecaster who has predicted every presidential winner for 40 years reveals which candidate is on course to win
Based on his model which includes thirteen factors, or 'keys' as he calls them, Harris is currently on course for victory with less than 100 days to go before Election Day."
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
If you can make it work financially I can recommend a four day week regardless of exactly where it puts you relative to tax thresholds. (I've been on a four day week for decades for medical reasons. But the quality of life improvement is worth a lot to me too.)
Mrs Eek does a 4 day week - she spends Friday making quilts..
"Veteran forecaster who has predicted every presidential winner for 40 years reveals which candidate is on course to win
Based on his model which includes thirteen factors, or 'keys' as he calls them, Harris is currently on course for victory with less than 100 days to go before Election Day."
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
I may need to look at these games, and pulling my kids out of private school, when we get to the Autumn and we know the lie of the land in the budget. Already tough as it is. It will get harder.
Of course, that will mean much less tax for the exchequer, and a bigger burden on the State, but hey ho, that's what you get when you try and squeeze people dry.
There was an opportunity to reset the tax narrative for Labour and remove the cliff edges but they've failed to do so. Another 5 years at least with people going part time or using tax avoidance at £100k.
I've shifted down to 3.5 days per week in my new job to stay below the cliff edge from an earlier agreed 4 day week. I now get Wednesday afternoon and Fridays with my kids which I think is a better use of my time than working so I can give the government 62% of the increment.
This wasn't the budget though - so there is little surprise that the tax narrative has been reset.
However it's clear from the discussions this afternoon that any changes impact people who are well paid is going to have interesting (and unexpected by the Government) consequences..
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
If you can make it work financially I can recommend a four day week regardless of exactly where it puts you relative to tax thresholds. (I've been on a four day week for decades for medical reasons. But the quality of life improvement is worth a lot to me too.)
I do a 4 day week a) to avoid 40% tax b) because why not
Though I'm considering a 0 day week soon, depending on what the government does.
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
I may need to look at these games, and pulling my kids out of private school, when we get to the Autumn and we know the lie of the land in the budget. Already tough as it is. It will get harder.
Of course, that will mean much less tax for the exchequer, and a bigger burden on the State, but hey ho, that's what you get when you try and squeeze people dry.
There was an opportunity to reset the tax narrative for Labour and remove the cliff edges but they've failed to do so. Another 5 years at least with people going part time or using tax avoidance at £100k.
I've shifted down to 3.5 days per week in my new job to stay below the cliff edge from an earlier agreed 4 day week. I now get Wednesday afternoon and Fridays with my kids which I think is a better use of my time than working so I can give the government 62% of the increment.
I'm rapidly approaching the same conclusion.
F**k this. I've been away from them on-site for the past 9 days and haven't even seen them.
Ah man, 9 days on in a row is shitty, fully understand if you pick the part time route as well, it's a much less stressful life and I'm grateful we're able to do it.
The spur to change away from his hydrocarbons in the EU over a couple of years is remarkable. Unexpectedly, history will hold his invasion of Ukraine as a heroic spur in the move to renewables.
~£10bn of the "blackhole" is due to Labour's bumper increase in public sector pay. It's completely optional and they could hold back more than half of that figure. If the public sector doesn't like it they can move to the private sector.
So that's around £5bn of the 'blackhole' due to Labour, then.
Unless you're arguing the Tories would have offered 0% ?
What proportion of the independent pay recommendation would you have offered ? (And would you have costed anything for resulting industrial action ?)
Every time I turn on to BBC to see some olympics there's just people talking.
I can't be alone in thinking this is far worse than previous years?
Bloody Claire Balding is bloody awful. She doesn't appear to actually like sport - she's trying to make everything into a human interest story. I mean, I don't mind a bit of backstory, but the balance of sport/chat ought to be at least 80% in sport's favour. It's less than 50/50 at the moment. However, there is the iplayer coverage, which ameliorates this a bit.
Not only that her surname is totally inappropriate. She has a fine head of hair.
But, yes, this trend to make everything a human interest story is not only a little tedious it is clearly just padding. Summer schedules need to be filled I guess and extra padding saves a repeat of Cash in the Attic. Everything has to be a journey. Triumph over adversity. I find I could not care less now.
I also find the search function on Iplayer bloody awkward. Either inches forward or zooms forward. No middle ground.
I presume it's the heat but I see all the moaners and whingers have moved on from Rachel Reeves to the Olympics via the BBC coverage.
I'd love to see more of the less well known sports on the BBC such as handball (very big in Europe) but given the breadth and depth of what's on offer I appreciate there's only so much to be shown in the time available.
For me, the sport coverage this week will be Goodwood on ITV - a Glorious start indeed to the meeting. KYPRIOS to win the Goodwood Cup? Probably and all the big players on here can indulge at 4/9 but it's not for me. The Lennox is much more open - AUDIENCE perhaps an each way alternative to ENGLISH OAK and KINROSS.
How dare we have an opinion on the state broadcaster which we have no choice to pay for if we wish to receive live TV signals !!!!
It is not the sport that is being complained about here but the presentation.
I personally have not moaned about Rachel Reeves as I thought yesterday was inevitable whichever side won.
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
I may need to look at these games, and pulling my kids out of private school, when we get to the Autumn and we know the lie of the land in the budget. Already tough as it is. It will get harder.
Of course, that will mean much less tax for the exchequer, and a bigger burden on the State, but hey ho, that's what you get when you try and squeeze people dry.
There was an opportunity to reset the tax narrative for Labour and remove the cliff edges but they've failed to do so. Another 5 years at least with people going part time or using tax avoidance at £100k.
I've shifted down to 3.5 days per week in my new job to stay below the cliff edge from an earlier agreed 4 day week. I now get Wednesday afternoon and Fridays with my kids which I think is a better use of my time than working so I can give the government 62% of the increment.
I'm rapidly approaching the same conclusion.
F**k this. I've been away from them on-site for the past 9 days and haven't even seen them.
Ah man, 9 days on in a row is shitty, fully understand if you pick the part time route as well, it's a much less stressful life and I'm grateful we're able to do it.
This old centrist learnt a long time ago you work to live, you don't live to work.
No one ever retired wishing they had done more work - I know I didn't.
The spur to change away from his hydrocarbons in the EU over a couple of years is remarkable. Unexpectedly, history will hold his invasion of Ukraine as a heroic spur in the move to renewables.
Nobel Peace Prize for Putin, for efforts to mitigate climate change, incoming?
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
I may need to look at these games, and pulling my kids out of private school, when we get to the Autumn and we know the lie of the land in the budget. Already tough as it is. It will get harder.
Of course, that will mean much less tax for the exchequer, and a bigger burden on the State, but hey ho, that's what you get when you try and squeeze people dry.
There was an opportunity to reset the tax narrative for Labour and remove the cliff edges but they've failed to do so. Another 5 years at least with people going part time or using tax avoidance at £100k.
I've shifted down to 3.5 days per week in my new job to stay below the cliff edge from an earlier agreed 4 day week. I now get Wednesday afternoon and Fridays with my kids which I think is a better use of my time than working so I can give the government 62% of the increment.
This wasn't the budget though - so there is little surprise that the tax narrative has been reset.
However it's clear from the discussions this afternoon that any changes impact people who are well paid is going to have interesting (and unexpected by the Government) consequences..
But £100k isn't even a huge salary today, not the same as what it was in 2009 when Brown introduced the 62% marginal rate, it's £152k in equivalent money today just by inflation. I'd happily do a 4.5 day week with Friday afternoons off if there was no marginal rate. It's immoral for the state to ask me for more than half of my income, I go to work to provide for my family not to fund a huge payrise for public sector fatcats.
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
Income tax cliffs are real and definitely change behaviour, particularly when you factor in benefits.
But I don't agree it's the same for pension relief, there isn't the same cliff edge element.
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
I'm fairly ambivalent on the VAT on fees (I've no problem with it in principle, although I'd rather see the charitable status probed more deeply) but introducing it at any other point than the (future) start of a school year seems completely nuts and unfair to me.
Nearly two thirds of Republican voters polled either strongly, or somewhat support term limits. Their Presidential candidate, and representatives in Congress don't, of course.
A third of Republican voters would also support the impeachment of Clarence Thomas.
Those are very promising numbers giving Kamala Harris permission to make changes that currently underpin MAGA's grasp on power - if she can get elected.
(Spoiler: she will...)
Presumably to do anything effective though she needs majorities (and in some cases, supermajorities) in the House and Senate?
Even if she manages a victory over Trump, the best she is likely to get is a 50-50 Senate, and a small majority in the House.
These popular reform measures will reinforce the "changes that are needed" meme that Harris will milk for the next just-under-100 days.
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Who will fund a legal challenge over VAT on a single term's fees?
There’s at least one campaign group, and the private schools have deep pockets.
They were already planning to try and tie the government up in court over the change, using human rights legislation, and Government attempting to make it retrospective adds another string to their bow.
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
Income tax cliffs are real and definitely change behaviour, particularly when you factor in benefits.
But I don't agree it's the same for pension relief, there isn't the same cliff edge element.
There's also the fact that pension income doesn't change with effort input so taxing it won't result in a reduction in effort, retired people can't go from 100% to 80% they go from 0% to 0%.
The Russian pilot Fighterbomber reveals that Russia is now recruiting military airfield personnel into assault units. According to him, Russia has created a motorized rifle regiment of the Aerospace Forces - the video shows the training of this unit. There is even a pilot in this regiment, apparently.
Isn't this the sort of thing that happens to air forces which don't have enough operational aircraft ?
I wonder how many men there are in the Russian army still defending all its other borders? I have a mental image of some comedy sketch from the 1970s where the fort is defended by one fella and a lot of cardboard cut-outs attached in a row to his shoulders.
Which borders, ex Ukraine facing does Russia need to defend. NATO isn't going to invade any time soon, they're on good relations with North Korea and China (Good enough at any rate with China). The SW borders (Georgia and the stans) are probably where I'd have the actual men and equipment ex Ukraine if I was Putin.
Stalin had good relations with Hitler too. Until he didn’t. That’s the trouble forming alliances with psychopathic autocrats.
Who is who in this scenario ?
Xi isn't going to invade Russia, aside from what looks like a minor dispute over a single small island to China's northeast there's way more heat for Xi with Aksai Chin/India and obviously Taiwan/ the South China seas/USA. As for Russia invading China - that's laughable.
The areas of eastern Russia bordering China are very resource-rich, and many of the people who live there have much more in common with Chinese peoples than they do with the Muscovite slavs. There are many reason why China might covet those areas - especially as the west are unlikely to intervene on Russia's behalf as they might over Taiwan.
I reckon the only thing stopping Xi are Putin's nukes.
There is a scenario in which the Russian situation in Ukraine worsens, and Chinese support for Russia is increasingly conditional. In that scenario, the absence of troops in Russia's far east starts to get more problematic.
As some point, Xi will start to take an interest in what’s just over his northern border. Lots of minerals there, would be a shame if anything happened to them.
As suggested when the SMO kicked off, all President Xi needed to do to undermine it is sail a fleet north towards the Arctic. The symbolism of passing that Russian coast would not have been lost on Putin.
Fundamentally, Russia is too big to defend easily because troops, planes and missile systems defending one point are too distant from another.
In conventional war yes but Russia also has more nuclear weapons than any other nation on earth and Xi will be well aware Putin could wipe out virtually all of China if he went mad and saw it as the only way of defending Russian territory
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Who will fund a legal challenge over VAT on a single term's fees?
There’s at least one campaign group, and the private schools have deep pockets.
They were already planning to try and tie the government up in court over the change, using human rights legislation, and Government attempting to make it retrospective adds another string to their bow.
As I said it's not retrospective no matter what some lawyers seeking paydays will claim - the wording and announcement point will have been carefully checked...
Not that it matters because HMRC have been allowed multiple retrospective tricks in the past few years...
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
I may need to look at these games, and pulling my kids out of private school, when we get to the Autumn and we know the lie of the land in the budget. Already tough as it is. It will get harder.
Of course, that will mean much less tax for the exchequer, and a bigger burden on the State, but hey ho, that's what you get when you try and squeeze people dry.
There was an opportunity to reset the tax narrative for Labour and remove the cliff edges but they've failed to do so. Another 5 years at least with people going part time or using tax avoidance at £100k.
I've shifted down to 3.5 days per week in my new job to stay below the cliff edge from an earlier agreed 4 day week. I now get Wednesday afternoon and Fridays with my kids which I think is a better use of my time than working so I can give the government 62% of the increment.
This wasn't the budget though - so there is little surprise that the tax narrative has been reset.
However it's clear from the discussions this afternoon that any changes impact people who are well paid is going to have interesting (and unexpected by the Government) consequences..
But £100k isn't even a huge salary today, not the same as what it was in 2009 when Brown introduced the 62% marginal rate, it's £152k in equivalent money today just by inflation. I'd happily do a 4.5 day week with Friday afternoons off if there was no marginal rate. It's immoral for the state to ask me for more than half of my income, I go to work to provide for my family not to fund a huge payrise for public sector fatcats.
Median UK salary is £35k. £100k is roughly triple the median salary.
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
Basically it removes the tax benefit of delaying income until you retire. I think for most people it removes the incentive to delay taking your income. They take it now rather than later or forgo the income entirely. Which means Rachel Reeves gets the tax now. She would be delighted
"Veteran forecaster who has predicted every presidential winner for 40 years reveals which candidate is on course to win
Based on his model which includes thirteen factors, or 'keys' as he calls them, Harris is currently on course for victory with less than 100 days to go before Election Day."
Nearly two thirds of Republican voters polled either strongly, or somewhat support term limits. Their Presidential candidate, and representatives in Congress don't, of course.
A third of Republican voters would also support the impeachment of Clarence Thomas.
Those are very promising numbers giving Kamala Harris permission to make changes that currently underpin MAGA's grasp on power - if she can get elected.
(Spoiler: she will...)
Presumably to do anything effective though she needs majorities (and in some cases, supermajorities) in the House and Senate?
Even if she manages a victory over Trump, the best she is likely to get is a 50-50 Senate, and a small majority in the House.
These popular reform measures will reinforce the "changes that are needed" meme that Harris will milk for the next just-under-100 days.
Oh, I agree. I actually think this is a great conversation for Democrats to have with the electorate; because I think (as this polling shows) there is broad acknowledgment across the spectrum that SCOTUS just isn’t fit for purpose currently; and is in bad need of reform.
If they can weaponise this, fair play to them. I just wish the US would be able to move on from the hyper partisanship so they can make meaningful change in these areas.
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
It was in Reeves’s statement yesterday IIRC. Let me try and find it.
Edit: it’s actually slightly more complex. The VAT comes in in January, but any invoices sent from now *for education delivered after January 1*, will be expected to include the VAT, even though the legislation is not yet passed. So the schools are expected to include VAT in next year’s invoices if sent out over the summer. Which is retrospective taxation.
It has also been announced that fees invoiced or paid on or after 29 July 2024 that relate to the school terms after 1 January 2025 will be subject to the standard rate of VAT at the beginning of that term.
School fees paid before 29 July 2024 will follow the VAT treatment in force at the time of the normal tax point for these supplies, where the fee rate for the relevant term has been set and was known at the time of payment.
Draft legislation (VAT on Private School Fees & Removing the Charitable Rates Relief for Private Schools), an explanatory note and an accompanying technical note on these changes is available.
Phoebe, Cressida.. soon getting arrested at a climate change demo and jailed will be as much a mark of being a member of the liberal upper middle classes as voting LD and shopping at Waitrose...
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
I may need to look at these games, and pulling my kids out of private school, when we get to the Autumn and we know the lie of the land in the budget. Already tough as it is. It will get harder.
Of course, that will mean much less tax for the exchequer, and a bigger burden on the State, but hey ho, that's what you get when you try and squeeze people dry.
There was an opportunity to reset the tax narrative for Labour and remove the cliff edges but they've failed to do so. Another 5 years at least with people going part time or using tax avoidance at £100k.
I've shifted down to 3.5 days per week in my new job to stay below the cliff edge from an earlier agreed 4 day week. I now get Wednesday afternoon and Fridays with my kids which I think is a better use of my time than working so I can give the government 62% of the increment.
This wasn't the budget though - so there is little surprise that the tax narrative has been reset.
However it's clear from the discussions this afternoon that any changes impact people who are well paid is going to have interesting (and unexpected by the Government) consequences..
But £100k isn't even a huge salary today, not the same as what it was in 2009 when Brown introduced the 62% marginal rate, it's £152k in equivalent money today just by inflation. I'd happily do a 4.5 day week with Friday afternoons off if there was no marginal rate. It's immoral for the state to ask me for more than half of my income, I go to work to provide for my family not to fund a huge payrise for public sector fatcats.
£100k is still nearly 3 times the median wage (£34,963) and over twice the average wage (£42,210)..
Although the rest of your argument is absolutely valid - the lack of indexing has forced way more people into it...
An angry Dilnot tells Times Radio that yet another royal commission on social care is just adding to endless delay. We know what the choices are and we need to get on with it.
Has to be action this end of new parliament as otherwise it just wont be done as these kinds of things are never sorted towards end of a term.
Another generation faces the terrible anxieties around social care for their families.
~£10bn of the "blackhole" is due to Labour's bumper increase in public sector pay. It's completely optional and they could hold back more than half of that figure. If the public sector doesn't like it they can move to the private sector.
The problem is that they /have/ moved to the private sector - the NHS has something like 100k unfilled jobs, current teacher recruitment in secondary schools is running ~50% below the target.
At some point either you pay the going rate or you stop being able to recruit staff.
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
I may need to look at these games, and pulling my kids out of private school, when we get to the Autumn and we know the lie of the land in the budget. Already tough as it is. It will get harder.
Of course, that will mean much less tax for the exchequer, and a bigger burden on the State, but hey ho, that's what you get when you try and squeeze people dry.
There was an opportunity to reset the tax narrative for Labour and remove the cliff edges but they've failed to do so. Another 5 years at least with people going part time or using tax avoidance at £100k.
I've shifted down to 3.5 days per week in my new job to stay below the cliff edge from an earlier agreed 4 day week. I now get Wednesday afternoon and Fridays with my kids which I think is a better use of my time than working so I can give the government 62% of the increment.
This wasn't the budget though - so there is little surprise that the tax narrative has been reset.
However it's clear from the discussions this afternoon that any changes impact people who are well paid is going to have interesting (and unexpected by the Government) consequences..
But £100k isn't even a huge salary today, not the same as what it was in 2009 when Brown introduced the 62% marginal rate, it's £152k in equivalent money today just by inflation. I'd happily do a 4.5 day week with Friday afternoons off if there was no marginal rate. It's immoral for the state to ask me for more than half of my income, I go to work to provide for my family not to fund a huge payrise for public sector fatcats.
£100k is still nearly 3 times the median wage (£34,963) and over twice the average wage (£42,210)..
Although the rest of your argument is absolutely valid - the lack of indexing has forced way more people into it...
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Statutes are allowed to be retrospective (see War Damage Act 1965). They are also not susceptible to challenge, now that we have brexited and parliament is sovereign again. For sure you can resist paying VAT and defend a claim for it that the statute, properly interpreted, is not in fact retroactive, but that depends on really incompetent drafting.
If that chart is slightly valid it seems the Conservatives need Jenrick.
In what way is Jenrick the change candidate?
Jenrick was caught up in questionable dealings with Richard Desmond (and others), was hopeless in his role as secretary of state for housing (described as "no help at all" by 90% of leaseholders), was caught out breaking lockdown rules during Covid, and is mostly remembered by the general public for painting over murals at a children's asylum seeker centre.
It seems to me, that in terms of giving the appearance of being venal, ineffectual, rule-flouting and cruel, Jenrick is very much the continuity candidate with respect to his party's perception by the general public.
Jenrick and Stride were the only 2 of the 6 who backed Sunak in the 2022 summer leadership election, so no change there albeit both were also the only 2 who backed Remain in 2016 unlike Sunak who backed Leave, so some change there. Though Jenrick is pushing immigration control harder
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
It was in Reeves’s statement yesterday IIRC. Let me try and find it.
Edit: it’s actually slightly more complex. The VAT comes in in January, but any invoices sent from now *for education delivered after January 1*, will be expected to include the VAT, even though the legislation is not yet passed. So the schools are expected to include VAT in next year’s invoices if sent out over the summer. Which is retrospective taxation.
It has also been announced that fees invoiced or paid on or after 29 July 2024 that relate to the school terms after 1 January 2025 will be subject to the standard rate of VAT at the beginning of that term.
School fees paid before 29 July 2024 will follow the VAT treatment in force at the time of the normal tax point for these supplies, where the fee rate for the relevant term has been set and was known at the time of payment.
Draft legislation (VAT on Private School Fees & Removing the Charitable Rates Relief for Private Schools), an explanatory note and an accompanying technical note on these changes is available.
As I said very carefully worded to make things clear, there were tax avoidance schemes designed for the advanced payment of fees most of which simply didn't work because of the way VAT is charged.
The reality is there is actually a hefty concession in there for parents / grandparents who may have paid years up front provided the school was equally organised...
Phoebe, Cressida.. soon getting arrested at a climate change demo and jailed will be as much a mark of being a member of the liberal upper middle classes as voting LD and shopping at Waitrose...
Now, now, that's a little mean spirited of you.
I'm sure the correlation between the preponderance of Waitrose and Gail's Bakeries and the existence of a LD MP is merely coincidential.
I was in Esher last Thursday - much improved since the election. Just so happens a Gail's opened a few months before the election.
There's a Gail's in Brentwood - presumably when you get a proper Waitrose you'll know the LDs will be targeting Alex's seat.
One more serious thought - "class" isn't the be all and end all, neither is education, nor how you voted in 2016. Perhaps if you and your party want to progress, you need to slaughter those three sacred cows and consider other reasons why so many deserted the Conservatives nearly a month ago.
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
So we’ll get a winter of freezing pensioner headlines followed by a January of taking the little darlings out of school/could state schools be overwhelmed headlines. Plus whatever comes down the line in the budget in October.
I don’t think we’ll be seeing much by way of a Labour honeymoon. That doesn’t mean that the Tories are going to suddenly look amazing (they’re not). But it will be interesting to see what the polls are coming out with early next year.
Not optimal… but then I guess they’re getting these hits out of the way early.
Phoebe, Cressida.. soon getting arrested at a climate change demo and jailed will be as much a mark of being a member of the liberal upper middle classes as voting LD and shopping at Waitrose...
It's the modern-day equivalent of pronouncing off like "orff".
Well, yes, always best to get the pain in first even if that means a prolonged mid term trough. If you have a majority of 170 and the main opposition party in disarray, so much the better.
The problem with increasing taxes is 50 years of almost constant propaganda that any and every tax rise is inherently wrong. I'm not sure that's true but nobody wants to be worse off though I would point out misery loves company and if we can see the next guy suffering to a similar or even greater extent that mitigates our discomfort to a degree.
I don't know what else Reeves could or should have done - in truth, £20 billion isn't a lot of money set against the totality of public expenditure. It's a third of what we spend on defence, a fifth of what we're paying in debt interest every year. In essence, she's tinkering at the edges to try to get the deficit down a little and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
I do know the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance (which was absurd) for non-benefit paying pensioners will be sending some to the barricades or to the equal futility of supporting the Conservatives but it was an anomaly which needed to be rectified (the Conservatives could hardly do it given the age of their voters). It's not in itself a game changer but sends a signal.
CGT on all house sales is going to be one of the big changes - downsizing and taking the profit on the family home funds retirement (or at least the preferred retirement lifestyle) for many but to what extent is any of that "earned" or simply a function of the housing market and inflation? Mr & Mrs Stodge Senior bought their four bedroom house in the mid 60s for £10k and sold it nearly forty years for over £500k. Now, that's a decent return in anybody's language but to what extent was that anything other than supply and demand plus inflation?
My one disappointment with yesterday's announcements was social care. Perhaps Labour have their own ideas - the Dilnot commission has been around almost as long as the Conservatives were last in power but I presume the problem isn't a solution in and of itself but a politically sellable solution (any workable proposal can be a suicide note).
Labour are the ones holding the hot potato or more accurately the grenade with the pin out - IF CGT reduces or closes down the option of funding a retirement lifestyle from asset appreciation how do we get the various schemes and savings plans out there to provide the kind of retirement lifestyle to which most aspire or will that inherently force people to work well into their 70s?
They are not planning CGT on all house sales?
Naah. Complete clog on mobility (stamp duty is bad enough). No country does this, though they may have anti flipping provisions saying you have to live there for n years before the exemption kicks in
I suspect the CGT rate will go up in the autumn - as we know an increasing proportion of property is kept for investment purposes, I do think CGT could be a source of income for the Treasury.
On the subject of house sales, where I appear to have hit a bit of a nerve with some, serious question, the asset appreciation is surely the epitome of unearned profit as house prices were rising faster than inflation for years. Yes, you can spend on the property to increase value but we all know houses were increasing in value if they just had four walls and a roof (and sometimes not even then).
The problem there is that CGT on houses is based on the unindexed original purchase price - not the inflation indexed version of the price (I can't remember when it was implemented as we got burnt so badly on a rental property Mrs Eek vetos the idea).
So you couldn't use an indexed version of the purchase price for primary homes and a secondary price for others.
Equally I spent a fortune on an extension 20 years ago. I can tell you roughly what it cost but every builder involved in the project has died / closed down and I can't remember exactly what it cost only a very rough ballpark of £80,000...
Hence it really is a completely stupid idea...
The Government could change the system if it wanted and no Government has a monopoly on stupid ideas, I mean, we have a Council Tax system based on 1991 valuations.
I do think property is the elephant in the taxation room - if you can't impose CGT (or a sales tax) on house transactions, how about revisiting the valuations and making them more relevant to the actual value of the property now (that will mean more bands to cover the vast range of house values)? In addition, you have Land Value Taxation as an option - if you don't want to tax the property, tax the land it sits on (land is very hard to hide).
None of this is without substantial political risk but if you are looking to tap into unearned income to balance the books it's a place to start.
I think we will get a full revaluation quite quite quickly, with a taper limiting change.
Rationally because it is an absolutely f*cking obvious thing to do. Politically because big changes need to be soon to give recovery time, and because it will broadly be Tory (now Lib Dem) heartlands that have been given the most free money over decades by the revaluation not being say 25 years ago.
I'd prefer greater change. but I think this is the least we can expect.
Just chatting to a plumber I am babysitting installing a new boiler in a Tenant's, and his Council Tax recently jumped from £1200 to£3k a year as they noticed big PD extensions added years ago. That's a Council that could have had that extra revenue every year for more than a decade, and something about lack of capacity in Councils to carry out necessary work.
~£10bn of the "blackhole" is due to Labour's bumper increase in public sector pay. It's completely optional and they could hold back more than half of that figure. If the public sector doesn't like it they can move to the private sector.
The problem is that they /have/ moved to the private sector - the NHS has something like 100k unfilled jobs, current teacher recruitment in secondary schools is running ~50% below the target.
At some point either you pay the going rate or you stop being able to recruit staff.
1 problem with teacher recruitment is that they've f***ed up teacher training so badly that remarkable few graduates are taking teacher training courses. My daughter would have happily done so via the local training school (they usually have 10 or so ex pupils returning for it). This year 2 are going to do teacher training...
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
It was in Reeves’s statement yesterday IIRC. Let me try and find it.
Edit: it’s actually slightly more complex. The VAT comes in in January, but any invoices sent from now *for education delivered after January 1*, will be expected to include the VAT, even though the legislation is not yet passed. So the schools are expected to include VAT in next year’s invoices if sent out over the summer. Which is retrospective taxation.
It has also been announced that fees invoiced or paid on or after 29 July 2024 that relate to the school terms after 1 January 2025 will be subject to the standard rate of VAT at the beginning of that term.
School fees paid before 29 July 2024 will follow the VAT treatment in force at the time of the normal tax point for these supplies, where the fee rate for the relevant term has been set and was known at the time of payment.
Draft legislation (VAT on Private School Fees & Removing the Charitable Rates Relief for Private Schools), an explanatory note and an accompanying technical note on these changes is available.
As I said very carefully worded to make things clear, there were tax avoidance schemes designed for the advanced payment of fees most of which simply didn't work because of the way VAT is charged.
The reality is there is actually a hefty concession in there for parents / grandparents who may have paid years up front provided the school was equally organised...
So businesses are expected to issue invoices purely off the back of the government making a statement, rather than actually passing the legislation? That’s the bit I can’t get my head around.
Presumably many of the schools have invoices printed and dated 28th July, which they will have posted yesterday afternoon?
If that chart is slightly valid it seems the Conservatives need Jenrick.
In what way is Jenrick the change candidate?
Jenrick was caught up in questionable dealings with Richard Desmond (and others), was hopeless in his role as secretary of state for housing (described as "no help at all" by 90% of leaseholders), was caught out breaking lockdown rules during Covid, and is mostly remembered by the general public for painting over murals at a children's asylum seeker centre.
It seems to me, that in terms of giving the appearance of being venal, ineffectual, rule-flouting and cruel, Jenrick is very much the continuity candidate with respect to his party's perception by the general public.
Jenrick and Stride were the only 2 of the 6 who backed Sunak in the 2022 summer leadership election, so no change there albeit both were also the only 2 who backed Remain in 2016 unlike Sunak who backed Leave, so some change there. Though Jenrick is pushing immigration control harder
My point is that if you went to Central Casting and asked them to deliver you a guy who embodied the worst traits of the Conservative party in the general public's perception, they'd send you a guy who looked like Jenrick.
He's the type of guy who watched Rik Mayall in The New Statesman at the age of 13 and decided to base his entire personality on Alan B'Stard.
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
It was in Reeves’s statement yesterday IIRC. Let me try and find it.
Edit: it’s actually slightly more complex. The VAT comes in in January, but any invoices sent from now *for education delivered after January 1*, will be expected to include the VAT, even though the legislation is not yet passed. So the schools are expected to include VAT in next year’s invoices if sent out over the summer. Which is retrospective taxation.
It has also been announced that fees invoiced or paid on or after 29 July 2024 that relate to the school terms after 1 January 2025 will be subject to the standard rate of VAT at the beginning of that term.
School fees paid before 29 July 2024 will follow the VAT treatment in force at the time of the normal tax point for these supplies, where the fee rate for the relevant term has been set and was known at the time of payment.
Draft legislation (VAT on Private School Fees & Removing the Charitable Rates Relief for Private Schools), an explanatory note and an accompanying technical note on these changes is available.
As I said very carefully worded to make things clear, there were tax avoidance schemes designed for the advanced payment of fees most of which simply didn't work because of the way VAT is charged.
The reality is there is actually a hefty concession in there for parents / grandparents who may have paid years up front provided the school was equally organised...
So businesses are expected to issue invoices purely off the back of the government making a statement, rather than actually passing the legislation? That’s the bit I can’t get my head around.
Presumably many of the schools have invoices printed and dated 28th July, which they will have posted yesterday afternoon?
Agreed: I don't entirely see the need to rush this.
"Veteran forecaster who has predicted every presidential winner for 40 years reveals which candidate is on course to win
Based on his model which includes thirteen factors, or 'keys' as he calls them, Harris is currently on course for victory with less than 100 days to go before Election Day."
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Who will fund a legal challenge over VAT on a single term's fees?
Jewish schools.
They are the forefront of Lord Pannick’s challenge under the ECHR.
He's getting his retaliation in first, surely, challenging a not yet drafted statute?
And he is probably v clever but he runs smack into s. 3 HRA
"1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights."
So you draft primary legislation so that it is not possible to do so. Problem solved.
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
It was in Reeves’s statement yesterday IIRC. Let me try and find it.
Edit: it’s actually slightly more complex. The VAT comes in in January, but any invoices sent from now *for education delivered after January 1*, will be expected to include the VAT, even though the legislation is not yet passed. So the schools are expected to include VAT in next year’s invoices if sent out over the summer. Which is retrospective taxation.
It has also been announced that fees invoiced or paid on or after 29 July 2024 that relate to the school terms after 1 January 2025 will be subject to the standard rate of VAT at the beginning of that term.
School fees paid before 29 July 2024 will follow the VAT treatment in force at the time of the normal tax point for these supplies, where the fee rate for the relevant term has been set and was known at the time of payment.
Draft legislation (VAT on Private School Fees & Removing the Charitable Rates Relief for Private Schools), an explanatory note and an accompanying technical note on these changes is available.
As I said very carefully worded to make things clear, there were tax avoidance schemes designed for the advanced payment of fees most of which simply didn't work because of the way VAT is charged.
The reality is there is actually a hefty concession in there for parents / grandparents who may have paid years up front provided the school was equally organised...
So businesses are expected to issue invoices purely off the back of the government making a statement, rather than actually passing the legislation? That’s the bit I can’t get my head around.
Presumably many of the schools have invoices printed and dated 28th July, which they will have posted yesterday afternoon?
Whoever is legally responsible for the school's VAT is going to be in a cold sweat if that's what they're doing when they're inspected.
Phoebe, Cressida.. soon getting arrested at a climate change demo and jailed will be as much a mark of being a member of the liberal upper middle classes as voting LD and shopping at Waitrose...
Labour have an opportunity here at the start of Parliament and with a massive landslide majority.
Merge National Insurance and Income Tax and create a single Income Tax rate that is paid by all adults of all ages on the same income equitably.
No increase at all in Income Tax for those who are working and on PAYE.
Doubt they will do this. Will burn lots of political capital, will inevitably increase taxes for some groups, and althoygh logical, isn't a top priority.
I think they need to find a way of raising more money that isn't too unpopular. Reducing the very generous pension tax reliefs for higher earners is the obvious move imo.
Except that will result in a lot of people doing less work - little point doing a full 5 day week if tax makes it more sensible to work a 4 or even 3 day week...
The people who are impacted by those sort of changes aren't earning day to day living expenses they have savings and options...
Doubt it would be a major factor honestly. Anyone earning over £50k is a higher rate taxpayer.
Most of those are not so wealthy that they could easily afford a 20 or 40% drop in income.
Doing so because they only get 20% pension relief rather than 40% would be a very strange financial decision to make.
And yet that is what @MisterBedfordshire said earlier and is the experience of many others.
I carefully kept my income below £50,000 to ensure I kept child benefit for many years and last year played similar games to keep my income below £100,000...
Remove full tax relief on my large pension contribution and a 4 day week sounds very nice...
I may need to look at these games, and pulling my kids out of private school, when we get to the Autumn and we know the lie of the land in the budget. Already tough as it is. It will get harder.
Of course, that will mean much less tax for the exchequer, and a bigger burden on the State, but hey ho, that's what you get when you try and squeeze people dry.
There was an opportunity to reset the tax narrative for Labour and remove the cliff edges but they've failed to do so. Another 5 years at least with people going part time or using tax avoidance at £100k.
I've shifted down to 3.5 days per week in my new job to stay below the cliff edge from an earlier agreed 4 day week. I now get Wednesday afternoon and Fridays with my kids which I think is a better use of my time than working so I can give the government 62% of the increment.
This wasn't the budget though - so there is little surprise that the tax narrative has been reset.
However it's clear from the discussions this afternoon that any changes impact people who are well paid is going to have interesting (and unexpected by the Government) consequences..
But £100k isn't even a huge salary today, not the same as what it was in 2009 when Brown introduced the 62% marginal rate, it's £152k in equivalent money today just by inflation. I'd happily do a 4.5 day week with Friday afternoons off if there was no marginal rate. It's immoral for the state to ask me for more than half of my income, I go to work to provide for my family not to fund a huge payrise for public sector fatcats.
£100k is still nearly 3 times the median wage (£34,963) and over twice the average wage (£42,210)..
Although the rest of your argument is absolutely valid - the lack of indexing has forced way more people into it...
And it used to be 4x the median salary in 2009. £100k is relatively a much smaller salary than it was when the cliff edge was introduced. It has a third less purchasing power and the number of people who earn at least £100k has more than doubled in that time. It's no longer a huge salary, a senior developer or data engineer can earn more than that before part time or AVCs are taken into account. In 2009 it was C suite or directors of big companies who would be in that salary range.
"Veteran forecaster who has predicted every presidential winner for 40 years reveals which candidate is on course to win
Based on his model which includes thirteen factors, or 'keys' as he calls them, Harris is currently on course for victory with less than 100 days to go before Election Day."
I would laugh so hard if Trump dumps Vance. I think he’s stuck with him personally. Switching now looks like damage control and might lead to infighting. It’s not the same as Biden choosing not to run again, but I would love the GOP make that error and think changing the ticket would have upsides for them.
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
So we’ll get a winter of freezing pensioner headlines followed by a January of taking the little darlings out of school/could state schools be overwhelmed headlines. Plus whatever comes down the line in the budget in October.
I don’t think we’ll be seeing much by way of a Labour honeymoon. That doesn’t mean that the Tories are going to suddenly look amazing (they’re not). But it will be interesting to see what the polls are coming out with early next year.
Not optimal… but then I guess they’re getting these hits out of the way early.
I LOL at Labour for the private school fees move.
I think Starmer reckons it'll be another foxhunting ban moment. But foxhunting was directly supported by very few people, and this move will affect many, many more people directly. It'll cheer those who hate people who are richer than them; but dismay many more.
Phoebe, Cressida.. soon getting arrested at a climate change demo and jailed will be as much a mark of being a member of the liberal upper middle classes as voting LD and shopping at Waitrose...
Now, now, that's a little mean spirited of you.
I'm sure the correlation between the preponderance of Waitrose and Gail's Bakeries and the existence of a LD MP is merely coincidential.
I was in Esher last Thursday - much improved since the election. Just so happens a Gail's opened a few months before the election.
There's a Gail's in Brentwood - presumably when you get a proper Waitrose you'll know the LDs will be targeting Alex's seat.
One more serious thought - "class" isn't the be all and end all, neither is education, nor how you voted in 2016. Perhaps if you and your party want to progress, you need to slaughter those three sacred cows and consider other reasons why so many deserted the Conservatives nearly a month ago.
The LDs already hold the majority of council seats in Brentwood itself, it is the rural part of the district and Ongar and North Weald and rural surroundings that give Alex B a clear majority and Reform a sizeable vote nationally.
Class isn't a big divide now between Tories and Labour no, the class divide is between LD and Reform voters if anything.
Every time I turn on to BBC to see some olympics there's just people talking.
I can't be alone in thinking this is far worse than previous years?
Bloody Claire Balding is bloody awful. She doesn't appear to actually like sport - she's trying to make everything into a human interest story. I mean, I don't mind a bit of backstory, but the balance of sport/chat ought to be at least 80% in sport's favour. It's less than 50/50 at the moment. However, there is the iplayer coverage, which ameliorates this a bit.
£3.99 for a Discovery Plus account and you can stream what you want with multiple, multiple cameras including every piece of Gym equipment.
Yet you still have to pay the BBC to not watch Balding.
Nice lady but I find her fundamentally trite and unwatchable.
She's very good on the radio in relaxed interview format. Try Ramblings R4 on Sat 6:30am I think - walking with a guest.
Slightly Jolly Hockey Sticks (she's a Downe House girl), but OK.
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
It was in Reeves’s statement yesterday IIRC. Let me try and find it.
Edit: it’s actually slightly more complex. The VAT comes in in January, but any invoices sent from now *for education delivered after January 1*, will be expected to include the VAT, even though the legislation is not yet passed. So the schools are expected to include VAT in next year’s invoices if sent out over the summer. Which is retrospective taxation.
It has also been announced that fees invoiced or paid on or after 29 July 2024 that relate to the school terms after 1 January 2025 will be subject to the standard rate of VAT at the beginning of that term.
School fees paid before 29 July 2024 will follow the VAT treatment in force at the time of the normal tax point for these supplies, where the fee rate for the relevant term has been set and was known at the time of payment.
Draft legislation (VAT on Private School Fees & Removing the Charitable Rates Relief for Private Schools), an explanatory note and an accompanying technical note on these changes is available.
As I said very carefully worded to make things clear, there were tax avoidance schemes designed for the advanced payment of fees most of which simply didn't work because of the way VAT is charged.
The reality is there is actually a hefty concession in there for parents / grandparents who may have paid years up front provided the school was equally organised...
So businesses are expected to issue invoices purely off the back of the government making a statement, rather than actually passing the legislation? That’s the bit I can’t get my head around.
Presumably many of the schools have invoices printed and dated 28th July, which they will have posted yesterday afternoon?
No, any invoice issued now for January will have a future bill for VAT sent later.
That's actually quite common when it comes to VAT registration, send the none VAT bill now, when you are VAT registered you send the VAT only part later. That works brilliantly for Business to Business transactions, it doesn't work at all for personal purchases..
But come January 1st schools will be VAT registered and all that is being said her is that any payment for January is now subject to VAT...
Comments
#maddogsandenglishmen
Of course, that will mean much less tax for the exchequer, and a bigger burden on the State, but hey ho, that's what you get when you try and squeeze people dry.
https://x.com/DataProgress/status/1817907361517908384
Interesting polling.
Nearly two thirds of Republican voters polled either strongly, or somewhat support term limits.
Their Presidential candidate, and representatives in Congress don't, of course.
A third of Republican voters would also support the impeachment of Clarence Thomas.
The £100k cutoff in particular, removing close to five figures of free childcare entitlement as well as the 65% marginal tax rate, will drive a lot of decision-making to work 4.5 or 4 days a week if not addressed.
Its these cliff edges that create the distortions, any serious reform needs to eliminate the cliff edges.
But, yes, this trend to make everything a human interest story is not only a little tedious it is clearly just padding. Summer schedules need to be filled I guess and extra padding saves a repeat of Cash in the Attic. Everything has to be a journey. Triumph over adversity. I find I could not care less now.
I also find the search function on Iplayer bloody awkward. Either inches forward or zooms forward. No middle ground.
I'd love to see more of the less well known sports on the BBC such as handball (very big in Europe) but given the breadth and depth of what's on offer I appreciate there's only so much to be shown in the time available.
For me, the sport coverage this week will be Goodwood on ITV - a Glorious start indeed to the meeting. KYPRIOS to win the Goodwood Cup? Probably and all the big players on here can indulge at 4/9 but it's not for me. The Lennox is much more open - AUDIENCE perhaps an each way alternative to ENGLISH OAK and KINROSS.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/30/just-stop-oil-heathrow-disruption/
Habitual criminals.
(sorry)
(Spoiler: she will...)
Wind and solar overtake fossil fuels in EU electricity in the first half of 2024!
This and more comes from the latest @EmberClimate report by me and
@EuanGraham9 on the EU power sector in H1-2024:
https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/eu-wind-and-solar-overtake-fossil-fuels/
"Hmmm," I thought. "Grantchester or Newnham?"
She was from Grantchester. A fairly posh area of Cambridge, famous for its 'fragrant' residents...
The thing about being complex is that it prevents people from earning more which then reduces tax intake. Anything that can simplify things will surely bring in more for the government.
I've shifted down to 3.5 days per week in my new job to stay below the cliff edge from an earlier agreed 4 day week. I now get Wednesday afternoon and Fridays with my kids which I think is a better use of my time than working so I can give the government 62% of the increment.
Even if she manages a victory over Trump, the best she is likely to get is a 50-50 Senate, and a small majority in the House.
The team’s assistant coach Marcus Trescothick has taken over on an interim basis to lead the team through the three T20s and five ODIs they will play against Australia in September.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/jul/30/matthew-mott-steps-down-england-cricket-white-ball-failures
F**k this. I've been away from them on-site for the past 9 days and haven't even seen them.
I posted earlier that the figures were probably sent to the Government in mid May - so it may explain the sudden desire for a general election because otherwise the Tory party would be offering 3% (i.e. the amount budgeted) and would be entering the autumn with multiple public sector strikes...
Question, how do you run an election when local government officers are on strike every Thursday in November / December...
Based on his model which includes thirteen factors, or 'keys' as he calls them, Harris is currently on course for victory with less than 100 days to go before Election Day."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13685535/donald-trump-kamala-harris-veteran-forecaster-presidential-winner-pick.html
However it's clear from the discussions this afternoon that any changes impact people who are well paid is going to have interesting (and unexpected by the Government) consequences..
a) to avoid 40% tax
b) because why not
Though I'm considering a 0 day week soon, depending on what the government does.
And put window locks in the Kremlin.
The spur to change away from his hydrocarbons in the EU over a couple of years is remarkable. Unexpectedly, history will hold his invasion of Ukraine as a heroic spur in the move to renewables.
That feels bizarre to me.
Unless you're arguing the Tories would have offered 0% ?
What proportion of the independent pay recommendation would you have offered ?
(And would you have costed anything for resulting industrial action ?)
How dare we have an opinion on the state broadcaster which we have no choice to pay for if we wish to receive live TV signals !!!!
It is not the sport that is being complained about here but the presentation.
I personally have not moaned about Rachel Reeves as I thought yesterday was inevitable whichever side won.
No one ever retired wishing they had done more work - I know I didn't.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
But I don't agree it's the same for pension relief, there isn't the same cliff edge element.
They were already planning to try and tie the government up in court over the change, using human rights legislation, and Government attempting to make it retrospective adds another string to their bow.
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
Not that it matters because HMRC have been allowed multiple retrospective tricks in the past few years...
If they can weaponise this, fair play to them. I just wish the US would be able to move on from the hyper partisanship so they can make meaningful change in these areas.
Edit: it’s actually slightly more complex. The VAT comes in in January, but any invoices sent from now *for education delivered after January 1*, will be expected to include the VAT, even though the legislation is not yet passed. So the schools are expected to include VAT in next year’s invoices if sent out over the summer. Which is retrospective taxation.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/revenue-and-customs-brief-8-2024-removal-of-vat-exemption-for-private-school-fees-and-boarding-fees/b73771cb-f422-46b4-b473-e7ba0ad72ec3
3.1 Changes to VAT on independent school fees
On 29 July 2024, the Chancellor announced that as of 1 January 2025, all education services and vocational training supplied by a private school, or a connected person, for a charge will be subject to VAT at the standard rate of 20%. Boarding services provided by a private school, or a connected person, will also be subject to VAT at 20%.
It has also been announced that fees invoiced or paid on or after 29 July 2024 that relate to the school terms after 1 January 2025 will be subject to the standard rate of VAT at the beginning of that term.
School fees paid before 29 July 2024 will follow the VAT treatment in force at the time of the normal tax point for these supplies, where the fee rate for the relevant term has been set and was known at the time of payment.
Draft legislation (VAT on Private School Fees & Removing the Charitable Rates Relief for Private Schools), an explanatory note and an accompanying technical note on these changes is available.
They are the forefront of Lord Pannick’s challenge under the ECHR.
Although the rest of your argument is absolutely valid - the lack of indexing has forced way more people into it...
Has to be action this end of new parliament as otherwise it just wont be done as these kinds of things are never sorted towards end of a term.
Another generation faces the terrible anxieties around social care for their families.
At some point either you pay the going rate or you stop being able to recruit staff.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51yd9qg7qyo
The reality is there is actually a hefty concession in there for parents / grandparents who may have paid years up front provided the school was equally organised...
I'm sure the correlation between the preponderance of Waitrose and Gail's Bakeries and the existence of a LD MP is merely coincidential.
I was in Esher last Thursday - much improved since the election. Just so happens a Gail's opened a few months before the election.
There's a Gail's in Brentwood - presumably when you get a proper Waitrose you'll know the LDs will be targeting Alex's seat.
One more serious thought - "class" isn't the be all and end all, neither is education, nor how you voted in 2016. Perhaps if you and your party want to progress, you need to slaughter those three sacred cows and consider other reasons why so many deserted the Conservatives nearly a month ago.
I don’t think we’ll be seeing much by way of a Labour honeymoon. That doesn’t mean that the Tories are going to suddenly look amazing (they’re not). But it will be interesting to see what the polls are coming out with early next year.
Not optimal… but then I guess they’re getting these hits out of the way early.
Rationally because it is an absolutely f*cking obvious thing to do. Politically because big changes need to be soon to give recovery time, and because it will broadly be Tory (now Lib Dem) heartlands that have been given the most free money over decades by the revaluation not being say 25 years ago.
I'd prefer greater change. but I think this is the least we can expect.
Just chatting to a plumber I am babysitting installing a new boiler in a Tenant's, and his Council Tax recently jumped from £1200 to£3k a year as they noticed big PD extensions added years ago. That's a Council that could have had that extra revenue every year for more than a decade, and something about lack of capacity in Councils to carry out necessary work.
BREAKING: A third child is confirmed to have died in yesterday’s knife attack in Southport. She was just 9 years old.
Presumably many of the schools have invoices printed and dated 28th July, which they will have posted yesterday afternoon?
He's the type of guy who watched Rik Mayall in The New Statesman at the age of 13 and decided to base his entire personality on Alan B'Stard.
Meanwhile back on earth....Stick or Twist with Vance?
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4799235-trump-vance-republican-senators-divided/
And he is probably v clever but he runs smack into s. 3 HRA
"1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights."
So you draft primary legislation so that it is not possible to do so. Problem solved.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64566239
I think Starmer reckons it'll be another foxhunting ban moment. But foxhunting was directly supported by very few people, and this move will affect many, many more people directly. It'll cheer those who hate people who are richer than them; but dismay many more.
Class isn't a big divide now between Tories and Labour no, the class divide is between LD and Reform voters if anything.
Age still is a big Tory v Labour divide however
Slightly Jolly Hockey Sticks (she's a Downe House girl), but OK.
That's actually quite common when it comes to VAT registration, send the none VAT bill now, when you are VAT registered you send the VAT only part later. That works brilliantly for Business to Business transactions, it doesn't work at all for personal purchases..
But come January 1st schools will be VAT registered and all that is being said her is that any payment for January is now subject to VAT...