I live in a marginal and don't know who I'm going to vote for, or if - indeed - I will be voting.
Please don't get all Russell Brand about voting.A lot of people have died to get a democratic,secret,vote for everyone equally.It's more important to cast your vote than who that vote is cast for.
Can I admit to feeling sorry for the Conservatives? Yes, they are efficient is some ways, far more so than Labour who can be incompetent on a massive scale, but the "fairness" aspect will always go against them.
Unfortunately, many people compare their situation only with others who may well be better off. If the rich get richer faster than you do - it's unfair. If they get poorer faster than you do, you feel better. The famous parable of the vineyard writ large. A one percent increase when everyone else gets nothing is better than you getting 5% when others get 10%.
The 50p tax was a case in point. It didn't affect those who earned "normal" wages at all but it rankled with many. The economic arguments were iffy, but the political arguments against were clear-cut. Even a seven-year-old could have told them.
But Labour, for the same reason, is vulnerable when people see others they regard as "skivers" being rewarded.
There are two large general hospitals within 10 miles of me. Both have charges for their parking. Both car parks are usually almost full. The parking cost is unwelcome but it does improve chances of getting a space. Free will lead to abuse. Lower charges would be the best way to go to test their effects on a case by case basis.
The 50p tax was a case in point. It didn't affect those who earned "normal" wages at all but it rankled with many. The economic arguments were iffy, but the political arguments against were clear-cut. Even a seven-year-old could have told them.
But that is the whole point of politics.
Can you reform public opinion from the point where 'tax cuts for millionaires' is bad to the point where "adjusting tax rates to maximise the income" is good
There are two large general hospitals within 10 miles of me. Both have charges for their parking. Both car parks are usually almost full. The parking cost is unwelcome but it does improve chances of getting a space. Free will lead to abuse. Lower charges would be the best way to go to test their effects on a case by case basis.
Seems to me the best way is to give free tickets at reception to genuine visitors/patients and charge big for peopl using the car park for shopping/commuting
The biggest potential change to public perception of the Tory brand could have taken place if the Tory party had followed through Osborne's "We are all in it together" as if they meant it.The 2012 Budget which gave away the"tax cuts for millionaires" ended this possibility and through it into reverse,largely through Duncan Smith's actions with the bedroom tax,closure of the ILF,20% cuts in the switch from DLA to PIP ,deaths which have occurred following a WCA assessment finding they were fit for work. I said at the time Osborne cutting the 50% rate was political suicide as it completely destroyed
continued on page 94.
whatever credibility he had in his "We are all in this together" mantra.
@DavidL Many of those people you mention need help from the state to survive, despite being in full time work. As for the part timers, those on zero hours contracts, and the newly self employed? The majority of the latter two are even more heavily dependent. (there were always positive benefits of them for certain sections)
Are they better off? Yes they are. The combination of earning and generous (compared to the alternative) in work benefits makes sure they are. 2 million of them. It is a remarkable achievement.
LOL, if only everybody could see the world from the viewpoint of the wealthy, next you will be saying they can eat cake.
Can you reform public opinion from the point where 'tax cuts for millionaires' is bad to the point where "adjusting tax rates to maximise the income" is good
They didnt do it to maximise the income though - their own analysis concluded it would lose them money. Let's not rewrite history.
The recent ICM poll was a major shock. No doubt about that. Since then we have had a couple of other polls indicating that the Lab lead may be tiny or zero. The problem is it is the summer and as with Xmas, polling maybe something we should ignore and come back to later main holiday periods.
@Neil Compulsory voting is not perfect, however I would couple it with an extra state holiday, and a rationalization of the different ballots to coincide, instead of them being at different times.
In defence of people who don't vote - it may be wrong to say they just don't care or are disrespectful to those who died for the right to vote. It's hard for those of us on here with strong opinions to accept, but quite a lot of people just don't have strong feelings towards any party. They might see good and bad in each but struggle for a preference, particularly when they always fight over the centre ground whatever their personal instincts might be. I didn't vote as an 18y/o not because I didn't care (I stayed up to watch the results), I just struggled to decide who I should back.
The present pb system of having to go to the bottom of a thread, then scroll up and then scroll down for each comment during which you have to read the same "blue" comments loads of times is certainly tedious, but I would have expected that people would have realised to whom I was responding with my "Blame" comment whilst the thread is still so short.
If you read it on politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com you can read it from top down
"Can you reform public opinion from the point where 'tax cuts for millionaires' is bad to the point where "adjusting tax rates to maximise the income" is good."
Tony and Ali Campbell could have done it. They persuaded MPs that invading a foreign country with a secular government was a good idea - but it took time.
You'd need to spend two years beforehand softening up people before you finally went ahead.
The Europhiles have spent forty years pretending that the EC was always going to be a political union, and that's what we voted for. Had they asked if we wanted a political union in 1975, we wouldn't have stayed in.
@Neil Compulsory voting is not perfect, however I would couple it with an extra state holiday, and a rationalization of the different ballots to coincide, instead of them being at different times.
Authoritarian freak. Mind your own bloody business.
@Neil Compulsory voting is not perfect, however I would couple it with an extra state holiday, and a rationalization of the different ballots to coincide, instead of them being at different times.
They didnt do it to maximise the income though - their own analysis concluded it would lose them money. Let's not rewrite history.
No it didn't. The analysis on static assumptions showed it might lose a small amount of revenue. But, as any fule no, static assumptions, ignoring behavioural changes, are not likely to be borne out by reality. Because those behavioural changes are hard to quantify, the OBR originally declined to take them into account in its forecasts. That doesn't mean that the behavioural changes aren't real.
This is an absolutely superb example of Labour spin-is-everything vs Conservative good-government. Everyone agrees that 50p is too high and is counter productive both in terms of tax revenue and and more importantly on the message it sends out to entrepreneurs. (That's why Labour didn't bring it in when they were in government until the last few weeks, and why Darling emphasised even then that it should be temporary). Labour's argument is entirely that the substance doesn't matter, because it's all about being able to say that the Tories favour the rich.
Cynical spin vs substance. You get what you vote for.
@MonikerDiCanio Democracy should be all of our business. A growing detachment of people from politics is never a good thing, as it usually ends with a percentage of people trying alternatives to democracy.
Asked how much the two parties would benefit on election day for its record on the economy, 8 per cent thought it would get “significant credit” and 44 per cent predicted “some credit”.
However, when asked how that credit should be apportioned between the coalition partners, voters thought that 65 per cent of it should go to the Tories and 35 per cent to the Liberal Democrats.
Could I ask a favour of everyone here by the way - if you're in a safe Labour or Conservative seat, can you vote Conservative and if you live in Labour targets 1-50 or so vote Labour.
I live in Ealing Central and Acton, and will be happy to oblige you by voting Labour.
They didnt do it to maximise the income though - their own analysis concluded it would lose them money. Let's not rewrite history.
No it didn't. The analysis on static assumptions showed it might lose a small amount of revenue.
No, Richard, re-read the Red Book. A static analysis would have showed it lost billions. The Red Book figures take behavioural effects into account. Even using heroic behavioural assumptions the Red Book still showed it lost money. We have to stop rewriting history on this.
Yes, anything bad that happens in Scotland is the fault of the Union, anything good that happens in Scotland is down the brilliance of the munificent Prophet Salmond (PBUH) and his guiding light.
There are two large general hospitals within 10 miles of me. Both have charges for their parking. Both car parks are usually almost full. The parking cost is unwelcome but it does improve chances of getting a space. Free will lead to abuse. Lower charges would be the best way to go to test their effects on a case by case basis.
Seems to me the best way is to give free tickets at reception to genuine visitors/patients and charge big for peopl using the car park for shopping/commuting
And how exactly would you make that work? Any system, such as you suggest, would be open to abuse, would require all sorts of additional staff to implement.
How do you stop someone from being a visitor and then using the car park for 6 hours afterwards so they can go off and do other things?
How can someone check to see if a car is parked by a legitimate user or not?
And where is the money going to come from to pay for all the extra staff as well as having to make up the shortfall in income? Oh yes - clamping down on 'Health Tourism' - and what new measures do you actually propose to collect all of this extra money? Details are needed if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise it is just a cheap bit of populism - right out of the New Labour spin book.
Otherwise it is just a cheap bit of populism - right out of the New Labour spin book.
They are a political party - what do you want? If their populism comes cheap then that's better than most. Look what Tory populism on immigration might cost us!
@DavidL Many of those people you mention need help from the state to survive, despite being in full time work. As for the part timers, those on zero hours contracts, and the newly self employed? The majority of the latter two are even more heavily dependent. (there were always positive benefits of them for certain sections)
Are they better off? Yes they are. The combination of earning and generous (compared to the alternative) in work benefits makes sure they are. 2 million of them. It is a remarkable achievement.
I'm old enough to remember a time when people on the left thought that reducing unemployment was a good thing.
@MonikerDiCanio Democracy should be all of our business. A growing detachment of people from politics is never a good thing, as it usually ends with a percentage of people trying alternatives to democracy.
The Totalitarian Principle states: "Everything not forbidden is compulsory." No thanks.
FT writers - comprised mostly of left leaning Europhiles. It's not enough to sympathise with people whose incomes are not rising fast enough if your policies create a poorer economic climate in the longer term. The facts of life are conservative. The sooner voters realise this and vote accordingly the better the country will be. I'm not holding my breath.
No, Richard, re-read the Red Book. A static analysis would have showed it lost billions. The Red Book figures take behavioural effects into account. Even using heroic behavioural assumptions the Red Book still showed it lost money. We have to stop rewriting history on this.
Their central forecast taking behavioural effects into account (hardly 'heroic assumptions') was that it was neutral in simple revenue terms (to be precise, a net cost of £100 million, but the margin of error was much greater than that). That did not take into account the effect on the economy of the message being set to business.
@Neil Compulsory voting is not perfect, however I would couple it with an extra state holiday, and a rationalization of the different ballots to coincide, instead of them being at different times.
Blimey. Can't people just be left alone not to bother if they want? That's control freakery run riot. Are we going to devote resources to prosecuting people if they don't vote? What a waste of time.
Otherwise it is just a cheap bit of populism - right out of the New Labour spin book.
They are a political party - what do you want? If their populism comes cheap then that's better than most. Look what Tory populism on immigration might cost us!
The populism might be cheap - but the real costs are not. The money has to be found somewhere - and the vagueness of the announcement shows that they haven't actually worked on the details.
If UKIP want to be taken seriously as a party that aspires to actually running things (rather than just sniping from the sidelines) then it needs to have policy detail.
rcs - have you seen the trade figures? To be fair it's not easy for the UK when our major trading partners are where they are. Current growth seems impressive for UK, but medium to long term looks decidedly dodgy, no?
Boring technical note Money going into a country, and money going out of a country must balance. If you run a trade deficit, then you need to import capital to pay for your imports. This process can work in reverse. If there are massive capital inflows - with people seeing your country as a safe haven - then this must result either in a soaring currency or a large trade deficit.
If UKIP want to be taken seriously as a party that aspires to actually running things (rather than just sniping from the sidelines) then it needs to have policy detail.
The last thing it needs is policy detail. And the last people it needs to take advice from are supporters of other parties.
If you watch 'Pointless', you'll discover that a proportion of the population don't even know that Cameron is Conservative or that Boris is not a leftie. And as for Ed, they wouldn't even have heard of him. Why add about 30% of random votes to the mix?
@DavidL Many of those people you mention need help from the state to survive, despite being in full time work. As for the part timers, those on zero hours contracts, and the newly self employed? The majority of the latter two are even more heavily dependent. (there were always positive benefits of them for certain sections)
Are they better off? Yes they are. The combination of earning and generous (compared to the alternative) in work benefits makes sure they are. 2 million of them. It is a remarkable achievement.
I'm old enough to remember a time when people on the left thought that reducing unemployment was a good thing.
That was probably when jobs were not generally some pathetically low paid offering without any actual contracted hours as offered by the capitalists of today.
Of course I need to do a statistical analysis comparing the UK with our European neighbours, especially France with their tax increases, but certainly the preliminary results very strongly suggest that Osborne's judgement was near-perfect!
I'll take that as you accepting that it was not a static analysis!
I look forward to peer-reviewing the PhD on the real economic impact of secret messages to business
Irrespective of any actual loss/gain, there's a large difference between choosing a rate to maximise revenue and choosing a rate that's fair and reasonble.
Or does the concept of fairness only apply to the less well-off?
If UKIP want to be taken seriously as a party that aspires to actually running things (rather than just sniping from the sidelines) then it needs to have policy detail.
The last thing it needs is policy detail. And the last people it needs to take advice from are supporters of other parties.
So UKIP don't actually want to do policy detail? How are they going to stand up to scrutiny - or do they just want to be a haven for protest votes?
I thought UKIP wanted to be taken seriously - but clearly not. They apparently just want to make noise.
I'll take that as you accepting that it was not a static analysis!
I look forward to peer-reviewing the PhD on the real economic impact of secret messages to business
Irrespective of any actual loss/gain, there's a large difference between choosing a rate to maximise revenue and choosing a rate that's fair and reasonble.
Or does the concept of fairness only apply to the less well-off?
I wasnt discussing fairness - I was disagreeing with the assertion that it was done to maximise revenue. It wasnt.
If UKIP want to be taken seriously as a party that aspires to actually running things (rather than just sniping from the sidelines) then it needs to have policy detail.
The last thing it needs is policy detail. And the last people it needs to take advice from are supporters of other parties.
So UKIP don't actually want to do policy detail? How are they going to stand up to scrutiny - or do they just want to be a haven for protest votes?
I thought UKIP wanted to be taken seriously - but clearly not. They apparently just want to make noise.
Wow. I take it they wont be able to count on your vote then?
@CD13 NOTA on the ballot paper should cover most of those who are not sure. 30% of the population not knowing is a sign that something is going badly wrong with our system.
@DavidL Many of those people you mention need help from the state to survive, despite being in full time work. As for the part timers, those on zero hours contracts, and the newly self employed? The majority of the latter two are even more heavily dependent. (there were always positive benefits of them for certain sections)
Are they better off? Yes they are. The combination of earning and generous (compared to the alternative) in work benefits makes sure they are. 2 million of them. It is a remarkable achievement.
I'm old enough to remember a time when people on the left thought that reducing unemployment was a good thing.
That was probably when jobs were not generally some pathetically low paid offering without any actual contracted hours as offered by the capitalists of today.
Fortunately, that's not an accurate description of most peoples' conditions of work. And, even poorly-paid work is better than unemployment.
I'll take that as you accepting that it was not a static analysis!
I look forward to peer-reviewing the PhD on the real economic impact of secret messages to business
Irrespective of any actual loss/gain, there's a large difference between choosing a rate to maximise revenue and choosing a rate that's fair and reasonble.
Or does the concept of fairness only apply to the less well-off?
I wasnt discussing fairness - I was disagreeing with the assertion that it was done to maximise revenue. It wasnt.
Oh. I've got the right end of the stick, but it appears to be the wrong stick entirely.
This is the problem for the Tories - Just as it looks like they are making progress, out comes another poll that takes them backwards again.
One step forward, two steps back, means that in the end they are going nowhere fast. And the clock is ticking down now...
I think we all know that after yesterday 0% tie, Sunday's YouGov poll will have the Labour lead back to 4-5% again.
As for getting On Topic, maybe the Tories would get more credit for their economic achievements if they hadn't got a Chancellor who appears to be utterly toxic with most voters?
If you believe all that, you should also believe that it would be better to criminalise not only the Labour Party but all left-of-centre thinking, whether by individuals or institutions.
How will you replace th lost income for hospitals? A higher deficit, higher taxes or spending cuts elsewhere? If the last, what is less important than asking people to make a contribution to the cost of the NHS owning parking facilities?
For some reason PB's servers think I am still in California... Left last week & have been in 3 time zones since so getting really confused by the time stamps on posts... How can I reset?
The England football team has undoubtedly improved since the players got their tax cut. What further proof do you need that low taxes for the wealthiest incentivises better performance.
I wasnt discussing fairness - I was disagreeing with the assertion that it was done to maximise revenue. It wasnt.
That is true. Osborne made it absolutely clear why it was done in his budget statement:
Mr Deputy Speaker, that brings me to rates of income tax and the additional rate of 50 pence. This tax rate is the highest in the G20. It is higher not just than the tax rate of America but also of major European countries like France, Italy, and Germany.
It is widely acknowledged by business organisations and international observers as harming the British economy.
Like the previous Chancellor who introduced it, I’ve always said it was temporary. ... A 50p tax rate, with all the damage it does to Britain’s competitiveness, can only be justified if it raises significant sums of money. ... Let me tell the House what HMRC say about the difference between 50p and 45p.
Their figures tell the story. The direct cost is only £100 million a year. Indeed HMRC calculate the loss of other tax revenues may even cancel that out.
In other words, it raises at most a fraction of what we were told – and may raise nothing at all. So from April next year, the top rate of tax will be 45p.
No Chancellor can justify a tax rate that damages our economy and raises next to nothing.
@DavidL Many of those people you mention need help from the state to survive, despite being in full time work. As for the part timers, those on zero hours contracts, and the newly self employed? The majority of the latter two are even more heavily dependent. (there were always positive benefits of them for certain sections)
Are they better off? Yes they are. The combination of earning and generous (compared to the alternative) in work benefits makes sure they are. 2 million of them. It is a remarkable achievement.
LOL, if only everybody could see the world from the viewpoint of the wealthy, next you will be saying they can eat cake.
I'm sure Waitrose will give you some old brioche if you ask nicely
"UKIP would meet the estimated £100 million a year cost of scrapping the charges through a clampdown on health tourism that will force foreign nationals to pay for health insurance before entering the country."
If UKIP want to be taken seriously as a party that aspires to actually running things (rather than just sniping from the sidelines) then it needs to have policy detail.
The last thing it needs is policy detail. And the last people it needs to take advice from are supporters of other parties.
So UKIP don't actually want to do policy detail? How are they going to stand up to scrutiny - or do they just want to be a haven for protest votes?
I thought UKIP wanted to be taken seriously - but clearly not. They apparently just want to make noise.
You will see much UKIP new policy, and reaffirmation of some old policies, being declared at the September UKIP conference in Doncaster. Not only that #oxfordsimon, you'll find plenty of established policy if you cared to look at the UKIP web sites. There you can 'scrute' as long as you like.
Can you reform public opinion from the point where 'tax cuts for millionaires' is bad to the point where "adjusting tax rates to maximise the income" is good
They didnt do it to maximise the income though - their own analysis concluded it would lose them money. Let's not rewrite history.
But a marginal amount (£400m I think) which they offset with increased property taxes.
Think of it as a targeted marketing campaign that "Britain is open for business"
The present pb system of having to go to the bottom of a thread, then scroll up and then scroll down for each comment during which you have to read the same "blue" comments loads of times is certainly tedious, but I would have expected that people would have realised to whom I was responding with my "Blame" comment whilst the thread is still so short.
If you read it on politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com you can read it from top down
Thank you Charles. Sad to say, you've just improved the quality of my life.
I wasnt discussing fairness - I was disagreeing with the assertion that it was done to maximise revenue. It wasnt.
That is true. Osborne made it absolutely clear why it was done in his budget statement:
Mr Deputy Speaker, that brings me to rates of income tax and the additional rate of 50 pence. This tax rate is the highest in the G20. It is higher not just than the tax rate of America but also of major European countries like France, Italy, and Germany.
It is widely acknowledged by business organisations and international observers as harming the British economy.
Like the previous Chancellor who introduced it, I’ve always said it was temporary. ... A 50p tax rate, with all the damage it does to Britain’s competitiveness, can only be justified if it raises significant sums of money. ... Let me tell the House what HMRC say about the difference between 50p and 45p.
Their figures tell the story. The direct cost is only £100 million a year. Indeed HMRC calculate the loss of other tax revenues may even cancel that out.
In other words, it raises at most a fraction of what we were told – and may raise nothing at all. So from April next year, the top rate of tax will be 45p.
No Chancellor can justify a tax rate that damages our economy and raises next to nothing.
Politically damaging though.
Especially when the DPM explains George wanted it reduced to 40p and only super Clegg managed to moderate the giveaway.
Clearly were all in this together with wage cuts for all but the elite will also be in focus at GE2015
There are two large general hospitals within 10 miles of me. Both have charges for their parking. Both car parks are usually almost full. The parking cost is unwelcome but it does improve chances of getting a space. Free will lead to abuse. Lower charges would be the best way to go to test their effects on a case by case basis.
Seems to me the best way is to give free tickets at reception to genuine visitors/patients and charge big for peopl using the car park for shopping/commuting
And how exactly would you make that work? Any system, such as you suggest, would be open to abuse, would require all sorts of additional staff to implement.
How do you stop someone from being a visitor and then using the car park for 6 hours afterwards so they can go off and do other things?
How can someone check to see if a car is parked by a legitimate user or not?
And where is the money going to come from to pay for all the extra staff as well as having to make up the shortfall in income? Oh yes - clamping down on 'Health Tourism' - and what new measures do you actually propose to collect all of this extra money? Details are needed if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise it is just a cheap bit of populism - right out of the New Labour spin book.
Ok lets just charge people to visit their family & friends in hospital as we do now
To sum up this morning's thread: George is running the last lap faster than the others but he should resist the temptation to rip off his shirt in the home straight.
Mr. Observer, that's as silly as the decision by the Roman army to acclaim Jovian emperor after Julian the Apostate's untimely death.
Agreed. Asserting that the wealthiest need tax cuts to make them perform better, or that tax cuts will make them perform better, is utterly absurd.
In that case Spurs should introduce a wage cap of £ 10,000 a year and they'd still be competing with West Ham, Palace and QPR for a place in London's top five.
There are two large general hospitals within 10 miles of me. Both have charges for their parking. Both car parks are usually almost full. The parking cost is unwelcome but it does improve chances of getting a space. Free will lead to abuse. Lower charges would be the best way to go to test their effects on a case by case basis.
Seems to me the best way is to give free tickets at reception to genuine visitors/patients and charge big for peopl using the car park for shopping/commuting
And how exactly would you make that work? Any system, such as you suggest, would be open to abuse, would require all sorts of additional staff to implement.
How do you stop someone from being a visitor and then using the car park for 6 hours afterwards so they can go off and do other things?
How can someone check to see if a car is parked by a legitimate user or not?
And where is the money going to come from to pay for all the extra staff as well as having to make up the shortfall in income? Oh yes - clamping down on 'Health Tourism' - and what new measures do you actually propose to collect all of this extra money? Details are needed if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise it is just a cheap bit of populism - right out of the New Labour spin book.
Ok lets just charge people to visit their family & friends in hospital as we do now
Or find £250m for Acute Trusts alone from the UKIP magic money tree.
Snow next week!! Looks like it'll be cold. But a fortnight of reading, beer drinking and bracing walks in beautiful country does not sound half bad to me.
Yes, anything bad that happens in Scotland is the fault of the Union, anything good that happens in Scotland is down the brilliance of the munificent Prophet Salmond (PBUH) and his guiding light.
TSE, they keep on about this great pooling and sharing and how we benefit, above is an example, 400% growth in foodbanks is another, having to pay to cover their London bedroom tax out of our meagre pocket money is another ......we cannot wait for more it is great.
I'll take that as you accepting that it was not a static analysis!
I look forward to peer-reviewing the PhD on the real economic impact of secret messages to business
Irrespective of any actual loss/gain, there's a large difference between choosing a rate to maximise revenue and choosing a rate that's fair and reasonble.
Or does the concept of fairness only apply to the less well-off?
I wasnt discussing fairness - I was disagreeing with the assertion that it was done to maximise revenue. It wasnt.
You're just looking at income tax in isolation.
I remember someone suggesting the revenue maximising share of income in tax was c 47% (which, incidentally, appeals to my sense of fairness in that the state taking more than half of your marginal income feels greedy).
If you take the 45% rate and add the 2% of uncapped NICs you end up with... Wait for it... 47%
I'll take that as you accepting that it was not a static analysis!
I look forward to peer-reviewing the PhD on the real economic impact of secret messages to business
Irrespective of any actual loss/gain, there's a large difference between choosing a rate to maximise revenue and choosing a rate that's fair and reasonble.
Or does the concept of fairness only apply to the less well-off?
I wasnt discussing fairness - I was disagreeing with the assertion that it was done to maximise revenue. It wasnt.
You're just looking at income tax in isolation.
I was responding to the original assertion which looked at income tax in isolation.
@DavidL Many of those people you mention need help from the state to survive, despite being in full time work. As for the part timers, those on zero hours contracts, and the newly self employed? The majority of the latter two are even more heavily dependent. (there were always positive benefits of them for certain sections)
Are they better off? Yes they are. The combination of earning and generous (compared to the alternative) in work benefits makes sure they are. 2 million of them. It is a remarkable achievement.
LOL, if only everybody could see the world from the viewpoint of the wealthy, next you will be saying they can eat cake.
I'm sure Waitrose will give you some old brioche if you ask nicely
Luckily I am not one of the unfortunate ones and can afford to buy the brioche fresh , no sell by bargains necessary. There are many many not so lucky , all that pooling and sharing does not seem to be working too well. Seems to be we do lots of pooling and some others share more like.
@CD13 NOTA on the ballot paper should cover most of those who are not sure. 30% of the population not knowing is a sign that something is going badly wrong with our system.
Is that an announcement that you agree with the need to massively improve the education system after Labour's terrible wasted years?
Quite possibly so, and of course Osborne was aware of that. That is the point: this is a government which does the right thing, not whatever the spin doctors say will make the best headline.
Maybe voters prefer spin over substance. Blair and Campbell, with their deep and corrosive cynicism, might have been right on that. We shall see.
If UKIP want to be taken seriously as a party that aspires to actually running things (rather than just sniping from the sidelines) then it needs to have policy detail.
The last thing it needs is policy detail. And the last people it needs to take advice from are supporters of other parties.
So UKIP don't actually want to do policy detail? How are they going to stand up to scrutiny - or do they just want to be a haven for protest votes?
I thought UKIP wanted to be taken seriously - but clearly not. They apparently just want to make noise.
@DavidL Many of those people you mention need help from the state to survive, despite being in full time work. As for the part timers, those on zero hours contracts, and the newly self employed? The majority of the latter two are even more heavily dependent. (there were always positive benefits of them for certain sections)
Are they better off? Yes they are. The combination of earning and generous (compared to the alternative) in work benefits makes sure they are. 2 million of them. It is a remarkable achievement.
LOL, if only everybody could see the world from the viewpoint of the wealthy, next you will be saying they can eat cake.
I'm sure Waitrose will give you some old brioche if you ask nicely
Luckily I am not one of the unfortunate ones and can afford to buy the brioche fresh , no sell by bargains necessary. There are many many not so lucky , all that pooling and sharing does not seem to be working too well. Seems to be we do lots of pooling and some others share more like.
The explosion of food banks in Scotland under the SNP must make your heart bleed.
The present pb system of having to go to the bottom of a thread, then scroll up and then scroll down for each comment during which you have to read the same "blue" comments loads of times is certainly tedious, but I would have expected that people would have realised to whom I was responding with my "Blame" comment whilst the thread is still so short.
If you read it on politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com you can read it from top down
Thank you Charles. Sad to say, you've just improved the quality of my life.
You can thank the Tory government tax cuts for encouraging me to spend more time on good works...
How will you replace th lost income for hospitals? A higher deficit, higher taxes or spending cuts elsewhere? If the last, what is less important than asking people to make a contribution to the cost of the NHS owning parking facilities?
Charging immigrants to use the NHS is their proposal, as outlined in the link I provided
Why don't you read that, written by ukip, instead of asking me, who isn't a ukip policy maker?
There are two large general hospitals within 10 miles of me. Both have charges for their parking. Both car parks are usually almost full. The parking cost is unwelcome but it does improve chances of getting a space. Free will lead to abuse. Lower charges would be the best way to go to test their effects on a case by case basis.
Seems to me the best way is to give free tickets at reception to genuine visitors/patients and charge big for peopl using the car park for shopping/commuting
And how exactly would you make that work? Any system, such as you suggest, would be open to abuse, would require all sorts of additional staff to implement.
How do you stop someone from being a visitor and then using the car park for 6 hours afterwards so they can go off and do other things?
How can someone check to see if a car is parked by a legitimate user or not?
And where is the money going to come from to pay for all the extra staff as well as having to make up the shortfall in income? Oh yes - clamping down on 'Health Tourism' - and what new measures do you actually propose to collect all of this extra money? Details are needed if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise it is just a cheap bit of populism - right out of the New Labour spin book.
Ok lets just charge people to visit their family & friends in hospital as we do now
How about providing a free minibus service to the local bus/train station?
Then people have an alternative to driving. If people want to convenience of being able to drive, then they should be willing to contribute to the costs.
BBC - The UK economy grew by 3.2% in the second quarter compared with the same period last year, slightly higher than the original 3.1% estimate. -The construction sector performed better than previously assumed.
Didn’t some PB smart-alec predict exactly that some weeks ago?
I'll take that as you accepting that it was not a static analysis!
I look forward to peer-reviewing the PhD on the real economic impact of secret messages to business
Irrespective of any actual loss/gain, there's a large difference between choosing a rate to maximise revenue and choosing a rate that's fair and reasonble.
Or does the concept of fairness only apply to the less well-off?
I wasnt discussing fairness - I was disagreeing with the assertion that it was done to maximise revenue. It wasnt.
You're just looking at income tax in isolation.
I was responding to the original assertion which looked at income tax in isolation.
But you've argued this point before, so now try looking at the real world ;-)
@DavidL Many of those people you mention need help from the state to survive, despite being in full time work. As for the part timers, those on zero hours contracts, and the newly self employed? The majority of the latter two are even more heavily dependent. (there were always positive benefits of them for certain sections)
Are they better off? Yes they are. The combination of earning and generous (compared to the alternative) in work benefits makes sure they are. 2 million of them. It is a remarkable achievement.
LOL, if only everybody could see the world from the viewpoint of the wealthy, next you will be saying they can eat cake.
I'm sure Waitrose will give you some old brioche if you ask nicely
Luckily I am not one of the unfortunate ones and can afford to buy the brioche fresh , no sell by bargains necessary. There are many many not so lucky , all that pooling and sharing does not seem to be working too well. Seems to be we do lots of pooling and some others share more like.
My point was that even though Marie-Antoinette most likely never said "let them eat cake" even the original smear refered to brioche - which is bread, not cake.
I'll take that as you accepting that it was not a static analysis!
I look forward to peer-reviewing the PhD on the real economic impact of secret messages to business
Irrespective of any actual loss/gain, there's a large difference between choosing a rate to maximise revenue and choosing a rate that's fair and reasonble.
Or does the concept of fairness only apply to the less well-off?
I wasnt discussing fairness - I was disagreeing with the assertion that it was done to maximise revenue. It wasnt.
You're just looking at income tax in isolation.
I was responding to the original assertion which looked at income tax in isolation.
But you've argued this point before, so now try looking at the real world ;-)
The fact that I set people straight on this before didnt stop people wrongly asserting that the additional income tax rate was lowered to 45p to maximise revenue again. So I selflessly took the time to correct the point once more. I expect my reward will come in another life.
Comments
Unfortunately, many people compare their situation only with others who may well be better off. If the rich get richer faster than you do - it's unfair. If they get poorer faster than you do, you feel better. The famous parable of the vineyard writ large. A one percent increase when everyone else gets nothing is better than you getting 5% when others get 10%.
The 50p tax was a case in point. It didn't affect those who earned "normal" wages at all but it rankled with many. The economic arguments were iffy, but the political arguments against were clear-cut. Even a seven-year-old could have told them.
But Labour, for the same reason, is vulnerable when people see others they regard as "skivers" being rewarded.
Compulsory voting with the addition of NOTA on the ballot paper would be my preferred solution.
Can you reform public opinion from the point where 'tax cuts for millionaires' is bad to the point where "adjusting tax rates to maximise the income" is good
It's kind of difficult to do a poll of them, so we will have to leave that question hanging.
All I can say is that I'm prepared to die to stand up to your odious idea of forcing me to vote against my will.
Compulsory voting is not perfect, however I would couple it with an extra state holiday, and a rationalization of the different ballots to coincide, instead of them being at different times.
"Can you reform public opinion from the point where 'tax cuts for millionaires' is bad to the point where "adjusting tax rates to maximise the income" is good."
Tony and Ali Campbell could have done it. They persuaded MPs that invading a foreign country with a secular government was a good idea - but it took time.
You'd need to spend two years beforehand softening up people before you finally went ahead.
The Europhiles have spent forty years pretending that the EC was always going to be a political union, and that's what we voted for. Had they asked if we wanted a political union in 1975, we wouldn't have stayed in.
Sad news: Ferguson's shipyard on the Lower Clyde has gone into administration. Eighty jobs are under threat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-28803561
Sadly bowing to the inevitable.
This is an absolutely superb example of Labour spin-is-everything vs Conservative good-government. Everyone agrees that 50p is too high and is counter productive both in terms of tax revenue and and more importantly on the message it sends out to entrepreneurs. (That's why Labour didn't bring it in when they were in government until the last few weeks, and why Darling emphasised even then that it should be temporary). Labour's argument is entirely that the substance doesn't matter, because it's all about being able to say that the Tories favour the rich.
Cynical spin vs substance. You get what you vote for.
http://ner.sagepub.com/content/229/1/R22
Democracy should be all of our business.
A growing detachment of people from politics is never a good thing, as it usually ends with a percentage of people trying alternatives to democracy.
Asked how much the two parties would benefit on election day for its record on the economy, 8 per cent thought it would get “significant credit” and 44 per cent predicted “some credit”.
However, when asked how that credit should be apportioned between the coalition partners, voters thought that 65 per cent of it should go to the Tories and 35 per cent to the Liberal Democrats.
How do you stop someone from being a visitor and then using the car park for 6 hours afterwards so they can go off and do other things?
How can someone check to see if a car is parked by a legitimate user or not?
And where is the money going to come from to pay for all the extra staff as well as having to make up the shortfall in income? Oh yes - clamping down on 'Health Tourism' - and what new measures do you actually propose to collect all of this extra money? Details are needed if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise it is just a cheap bit of populism - right out of the New Labour spin book.
I'm old enough to remember a time when people on the left thought that reducing unemployment was a good thing.
If UKIP want to be taken seriously as a party that aspires to actually running things (rather than just sniping from the sidelines) then it needs to have policy detail.
Money going into a country, and money going out of a country must balance. If you run a trade deficit, then you need to import capital to pay for your imports. This process can work in reverse. If there are massive capital inflows - with people seeing your country as a safe haven - then this must result either in a soaring currency or a large trade deficit.
I'll take that as you accepting that it was not a static analysis!
I look forward to peer-reviewing the PhD on the real economic impact of secret messages to business
If you watch 'Pointless', you'll discover that a proportion of the population don't even know that Cameron is Conservative or that Boris is not a leftie. And as for Ed, they wouldn't even have heard of him. Why add about 30% of random votes to the mix?
Australia seems to make it work without collapsing into dictatorship?
( North Korea has it as well, but the options are limited)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28800141
Of course I need to do a statistical analysis comparing the UK with our European neighbours, especially France with their tax increases, but certainly the preliminary results very strongly suggest that Osborne's judgement was near-perfect!
Or does the concept of fairness only apply to the less well-off?
Democracy's about making choices. I dislike this option, but it is a legitimate choice not to vote at all.
I thought UKIP wanted to be taken seriously - but clearly not. They apparently just want to make noise.
UKIP Leader @Nigel_Farage confirms that he has put his name forward for selection in South Thanet http://uki.pt/xWvflC
NOTA on the ballot paper should cover most of those who are not sure.
30% of the population not knowing is a sign that something is going badly wrong with our system.
I'm old enough to remember a time when people on the left thought that reducing unemployment was a good thing.
That was probably when jobs were not generally some pathetically low paid offering without any actual contracted hours as offered by the capitalists of today.
Fortunately, that's not an accurate description of most peoples' conditions of work. And, even poorly-paid work is better than unemployment.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2/populus
This is the problem for the Tories - Just as it looks like they are making progress, out comes another poll that takes them backwards again.
One step forward, two steps back, means that in the end they are going nowhere fast. And the clock is ticking down now...
I think we all know that after yesterday 0% tie, Sunday's YouGov poll will have the Labour lead back to 4-5% again.
As for getting On Topic, maybe the Tories would get more credit for their economic achievements if they hadn't got a Chancellor who appears to be utterly toxic with most voters?
Tories eat babies
Labour gives you other people's money
And in the meantime, the remaining Clydeside yard(s) can be thankful for the union and the Type 26 Frigate. That'll keep them going for a few years...
(With your tech guru hat on)
For some reason PB's servers think I am still in California... Left last week & have been in 3 time zones since so getting really confused by the time stamps on posts... How can I reset?
Mr Deputy Speaker, that brings me to rates of income tax and the additional rate of 50 pence. This tax rate is the highest in the G20. It is higher not just than the tax rate of America but also of major European countries like France, Italy, and Germany.
It is widely acknowledged by business organisations and international observers as harming the British economy.
Like the previous Chancellor who introduced it, I’ve always said it was temporary.
...
A 50p tax rate, with all the damage it does to Britain’s competitiveness, can only be justified if it raises significant sums of money. ... Let me tell the House what HMRC say about the difference between 50p and 45p.
Their figures tell the story. The direct cost is only £100 million a year. Indeed HMRC calculate the loss of other tax revenues may even cancel that out.
In other words, it raises at most a fraction of what we were told – and may raise nothing at all. So from April next year, the top rate of tax will be 45p.
No Chancellor can justify a tax rate that damages our economy and raises next to nothing.
Think of it as a targeted marketing campaign that "Britain is open for business"
Especially when the DPM explains George wanted it reduced to 40p and only super Clegg managed to moderate the giveaway.
Clearly were all in this together with wage cuts for all but the elite will also be in focus at GE2015
2 of my workmates will be voting UKIP at the GE. One is a former Lib Dem, the other used to vote Labour.
I remember someone suggesting the revenue maximising share of income in tax was c 47% (which, incidentally, appeals to my sense of fairness in that the state taking more than half of your marginal income feels greedy).
If you take the 45% rate and add the 2% of uncapped NICs you end up with... Wait for it... 47%
Maybe voters prefer spin over substance. Blair and Campbell, with their deep and corrosive cynicism, might have been right on that. We shall see.
;-)
Why don't you read that, written by ukip, instead of asking me, who isn't a ukip policy maker?
Then people have an alternative to driving. If people want to convenience of being able to drive, then they should be willing to contribute to the costs.
last year, slightly higher than the original 3.1% estimate. -The construction sector performed better than previously assumed.
Didn’t some PB smart-alec predict exactly that some weeks ago?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28800141