I don't think it's to do with kicking the rich. It's about fairness. Most people don't like the idea of people living in Britain and using it as a tax haven. Particularly when we have a government who are beating up the poor like they've never been beaten up before.
So the nett effect is those people move to a different tax haven and we end up with a smaller pie to share around, other people who might have considered coming decide there are better offers on the table all things considered, an the pie doesn't grow so fast any more. Labour is obsessed with everyone getting the same slice of pie, even if everyone gets less pie as a result.
I don't think it's to do with kicking the rich. It's about fairness. Most people don't like the idea of people living in Britain and using it as a tax haven. Particularly when we have a government who are beating up the poor like they've never been beaten up before.
So the nett effect is those people move to a different tax haven and we end up with a smaller pie to share around, other people who might have considered coming decide there are better offers on the table all things considered, an the pie doesn't grow so fast any more. Labour is obsessed with everyone getting the same slice of pie, even if everyone gets less pie as a result.
Pie analogies. The last refuge.
No, not answering the question and making fatuous comments is the last refuge.
People have to make simple analogies for you Labour types, because you sure as hell don't under economics.
O/T but any comments showing the flaws in the below logic would be appreciated:
The increase in the Labour vote from 2010 looks to be mainly driven by "Red" Lib Dems switching to Labour.
But in many of the Conservative-Labour battlegrounds, many of these "Red" Lib-Dems would already be voting Labour to defeat the Conservatives. So there is likely little is happening there in terms of extra votes for Labour.
Therefore, most of the boost in Lib Dem to Lab switching is happening in those Lib Dem seats which were won from Labour.
So Labour regains some of its losses it has suffered to Lib Dems over the past decade but there is little impact where they face Conservatives.
Apologies if this has been discussed before or I am missing something blindingly obvious - or if I am wasting anyone's time.
Seriously? Would you like a smaller slice of pie and a smaller slice for everyone else too in exchange for making a handful of rich people either fractionally less wealthy or locate elsewhere?
That seems like a very odd form of logic if what you really want is a better off society for more.
I don't think it's to do with kicking the rich. It's about fairness. Most people don't like the idea of people living in Britain and using it as a tax haven. Particularly when we have a government who are beating up the poor like they've never been beaten up before.
So the nett effect is those people move to a different tax haven and we end up with a smaller pie to share around, other people who might have considered coming decide there are better offers on the table all things considered, an the pie doesn't grow so fast any more. Labour is obsessed with everyone getting the same slice of pie, even if everyone gets less pie as a result.
I just listened to the Michael Portillo podcast; I thought it was excellent. Particularly around the 26-31 minute mark.
I think his point that this government has been as bold in reform as Thatcher, but lacks any consistent rhetoric, explaining what it's all about, as Thatcher did day-in-day-out, is spot on.
Drivel. London was a dowdy ex imperial city with a fast declining population when I arrived there in 1981. It was the Thatcher reforms which turned it around - it's population started to grow again in the mid 80s, around the time the City was deregulated. No coincidence. It has never looked back since.
The enormous taxes generated by the City paid for all the public spending of the Blair Brown years, which is why they sensibly never touched the delicate array of incentives and inducements which kept London attractive.
Miliband seems determined to f*ck London for the sake of it (taking all his anti-business measures as a whole). This will mean that London property will become cheaper, but only because the city will be poorer, less attractive to outsiders, and the capital of a more impoverished country.
As I say, if all you care about is equality, you'll be happy. But if you're a home-owner anywhere in the UK you should be concerned. London leads the UK property market up - but it can and will drag it down, likewise.
You're correct on a lot of this, it's well written, however none of it is in anyway related to the topic of non dom tax status which has been in place for over 100 years. It's just a distraction from the facts.
Financial deregulation, increased immigration, lower marginal tax rates have all done this. It's got nothing to do with the ability of letting people live in the UK without paying tax on their income on the basis that they don't really live here.
New York has also had a rebirth since the 80s, driven by largely the same factors. The top marginal federal tax rate in the US is 39%, state taxes take it to 43% ish. Basically the same as the UK.
When the rich are criticized for avoiding taxes the Tories say it is stoking class envy.When the poor are criticized for benefit fraud the Tories call it deserved criticism. That's the Tories version of fairness.
Interesting mixed reaction on the thread different from the usual party lines - Fox and False Flag in favour, Peter the Punter sceptical.
What strikes me about the campaign is that Labour's policies are dominating the news agenda so far without the usual negative impact which that - paradoxically - can have. In 2010, the Tories were doing fine until they started to say what they wanted to do, whereupon the electorate said "oo-er, not so sure about that". But 2015 is different - people sense that the economic position remains difficult and think all the main parties have been cautious, perhaps understandably. So even relatively modest policy announcements have a freshening effect.
Chestnut's point yesterday that the Tories were perceived to be winning week 1 and we shouldn't go overboard about Labour doing OK in week 2 is right, and we are still getting polls at level pegging +/-2. So far, the normal pattern that campaigns don't change anything much is holding. The point, though, is that the current polling position or anything like it will produce a Labour government. The odds on offer on the exchanges against that still seem very generous, with less than 2 weeks to the first votes being cast.
Are there really people still out there thinking "I don't think Labour have shown us that they hate rich people enough"? I'm not so sure.
I think this just further re-enforces that they don't understand wealth creation and that they're determined to make Britain a worse place for business. If you're looking to locate yourself or relocate a company here and you're in a decision making capacity you are either earning the proposed 50% tax or a non-dom and with such tax rates Britain now compares really poorly with others in Europe. What is the opportunity cost of this? No doubt it will go down great with the core vote.
Maybe this is like the Farage AIDS comment : designed to inspire the base rather than make new converts.
It's more about the response of the Conservatives, so far it's working. Shame really, tackling Labour's non doms would have been a great detox policy as well as the right thing to do. Until the Conservatives become the party of the middle class again they will continue to struggle.
It depends. If abolishing Non Dom status would raise a fortune then yes it'd be a great thing to do, if it would be a counter-productive move that reduces tax takes then its nothing more than a foolish clash war - and is not good for the middle class. The middle class benefit when we run the economy sensibly, not by engaging in class war.
It's not about whether we lose or gain a billion, it's about what sort of society we want. I would happily pay to keep the Boris Berezovsky element out, although I suspect the economic impact would be largely neutral.
Edit: to be fair, he did specify marginals. But not many Tory/Labour marginals. And note his comments re Mr Murphy (which I don't understand as it happens, but I may have misheard).
When the rich are criticized for avoiding taxes the Tories say it is stoking class envy.When the poor are criticized for benefit fraud the Tories call it deserved criticism. That's the Tories version of fairness.
No Tories view illegal tax evasion as just as wrong as illegal benefit fraud.
Non dom status is perfectly legal, it has nothing to do with illegal tax evasion. It says UK taxes must be paid on all UK incomes, that external incomes are exmpt only (for an annual fee). Guess what, if you make someone leave the country then their external incomes go with them, they aren't UK revenues in the first place.
Are there really people still out there thinking "I don't think Labour have shown us that they hate rich people enough"? I'm not so sure.
I think this just further re-enforces that they don't understand wealth creation and that they're determined to make Britain a worse place for business. If you're looking to locate yourself or relocate a company here and you're in a decision making capacity you are either earning the proposed 50% tax or a non-dom and with such tax rates Britain now compares really poorly with others in Europe. What is the opportunity cost of this? No doubt it will go down great with the core vote.
Maybe this is like the Farage AIDS comment : designed to inspire the base rather than make new converts.
It's more about the response of the Conservatives, so far it's working. Shame really, tackling Labour's non doms would have been a great detox policy as well as the right thing to do. Until the Conservatives become the party of the middle class again they will continue to struggle.
It depends. If abolishing Non Dom status would raise a fortune then yes it'd be a great thing to do, if it would be a counter-productive move that reduces tax takes then its nothing more than a foolish clash war - and is not good for the middle class. The middle class benefit when we run the economy sensibly, not by engaging in class war.
As Churchill said under Socialism it's equal misery for all.
Interesting mixed reaction on the thread different from the usual party lines - Fox and False Flag in favour, Peter the Punter sceptical.
What strikes me about the campaign is that Labour's policies are dominating the news agenda so far without the usual negative impact which that - paradoxically - can have. In 2010, the Tories were doing fine until they started to say what they wanted to do, whereupon the electorate said "oo-er, not so sure about that". But 2015 is different - people sense that the economic position remains difficult and think all the main parties have been cautious, perhaps understandably. So even relatively modest policy announcements have a freshening effect.
Chestnut's point yesterday that the Tories were perceived to be winning week 1 and we shouldn't go overboard about Labour doing OK in week 2 is right, and we are still getting polls at level pegging +/-2. So far, the normal pattern that campaigns don't change anything much is holding. The point, though, is that the current polling position or anything like it will produce a Labour government. The odds on offer on the exchanges against that still seem very generous, with less than 2 weeks to the first votes being cast.
I know I'm talking to the Labour devil here. But the question is: what are the Tories offering on policy?
I am supporting them (just one more time) out of sheer fear and despair at an Ed Miliband led Labour government. And I have *no* idea. Except that top rate of tax will be raised to £50k, there will be an EU referendum, and the books will be balanced.
I did read in the Sunday Times that the Conservative manifesto was being rewritten over the Easter weekend, David Cameron having rejected the first draft, on the grounds it did not contain enough eye-catching policies or vision.
I just listened to the Michael Portillo podcast; I thought it was excellent. Particularly around the 26-31 minute mark.
I think his point that this government has been as bold in reform as Thatcher, but lacks any consistent rhetoric, explaining what it's all about, as Thatcher did day-in-day-out, is spot on.
No problem, I enjoyed it a lot too.
His next show is April 29 but unfortunately sold out already
When the rich are criticized for avoiding taxes the Tories say it is stoking class envy.When the poor are criticized for benefit fraud the Tories call it deserved criticism. That's the Tories version of fairness.
A person earning a million pounds a year pays nearly 150 times as much income tax as the average worker (tax efficiencies aside).
When the rich are criticized for avoiding taxes the Tories say it is stoking class envy.When the poor are criticized for benefit fraud the Tories call it deserved criticism. That's the Tories version of fairness.
Tories just don't like taxes that won't raise any money, what with that being the whole point of taxation, rather than a means of social engineering or class revenge, which is what most of the left seem think.
You seem to be glossing over quite a few rich people recently sent to jail for tax evasion, which were also criticised, although I understand that doesn't really fit with your narrative.
Of course Unionists are still fighting for it. What a peculiar comment unless of course only SNPers are allowed to talk about Sindy endlessly.
I took it as quite another invention Grand Tory Tells Lefties To Vote SLAB. That sounds like deliberate dog's breakfasting to me. Not Unionist talk at all - but a good way to bugger the whole thing up. Rather like Tony talking about the EU yesterday and hugging EdM in a death embrace.
Are there really people still out there thinking "I don't think Labour have shown us that they hate rich people enough"? I'm not so sure.
I think this just further re-enforces that they don't understand wealth creation and that they're determined to make Britain a worse place for business. If you're looking to locate yourself or relocate a company here and you're in a decision making capacity you are either earning the proposed 50% tax or a non-dom and with such tax rates Britain now compares really poorly with others in Europe. What is the opportunity cost of this? No doubt it will go down great with the core vote.
Maybe this is like the Farage AIDS comment : designed to inspire the base rather than make new converts.
It's more about the response of the Conservatives, so far it's working. Shame really, tackling Labour's non doms would have been a great detox policy as well as the right thing to do. Until the Conservatives become the party of the middle class again they will continue to struggle.
It depends. If abolishing Non Dom status would raise a fortune then yes it'd be a great thing to do, if it would be a counter-productive move that reduces tax takes then its nothing more than a foolish clash war - and is not good for the middle class. The middle class benefit when we run the economy sensibly, not by engaging in class war.
It's not about whether we lose or gain a billion, it's about what sort of society we want. I would happily pay to keep the Boris Berezovsky element out, although I suspect the economic impact would be largely neutral.
Not all people who come over are disturbing elements though, do we want to keep out an American enterpreneur who is coming over to create a business and hire local employees? Under non-dom status the UK exchequer gets all taxes from the UK business, all revenues from any income made here, all VAT on expenditure here, the non-dom fee, the benefits of the job creation, the Employers NI (Jobs Tax) as well as NI and Income Tax from the new jobs, and a multitude of other taxes - but not the pre-existing income the non-dom had from overseas. That still gets taxed in America.
So EdM sticks to the NHS instead and reverts to class war and non-doms? It's so lacking in coherence and grown-up economics - it'd be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
You're right.
But it will be popular - it's a new variety on "evil bankers will pay for good stuff for me"
But it send a very clear, very unpleasant message.
The demonisation of a specific group of individuals - which seems at the heart of Labour's approach - is very worrying. What next: should all bankers be forced to wear little yellow strips of cloth on their arms to indicate their wealth?
I'm afraid Charles your now stuck with banker bashing for the rest of your working life. Osborne needed to put some blood on the carpet early on to kill the issue. He didn't and now it will hang around like a bad smell and get dragged out at every election.
These things go in cycles. If it's the fate of my generation to be beaten then so be it. We'll still be here, doing our bit to help the UK, when the beating stops
Of course Unionists are still fighting for it. What a peculiar comment unless of course only SNPers are allowed to talk about Sindy endlessly.
I took it as quite another invention Grand Tory Tells Lefties To Vote SLAB. That sounds like deliberate dog's breakfasting to me. Not Unionist talk at all - but a good way to bugger the whole thing up. Rather like Tony talking about the EU yesterday and hugging EdM in a death embrace.
On indyref, my comment was meant to highlight the way in which the Unionist parties are trying to divert all discussion back to indyref rather than to actual UK policies which are what this GE is about. But I was evidently not clear enough.
And thanks for the interpretation of Mr Gove's comments - an interesting line of thought: if the Tories have lost most of Scotland, they may as well mess up SLAB by hugging them. It IS of course explicitly Unionist talk, on one level ("separatist" and similar dogwhistle parlance) so he scores brownies with the right-wing Home Counties part o fhis audience, even if he does not do well with his Scottish Labour auditors ...
Maybe we will be able to get isis on some equal opportunities technicality
Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) 08/04/2015 09:21 ISIS reveals job advert for nurses who must be able to speak English dailym.ai/1CmADrW pic.twitter.com/0kzMK3Gvqb
So EdM sticks to the NHS instead and reverts to class war and non-doms? It's so lacking in coherence and grown-up economics - it'd be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
You're right.
But it will be popular - it's a new variety on "evil bankers will pay for good stuff for me"
But it send a very clear, very unpleasant message.
The demonisation of a specific group of individuals - which seems at the heart of Labour's approach - is very worrying. What next: should all bankers be forced to wear little yellow strips of cloth on their arms to indicate their wealth?
Ridiculous comparison to the Nazi treatment of Jews prior to the holocaust. Can't you see that it weakens an already weak argument?
No: demonising any group in society - whether foreigners, immigrants, muslims, jews, bankers, politicians or estate agents is a bad thing.
People should be judged on their individual merits not who they are or what they do
It's more about the response of the Conservatives, so far it's working. Shame really, tackling Labour's non doms would have been a great detox policy as well as the right thing to do. Until the Conservatives become the party of the middle class again they will continue to struggle.
It depends. If abolishing Non Dom status would raise a fortune then yes it'd be a great thing to do, if it would be a counter-productive move that reduces tax takes then its nothing more than a foolish clash war - and is not good for the middle class. The middle class benefit when we run the economy sensibly, not by engaging in class war.
It's not about whether we lose or gain a billion, it's about what sort of society we want. I would happily pay to keep the Boris Berezovsky element out, although I suspect the economic impact would be largely neutral.
Not all people who come over are disturbing elements though, do we want to keep out an American enterpreneur who is coming over to create a business and hire local employees? Under non-dom status the UK exchequer gets all taxes from the UK business, all revenues from any income made here, all VAT on expenditure here, the non-dom fee, the benefits of the job creation, the Employers NI (Jobs Tax) as well as NI and Income Tax from the new jobs, and a multitude of other taxes - but not the pre-existing income the non-dom had from overseas. That still gets taxed in America.
They will go to Singapore, its much simpler there, they don't need to be non-doms, no one is taxed on any money they make outside the country, simples.
The only reason the domicile becomes an issue is because we try and tax people on their foreign income.
When the rich are criticized for avoiding taxes the Tories say it is stoking class envy.When the poor are criticized for benefit fraud the Tories call it deserved criticism. That's the Tories version of fairness.
A person earning a million pounds a year pays nearly 150 times as much income tax as the average worker (tax efficiencies aside).
Fair or unfair?
How do you come up with that figure?
Average wage is £26,000 - they would pay £5365 in national insurance and income tax A £1,000,000 wage earner would pay 459,358 in NI and Income Tax which is 85 times.
EDIT: Oh, I see, you are just counting income tax.
@faisalislam: Share of UK tax take paid by "the 1%" now at 28%. Way above 22-23% under Blair. income share rising, below lab peak: https://t.co/YDARyEKroa
Ed explicitly targeting the people who currently fund all his wet dreams
That's odd Lord Paul is mysteriously become an indepedent peer now...when did this happen?
Edit: Oh wait, despite donating loads of money to Labour, he had dodgy expenses and got suspended.
Its not just me that is confused by this...
Lord Paul, a Labour peer who used to claim non-dom status but gave it up, has welcomed Ed Miliband's announcement but said it was done "for the wrong reasons"
Are there really people still out there thinking "I don't think Labour have shown us that they hate rich people enough"? I'm not so sure.
I think this just further re-enforces that they don't understand wealth creation and that they're determined to make Britain a worse place for business. If you're looking to locate yourself or relocate a company here and you're in a decision making capacity you are either earning the proposed 50% tax or a non-dom and with such tax rates Britain now compares really poorly with others in Europe. What is the opportunity cost of this? No doubt it will go down great with the core vote.
Maybe this is like the Farage AIDS comment : designed to inspire the base rather than make new converts.
It's more about the response of the Conservatives, so far it's working. Shame really, tackling Labour's non doms would have been a great detox policy as well as the right thing to do. Until the Conservatives become the party of the middle class again they will continue to struggle.
It depends. If abolishing Non Dom status would raise a fortune then yes it'd be a great thing to do, if it would be a counter-productive move that reduces tax takes then its nothing more than a foolish clash war - and is not good for the middle class. The middle class benefit when we run the economy sensibly, not by engaging in class war.
It's not about whether we lose or gain a billion, it's about what sort of society we want. I would happily pay to keep the Boris Berezovsky element out, although I suspect the economic impact would be largely neutral.
Sure. But if he supported Putin you'd be happy to have him here.
When the rich are criticized for avoiding taxes the Tories say it is stoking class envy.When the poor are criticized for benefit fraud the Tories call it deserved criticism. That's the Tories version of fairness.
Tories just don't like taxes that won't raise any money, what with that being the whole point of taxation, rather than a means of social engineering or class revenge, which is what most of the left seem think.
So the justification of not having higher tax rates is because they don't raise extra money -bec the rich avoid them. On that basis what would happen if standard rate taxpayers decided to avoid the 20% rate?
Are there really people still out there thinking "I don't think Labour have shown us that they hate rich people enough"? I'm not so sure.
I think this just further re-enforces that they don't understand wealth creation and that they're determined to make Britain a worse place for business. If you're looking to locate yourself or relocate a company here and you're in a decision making capacity you are either earning the proposed 50% tax or a non-dom and with such tax rates Britain now compares really poorly with others in Europe. What is the opportunity cost of this? No doubt it will go down great with the core vote.
Maybe this is like the Farage AIDS comment : designed to inspire the base rather than make new converts.
It's more about the response of the Conservatives, so far it's working. Shame really, tackling Labour's non doms would have been a great detox policy as well as the right thing to do. Until the Conservatives become the party of the middle class again they will continue to struggle.
It depends. If abolishing Non Dom status would raise a fortune then yes it'd be a great thing to do, if it would be a counter-productive move that reduces tax takes then its nothing more than a foolish clash war - and is not good for the middle class. The middle class benefit when we run the economy sensibly, not by engaging in class war.
So EdM sticks to the NHS instead and reverts to class war and non-doms? It's so lacking in coherence and grown-up economics - it'd be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
You're right.
But it will be popular - it's a new variety on "evil bankers will pay for good stuff for me"
But it send a very clear, very unpleasant message.
The demonisation of a specific group of individuals - which seems at the heart of Labour's approach - is very worrying. What next: should all bankers be forced to wear little yellow strips of cloth on their arms to indicate their wealth?
I'm afraid Charles your now stuck with banker bashing for the rest of your working life. Osborne needed to put some blood on the carpet early on to kill the issue. He didn't and now it will hang around like a bad smell and get dragged out at every election.
These things go in cycles. If it's the fate of my generation to be beaten then so be it. We'll still be here, doing our bit to help the UK, when the beating stops
I think this is more than cyclical Charles, the size of the shock will stick with several generations. It will be like Germans and inflation.
When the rich are criticized for avoiding taxes the Tories say it is stoking class envy.When the poor are criticized for benefit fraud the Tories call it deserved criticism. That's the Tories version of fairness.
Yes, but the former is legal and the latter is illegal - so you are in favour of breaking the law then!
BTW well-know tax avoiders include EdM and many Labour luvvies.
O/T but any comments showing the flaws in the below logic would be appreciated:
The increase in the Labour vote from 2010 looks to be mainly driven by "Red" Lib Dems switching to Labour.
But in many of the Conservative-Labour battlegrounds, many of these "Red" Lib-Dems would already be voting Labour to defeat the Conservatives. So there is likely little is happening there in terms of extra votes for Labour.
Therefore, most of the boost in Lib Dem to Lab switching is happening in those Lib Dem seats which were won from Labour.
So Labour regains some of its losses it has suffered to Lib Dems over the past decade but there is little impact where they face Conservatives.
Apologies if this has been discussed before or I am missing something blindingly obvious - or if I am wasting anyone's time.
I am not sure that the LD squeeze happened as much as it could have done in 2010.
Those of us who have taken an interest in this issue over the years will find the situation amusing. Osborne made a big issue of the growth of people claiming non-dom status under the last government and proposed a levy on them, which the Labour government eventually adopted in a limited form in 2007. This is what Darling said at the time of Osborne’s proposal: "Such a charge could discourage men and women – doctors and nurses, businessmen and women – from coming to this country for short-term work and who do pay tax on their earnings here, and who do contribute to the country's wealth," he said. "We don't want to turn them away."
I heard Michael Gove on Newsnight last night answering this. He said the first question that has to be asked is whether this will increase or reduce the tax take.
A poor response in my opinion. It gave the impression that the Tories had no problem with inequality for the super rich as long as the treasury made a few quid out of it. This thinking is the achilles heel of the Tory party.
Surely the whole point of a tax is to raise money?
Don't be silly, if you are a leftie that's a marginal consideration, its all about being "fair" (unless your are claiming parliamentary expenses anyway). Its the same as their education policy, its too much effort to make all the state schools good, so we have to claw all the private schools down to the state school level so that its "fair".
The one huge flaw with that argument is that, as we know, on a like for like basis the state education system outperforms the private one.
That must be why Labour was expending so much effort in trying to blackmail private schools to take in more disadvantaged children if they wanted to hold on to their charitable status, because clearly they wanted to send them to a school that would be worse for them than going to a state school... oh wait!
It is an inescapable fact that the PISA ratings which people like you hold up as the evidence the UK state system is not fit for purpose show that these very same schools outperform the private sector. I am sorry if you do not like that, but there you go.
Of all the stuff in that Pisa report that shows our schools are underperforming, you obsess with one rather arbitrary, small section of the report. It's like you're saying: "It's sh*t, but look: look, there: squirrel!" What's worse, I'm not sure it says exactly what you say it's saying. Still, after your stupidity with the BBC report the other day, that's only to be expected.
Perhaps your fevered defence of the state system is because you had a producer interest in that failing system?
It's exactly what I expect from someone who accepted plaudits for saying he wouldn't vote Labour as long as Balls was near the top over the McBride scandal.
Quick question...last night it was suggested that Ed ending on non-dom status would only affect British citizens, is that still the case i.e. Roman Abramovich will unaffected.
And following from that, if it does only crack down on British citizens, what stops the wealthy just buying citizenship of another country, still residing in the UK and claiming non-dom status. There are a number of countries now that do a cracking trade in selling citizenship, without ever even having to visit.
Staines also pointing out that you can also pop over to Ireland apparently for a warm welcome.
Those of us who have taken an interest in this issue over the years will find the situation amusing. Osborne made a big issue of the growth of people claiming non-dom status under the last government and proposed a levy on them, which the Labour government eventually adopted in a limited form in 2007. This is what Darling said at the time of Osborne’s proposal: "Such a charge could discourage men and women – doctors and nurses, businessmen and women – from coming to this country for short-term work and who do pay tax on their earnings here, and who do contribute to the country's wealth," he said. "We don't want to turn them away."
Of course Unionists are still fighting for it. What a peculiar comment unless of course only SNPers are allowed to talk about Sindy endlessly.
I took it as quite another invention Grand Tory Tells Lefties To Vote SLAB. That sounds like deliberate dog's breakfasting to me. Not Unionist talk at all - but a good way to bugger the whole thing up. Rather like Tony talking about the EU yesterday and hugging EdM in a death embrace.
Indy Ref 2 is not on the table whatsoever though, that is a matter which will potentially come to pass, or not with Holyrood 2016 elections. Also what on earth was the young chap in the audience wittering on about a Conservative coalition with UKIP for - won't happen. Ruth's answer was quite right.
It's quite clear the average voter has no idea what arrangements are likely or possible in the next parliament. UKIP-Con coalition ffsake.
Are there really people still out there thinking "I don't think Labour have shown us that they hate rich people enough"? I'm not so sure.
I think this just further re-enforces that they don't understand wealth creation and that they're determined to make Britain a worse place for business. If you're looking to locate yourself or relocate a company here and you're in a decision making capacity you are either earning the proposed 50% tax or a non-dom and with such tax rates Britain now compares really poorly with others in Europe. What is the opportunity cost of this? No doubt it will go down great with the core vote.
Maybe this is like the Farage AIDS comment : designed to inspire the base rather than make new converts.
It's more about the response of the Conservatives, so far it's working. Shame really, tackling Labour's non doms would have been a great detox policy as well as the right thing to do. Until the Conservatives become the party of the middle class again they will continue to struggle.
It depends. If abolishing Non Dom status would raise a fortune then yes it'd be a great thing to do, if it would be a counter-productive move that reduces tax takes then its nothing more than a foolish clash war - and is not good for the middle class. The middle class benefit when we run the economy sensibly, not by engaging in class war.
It's not about whether we lose or gain a billion, it's about what sort of society we want. I would happily pay to keep the Boris Berezovsky element out, although I suspect the economic impact would be largely neutral.
Sure. But if he supported Putin you'd be happy to have him here.
You should read The Godfather of the Kremlin: Boris Berezovsky and the Looting of Russia, Paul Klebnikov paid with his life to write that book. Follow the money to understand why this never registered in the West.
I don't think it'll change a single vote myself. It's out of naked eye reach and frankly I don't care that a fraction of a percent of people change their tax status or not. Provided they can't influence elections [as they used to do] - I'm not bothered. They pay more in various taxes than I do.
it's an area I know very little about, and I find it hard to get worked up about. There are some obvious (and perhaps fallacious) dangers, as outlined below, and my instinct says it'll raise very little money. But do I care: nah.
For that reason, it'll be a vote winner. But a game changer? Nah.
You might well be right; it depends on how it pans out and the parties play it.
Like yo, it's just an issue that I'm finding it hard to get worked up about, mainly due to lack of knowledge and connection. I don't work for a non-dom (and as far as I'm aware never have), and don't know any. It seems an utterly disconnected issue.
Whereas Labourites want to head in the opposite direction ...
Labour policy is to allow the public sector (DOR) to bid as well as the private sector. Which is more competition surely?
It was...is it still? They have gone very quiet on that front.
I assume it is. To be honest it always seemed like a pretty sensible policy. It was ideology over common sense allowing European state owned railways to bid for contracts but blocking DOR from doing the same.
On that topic I traveled on the new Virgin East Coast service recently. Possibly the least aesthetically pleasing re-branding I have ever seen. The old intercity and GNER colours looked much better.
Hmmm I expect this will play well for Labour, despite the fact only a very very small number of people can possibly know whether it will actually have a positive effect on tax revenues. Indeed it may be literally impossible to know until it is implemented - will people leave, find other loopholes, pay up, change their behaviour in a myriad other ways...surely impossible to know.
For me it's just another example of Labour's instinctive anti-business, anti-enterprise, anti-success ethos, but i know i am in a minority there. Government by headline...low grade tawdriness. Sigh
I find it highly entertaining on this thread that the PB Tory response seems to be "only if this raises money" while the PB Labour response seems to say "this is right and fair even if it costs money".
In which case PB Labourites, what budgets do you think should be cut to make this change if it costs money. Welsh Labour cut the NHS budget while English Tories increased it - do PB Labourites want to cut the NHS budget to pay for this change or would you prefer to cut something else?
I donated another £20 to the Tory campaign yesterday. EdM PM was always a nightmare scenario, if my £20 buys a bit more door-knocking mileage - it's better spent than a few bottles of cooking plonk.
Hmmm I expect this will play well for Labour, despite the fact only a very very small number of people can possibly know whether it will actually have a positive effect on tax revenues. Indeed it may be literally impossible to know until it is implemented - will people leave, find other loopholes, pay up, change their behaviour in a myriad other ways...surely impossible to know.
For me it's just another example of Labour's instinctive anti-business, anti-enterprise, anti-success ethos, but i know i am in a minority there. Government by headline...low grade tawdriness. Sigh
So here we are week two of the campaign and the narrative is all about dicking around at the edges. The kind of marketing crap that moves a few 10s of millions around but doesn't actually create a blueprint of what a party would do, nor say how they will create wealth.
Fairly depressing all round.
And the poll cards arrived this morning.
Quite.
This is just so much positional dancing, though there is a wee bit more substance in it than is involved in sending chain emails around to wrangle a newspaper letter together.
I think it's too early in the campaign to be *disappointed* yet - it's still Easter hols for many and a stupid waste of juicy stuff to blow it now.
I'm expecting the final two weeks to be hectic as that's when most are really paying any attention. Us anoraks are the worst at being patient during this run-up period.
So here we are week two of the campaign and the narrative is all about dicking around at the edges. The kind of marketing crap that moves a few 10s of millions around but doesn't actually create a blueprint of what a party would do, nor say how they will create wealth.
Fairly depressing all round.
And the poll cards arrived this morning.
Quite.
This is just so much positional dancing, though there is a wee bit more substance in it than is involved in sending chain emails around to wrangle a newspaper letter together.
Let's look at an area where there has been success under this government: troubled families.
The 'troubled families' scheme was widely derided by Labour and its supporters when it was launched, despite being based on schemes initiated by Labour councils
But this is where we need to be concentrating: helping those who are failing. So many of society's ills come not from the rich, but those who have, for whatever reasons, taken a wrong turn. We can get massive societal improvements for very little money.
Councils’ dedicated troubled families teams are now intensively working with 99% of households in England identified as having multiple problems, including high levels of truancy, youth crime, anti-social behaviour and worklessness, and would otherwise cost taxpayers an estimated £75,000 per year.
The Local Government Secretary said he was delighted that, with over 9 months still to go for the 3-year initiative, councils had met payment-by-results criteria for turning around the lives of more than 69,000 families.
The problem is Labour just doesn't seem to be interested. They are so obsessed with class war and the rich (despite so many are 'rich' themselves) that they forget the people who they should be helping.
Hmmm I expect this will play well for Labour, despite the fact only a very very small number of people can possibly know whether it will actually have a positive effect on tax revenues. Indeed it may be literally impossible to know until it is implemented - will people leave, find other loopholes, pay up, change their behaviour in a myriad other ways...surely impossible to know.
For me it's just another example of Labour's instinctive anti-business, anti-enterprise, anti-success ethos, but i know i am in a minority there. Government by headline...low grade tawdriness. Sigh
Indeed. Ending an inheritable tax status passed down only through the male line clearly demonstrates Labour is anti-success and anti-business.
Those of us who have taken an interest in this issue over the years will find the situation amusing. Osborne made a big issue of the growth of people claiming non-dom status under the last government and proposed a levy on them, which the Labour government eventually adopted in a limited form in 2007. This is what Darling said at the time of Osborne’s proposal: "Such a charge could discourage men and women – doctors and nurses, businessmen and women – from coming to this country for short-term work and who do pay tax on their earnings here, and who do contribute to the country's wealth," he said. "We don't want to turn them away."
The demonisation of a specific group of individuals - which seems at the heart of Labour's approach - is very worrying. What next: should all bankers be forced to wear little yellow strips of cloth on their arms to indicate their wealth?...
Demonising any group in society - whether foreigners, immigrants, muslims, jews, bankers, politicians or estate agents is a bad thing.
People should be judged on their individual merits not who they are or what they do
I agree on the last sentence, of course, but I don't actually think anyone is demonising individual bankers as people. Arguably the nicest man in the Commons is Oliver Letwin, and he's a banker. The comparison is, with respect, more overheated than is usual in your case, since Jews were individually persecuted and murdered, wheras here we are merely discussing the exact proportions of large incomes to be paid in tax.
I know I'm talking to the Labour devil here. But the question is: what are the Tories offering on policy?
(Twitches forked tail appreciatively) To be fair we've not actually heard any Tory policies yet - perhaps people will think they are wonderful. But good policies do usually need some mood music building up to them - I think if the Tories suddenly said "We'll slash 2p off income tax!" it would be seen as too sudden to be indicative of more than panic.
O/T but any comments showing the flaws in the below logic would be appreciated:
The increase in the Labour vote from 2010 looks to be mainly driven by "Red" Lib Dems switching to Labour.
But in many of the Conservative-Labour battlegrounds, many of these "Red" Lib-Dems would already be voting Labour to defeat the Conservatives. So there is likely little is happening there in terms of extra votes for Labour.
Apologies if this has been discussed before or I am missing something blindingly obvious - or if I am wasting anyone's time.
First don't apologise - we all post comments of varying weight and you're very welcome aboard. The issue you raise is genuine but the counter-argument is this. Red LibDems generally voted Labour in 2010 only if they felt it was essential to keep the Tories out, since they genuinely believed the LibDems were to the left of Labour and in seats that were either safe Labour or hopeless, they were better off voting LD. For example, in my seat, 17% voted LD, since it was widely thought that I was doomed anyway and it was just possible (Cleggasm) that the Libdems could overtake me and become the real challenger.
The calculations have changed first because virtually nobody still thinks the LDs are a radical left-wing party, and second because the calculations have changed, with different seats now looking very marginal and winnable for Labour.
I heard Michael Gove on Newsnight last night answering this. He said the first question that has to be asked is whether this will increase or reduce the tax take.
A poor response in my opinion. It gave the impression that the Tories had no problem with inequality for the super rich as long as the treasury made a few quid out of it. This thinking is the achilles heel of the Tory party.
Surely the whole point of a tax is to raise money?
Don't be silly, if you are a leftie that's a marginal consideration, its all about being "fair" (unless your are claiming parliamentary expenses anyway). Its the same as their education policy, its too much effort to make all the state schools good, so we have to claw all the private schools down to the state school level so that its "fair".
The one huge flaw with that argument is that, as we know, on a like for like basis the state education system outperforms the private one.
That must be why Labour was expending so much effort in trying to blackmail private schools to take in more disadvantaged children if they wanted to hold on to their charitable status, because clearly they wanted to send them to a school that would be worse for them than going to a state school... oh wait!
It is an inescapable fact that the PISA ratings which people like you hold up as the evidence the UK state system is not fit for purpose show that these very same schools outperform the private sector. I am sorry if you do not like that, but there you go.
Of all the stuff in that Pisa report that shows our schools are underperforming, you obsess with one rather arbitrary, small section of the report. It's like you're saying: "It's sh*t, but look: look, there: squirrel!" What's worse, I'm not sure it says exactly what you say it's saying. Still, after your stupidity with the BBC report the other day, that's only to be expected.
Perhaps your fevered defence of the state system is because you had a producer interest in that failing system?
It's exactly what I expect from someone who accepted plaudits for saying he wouldn't vote Labour as long as Balls was near the top over the McBride scandal.
Now the election is near, it's all class war!
OK
That's all you can say when you're in the wrong, isn't it?
I find it highly entertaining on this thread that the PB Tory response seems to be "only if this raises money" while the PB Labour response seems to say "this is right and fair even if it costs money".
In which case PB Labourites, what budgets do you think should be cut to make this change if it costs money. Welsh Labour cut the NHS budget while English Tories increased it - do PB Labourites want to cut the NHS budget to pay for this change or would you prefer to cut something else?
I find it highly entertaining on this thread that the PB Tory response seems to be "only if this raises money" while the PB Labour response seems to say "this is right and fair even if it costs money".
In which case PB Labourites, what budgets do you think should be cut to make this change if it costs money. Welsh Labour cut the NHS budget while English Tories increased it - do PB Labourites want to cut the NHS budget to pay for this change or would you prefer to cut something else?
Defending an anachronistic relic of the colonial age.
I'm really pleased about this - a decade ago I was working with a mix of police forces and health/welfare orgs to set up peripatetic teams to tackle just this sort of thing. We used data from Experian/MOSAIC to identify the broad trends and drilled down to see how this turned into real families/areas.
That it's finally become reality is heartening. Taken a long time and lots of arm twisting/turf fighting = but it's arrived.
Let's look at an area where there has been success under this government: troubled families.
The 'troubled families' scheme was widely derided by Labour and its supporters when it was launched, despite being based on schemes initiated by Labour councils
But this is where we need to be concentrating: helping those who are failing. So many of society's ills come not from the rich, but those who have, for whatever reasons, taken a wrong turn. We can get massive societal improvements for very little money.
Councils’ dedicated troubled families teams are now intensively working with 99% of households in England identified as having multiple problems, including high levels of truancy, youth crime, anti-social behaviour and worklessness, and would otherwise cost taxpayers an estimated £75,000 per year.
The Local Government Secretary said he was delighted that, with over 9 months still to go for the 3-year initiative, councils had met payment-by-results criteria for turning around the lives of more than 69,000 families.
The problem is Labour just doesn't seem to be interested. They are so obsessed with class war and the rich (despite so many are 'rich' themselves) that they forget the people who they should be helping.
So EdM sticks to the NHS instead and reverts to class war and non-doms? It's so lacking in coherence and grown-up economics - it'd be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
You're right.
But it will be popular - it's a new variety on "evil bankers will pay for good stuff for me"
But it send a very clear, very unpleasant message.
The demonisation of a specific group of individuals - which seems at the heart of Labour's approach - is very worrying. What next: should all bankers be forced to wear little yellow strips of cloth on their arms to indicate their wealth?
Ridiculous comparison to the Nazi treatment of Jews prior to the holocaust. Can't you see that it weakens an already weak argument?
No: demonising any group in society - whether foreigners, immigrants, muslims, jews, bankers, politicians or estate agents is a bad thing.
People should be judged on their individual merits not who they are or what they do
Are you really comparing a bit of non-specific banker bashing with theft of property, imprisonment, expulsion and mass murder?
Remind me, what specific consequences has the UK banking 'community' suffered as a result of their contribution to the financial clusterf*ck of 2008?
Am really surprised at the lack of protests from the UK and EU Human Rights brigade and their lack of eagerness to go and protest in person: shows they just like the easy and soft targets, but not equal justice for all.
@faisalislam: Share of UK tax take paid by "the 1%" now at 28%. Way above 22-23% under Blair. income share rising, below lab peak: https://t.co/YDARyEKroa
Ed explicitly targeting the people who currently fund all his wet dreams
The Tories should be shouting this from the rooftops today - If Labour are so determined to piss off the top 1%, who will pay the bills..?
I find it highly entertaining on this thread that the PB Tory response seems to be "only if this raises money" while the PB Labour response seems to say "this is right and fair even if it costs money".
In which case PB Labourites, what budgets do you think should be cut to make this change if it costs money. Welsh Labour cut the NHS budget while English Tories increased it - do PB Labourites want to cut the NHS budget to pay for this change or would you prefer to cut something else?
Defending an anachronistic relic of the colonial age.
Has it really come to this for Tories?!
Nonsense is it an anachronistic relic, the name may unusual be but many, many nations only charge local incomes and not foreign incomes unless they're brought in (exactly the same as the UK). There are plenty of nations for non-doms to up sticks and move to very, very easily if they wish to do so.
But if you're so keen on costing the Treasury money in the name of "relics" where would you prefer to be cut? Do you want to cut the NHS or something else?
So EdM sticks to the NHS instead and reverts to class war and non-doms? It's so lacking in coherence and grown-up economics - it'd be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
You're right.
But it will be popular - it's a new variety on "evil bankers will pay for good stuff for me"
But it send a very clear, very unpleasant message.
The demonisation of a specific group of individuals - which seems at the heart of Labour's approach - is very worrying. What next: should all bankers be forced to wear little yellow strips of cloth on their arms to indicate their wealth?
Ridiculous comparison to the Nazi treatment of Jews prior to the holocaust. Can't you see that it weakens an already weak argument?
No: demonising any group in society - whether foreigners, immigrants, muslims, jews, bankers, politicians or estate agents is a bad thing.
People should be judged on their individual merits not who they are or what they do
Remind me, what specific consequences has the UK banking 'community' suffered as a result of their contribution to the financial clusterf*ck of 2008?
Is it more or less than the Labour politicians who should share much of the blame, for ignoring the warning signs, and letting rip with 'light touch regulation'?
I find it highly entertaining on this thread that the PB Tory response seems to be "only if this raises money" while the PB Labour response seems to say "this is right and fair even if it costs money".
In which case PB Labourites, what budgets do you think should be cut to make this change if it costs money. Welsh Labour cut the NHS budget while English Tories increased it - do PB Labourites want to cut the NHS budget to pay for this change or would you prefer to cut something else?
Defending an anachronistic relic of the colonial age.
Has it really come to this for Tories?!
Nonsense is it an anachronistic relic, the name may unusual be but many, many nations only charge local incomes and not foreign incomes unless they're brought in (exactly the same as the UK). There are plenty of nations for non-doms to up sticks and move to very, very easily if they wish to do so.
But if you're so keen on costing the Treasury money in the name of "relics" where would you prefer to be cut? Do you want to cut the NHS or something else?
Has it really come to this for Labour?
It won't cost money.
The Tories managed to spew £3bn on a reform no one wanted to make the NHS far worse than it was in 2010. Nothing to do with tax.
I'm really pleased about this - a decade ago I was working with a mix of police forces and health/welfare orgs to set up peripatetic teams to tackle just this sort of thing. We used data from Experian/MOSAIC to identify the broad trends and drilled down to see how this turned into real families/areas.
That it's finally become reality is heartening. Taken a long time and lots of arm twisting/turf fighting = but it's arrived.
Let's look at an area where there has been success under this government: troubled families.
The 'troubled families' scheme was widely derided by Labour and its supporters when it was launched, despite being based on schemes initiated by Labour councils
But this is where we need to be concentrating: helping those who are failing. So many of society's ills come not from the rich, but those who have, for whatever reasons, taken a wrong turn. We can get massive societal improvements for very little money.
Councils’ dedicated troubled families teams are now intensively working with 99% of households in England identified as having multiple problems, including high levels of truancy, youth crime, anti-social behaviour and worklessness, and would otherwise cost taxpayers an estimated £75,000 per year.
The Local Government Secretary said he was delighted that, with over 9 months still to go for the 3-year initiative, councils had met payment-by-results criteria for turning around the lives of more than 69,000 families.
The problem is Labour just doesn't seem to be interested. They are so obsessed with class war and the rich (despite so many are 'rich' themselves) that they forget the people who they should be helping.
Good on you. This really matters to me; I'd feel much happier about a Labour government if they committed to continuing, or preferably expanding, this scheme. Forget all the non-dom nonsense; this sort of thing makes a real difference.
But I don't think Labour will make such a commitment. I hope I'm wrong.
As I understand it it is potentially good politics and poor economics but I have no idea what the issue actually is !
It's a tax status that allows someone to be resident in the UK but not domiciled, in theory because the UK residency is not permanent. It allows people to avoid tax on international income which is not brought into the UK.
I think it's too early in the campaign to be *disappointed* yet - it's still Easter hols for many and a stupid waste of juicy stuff to blow it now.
I'm expecting the final two weeks to be hectic as that's when most are really paying any attention. Us anoraks are the worst at being patient during this run-up period.
So here we are week two of the campaign and the narrative is all about dicking around at the edges. The kind of marketing crap that moves a few 10s of millions around but doesn't actually create a blueprint of what a party would do, nor say how they will create wealth.
Fairly depressing all round.
And the poll cards arrived this morning.
Quite.
This is just so much positional dancing, though there is a wee bit more substance in it than is involved in sending chain emails around to wrangle a newspaper letter together.
Where is the substance (from anyone?)
I don't like the "our actual policies are our surprise secret weapon" thing. Don't deploy them tactically for goodness sake, sell me your vision!
I find it highly entertaining on this thread that the PB Tory response seems to be "only if this raises money" while the PB Labour response seems to say "this is right and fair even if it costs money".
In which case PB Labourites, what budgets do you think should be cut to make this change if it costs money. Welsh Labour cut the NHS budget while English Tories increased it - do PB Labourites want to cut the NHS budget to pay for this change or would you prefer to cut something else?
I expect it would raise money overall.
But the impression given is that Labour don't seem to care if it raises money or not, otherwise they would have come up with an independently costed plan rather than a soundbite for the morning news.
Hmmm I expect this will play well for Labour, despite the fact only a very very small number of people can possibly know whether it will actually have a positive effect on tax revenues. Indeed it may be literally impossible to know until it is implemented - will people leave, find other loopholes, pay up, change their behaviour in a myriad other ways...surely impossible to know.
For me it's just another example of Labour's instinctive anti-business, anti-enterprise, anti-success ethos, but i know i am in a minority there. Government by headline...low grade tawdriness. Sigh
Indeed. Ending an inheritable tax status passed down only through the male line clearly demonstrates Labour is anti-success and anti-business.
Any idea why it wasn't addressed from 1997-2010?
The policy is not designed to be right on detail, it is designed to get people vaguely aware that labour would "do something about rich people" who are probably tories anyway or bankers or in some other generically evil group. That is all.
Labour are happy to be seen in this light irrespective of the details of policy A or policy B. Inattentive and ill-informed voters just hear and feel that "rich" and "bankers" are getting their just desserts. This is as good as it gets for Labour intellectually, and irritatingly it works in terms of garnering support. But it is crap. The silver lining is that it might persuade some people who have not been that impressed with the current government to at least realise that they are not as bad as the alternative.
Comments
People have to make simple analogies for you Labour types, because you sure as hell don't under economics.
The increase in the Labour vote from 2010 looks to be mainly driven by "Red" Lib Dems switching to Labour.
But in many of the Conservative-Labour battlegrounds, many of these "Red" Lib-Dems would already be voting Labour to defeat the Conservatives. So there is likely little is happening there in terms of extra votes for Labour.
Therefore, most of the boost in Lib Dem to Lab switching is happening in those Lib Dem seats which were won from Labour.
So Labour regains some of its losses it has suffered to Lib Dems over the past decade but there is little impact where they face Conservatives.
Apologies if this has been discussed before or I am missing something blindingly obvious - or if I am wasting anyone's time.
That seems like a very odd form of logic if what you really want is a better off society for more.
Thanks for the link last night: http://www.mattforde.com/
I just listened to the Michael Portillo podcast; I thought it was excellent. Particularly around the 26-31 minute mark.
I think his point that this government has been as bold in reform as Thatcher, but lacks any consistent rhetoric, explaining what it's all about, as Thatcher did day-in-day-out, is spot on.
Financial deregulation, increased immigration, lower marginal tax rates have all done this. It's got nothing to do with the ability of letting people live in the UK without paying tax on their income on the basis that they don't really live here.
New York has also had a rebirth since the 80s, driven by largely the same factors. The top marginal federal tax rate in the US is 39%, state taxes take it to 43% ish. Basically the same as the UK.
New York does just fine, so will London.
That's the Tories version of fairness.
What strikes me about the campaign is that Labour's policies are dominating the news agenda so far without the usual negative impact which that - paradoxically - can have. In 2010, the Tories were doing fine until they started to say what they wanted to do, whereupon the electorate said "oo-er, not so sure about that". But 2015 is different - people sense that the economic position remains difficult and think all the main parties have been cautious, perhaps understandably. So even relatively modest policy announcements have a freshening effect.
Chestnut's point yesterday that the Tories were perceived to be winning week 1 and we shouldn't go overboard about Labour doing OK in week 2 is right, and we are still getting polls at level pegging +/-2. So far, the normal pattern that campaigns don't change anything much is holding. The point, though, is that the current polling position or anything like it will produce a Labour government. The odds on offer on the exchanges against that still seem very generous, with less than 2 weeks to the first votes being cast.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/07/michael-gove-admits-he-would-prefer-labour-win-in-scotland-rather-than-snp_n_7021930.html
Edit: to be fair, he did specify marginals. But not many Tory/Labour marginals. And note his comments re Mr Murphy (which I don't understand as it happens, but I may have misheard).
Non dom status is perfectly legal, it has nothing to do with illegal tax evasion. It says UK taxes must be paid on all UK incomes, that external incomes are exmpt only (for an annual fee). Guess what, if you make someone leave the country then their external incomes go with them, they aren't UK revenues in the first place.
I am supporting them (just one more time) out of sheer fear and despair at an Ed Miliband led Labour government. And I have *no* idea. Except that top rate of tax will be raised to £50k, there will be an EU referendum, and the books will be balanced.
I did read in the Sunday Times that the Conservative manifesto was being rewritten over the Easter weekend, David Cameron having rejected the first draft, on the grounds it did not contain enough eye-catching policies or vision.
That doesn't fill me with confidence.
His next show is April 29 but unfortunately sold out already
Fair or unfair?
You seem to be glossing over quite a few rich people recently sent to jail for tax evasion, which were also criticised, although I understand that doesn't really fit with your narrative.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11461961/Woman-jailed-for-trying-to-dodge-500000-inheritance-tax-bill.html
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/millionaire-businessman-who-made-fortune-7709800
etc.
I took it as quite another invention Grand Tory Tells Lefties To Vote SLAB. That sounds like deliberate dog's breakfasting to me. Not Unionist talk at all - but a good way to bugger the whole thing up. Rather like Tony talking about the EU yesterday and hugging EdM in a death embrace.
And thanks for the interpretation of Mr Gove's comments - an interesting line of thought: if the Tories have lost most of Scotland, they may as well mess up SLAB by hugging them. It IS of course explicitly Unionist talk, on one level ("separatist" and similar dogwhistle parlance) so he scores brownies with the right-wing Home Counties part o fhis audience, even if he does not do well with his Scottish Labour auditors ...
Maybe we will be able to get isis on some equal opportunities technicality
Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline)
08/04/2015 09:21
ISIS reveals job advert for nurses who must be able to speak English dailym.ai/1CmADrW pic.twitter.com/0kzMK3Gvqb
People should be judged on their individual merits not who they are or what they do
The only reason the domicile becomes an issue is because we try and tax people on their foreign income.
Average wage is £26,000 - they would pay £5365 in national insurance and income tax
A £1,000,000 wage earner would pay 459,358 in NI and Income Tax which is 85 times.
EDIT: Oh, I see, you are just counting income tax.
DOUBLE EDIT: I still only get 136 times.
Ed explicitly targeting the people who currently fund all his wet dreams
That's odd Lord Paul is mysteriously become an indepedent peer now...when did this happen?
Edit: Oh wait, despite donating loads of money to Labour, he had dodgy expenses and got suspended.
Its not just me that is confused by this...
Lord Paul, a Labour peer who used to claim non-dom status but gave it up, has welcomed Ed Miliband's announcement but said it was done "for the wrong reasons"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11521095/General-election-Ed-Miliband-to-ban-non-dom-status-live.html
Indian railways might be opened to competition (not privatisation, ahem):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-32200190
Whereas Labourites want to head in the opposite direction ...
Con 287
LD 27
DUP 8
UKIP 1
_____
323
Lab 270
SNP 43
SDLP 3
PC 2
Green 1
_____
319
BTW well-know tax avoiders include EdM and many Labour luvvies.
Nick Palmer will tell you that his ultra-marginal Red/Blue seat last time had 17% LD voters, so there is still a lot of squeezing of the LD vote to help him regain his seat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broxtowe_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
And following from that, if it does only crack down on British citizens, what stops the wealthy just buying citizenship of another country, still residing in the UK and claiming non-dom status. There are a number of countries now that do a cracking trade in selling citizenship, without ever even having to visit.
Staines also pointing out that you can also pop over to Ireland apparently for a warm welcome.
It's quite clear the average voter has no idea what arrangements are likely or possible in the next parliament. UKIP-Con coalition ffsake.
Covers part of Bristol University's special collections of leaflets.
Like yo, it's just an issue that I'm finding it hard to get worked up about, mainly due to lack of knowledge and connection. I don't work for a non-dom (and as far as I'm aware never have), and don't know any. It seems an utterly disconnected issue.
On that topic I traveled on the new Virgin East Coast service recently. Possibly the least aesthetically pleasing re-branding I have ever seen. The old intercity and GNER colours looked much better.
I'm SHOCKED
SHOCKED I tell you.
For me it's just another example of Labour's instinctive anti-business, anti-enterprise, anti-success ethos, but i know i am in a minority there. Government by headline...low grade tawdriness. Sigh
In which case PB Labourites, what budgets do you think should be cut to make this change if it costs money. Welsh Labour cut the NHS budget while English Tories increased it - do PB Labourites want to cut the NHS budget to pay for this change or would you prefer to cut something else?
This is just so much positional dancing, though there is a wee bit more substance in it than is involved in sending chain emails around to wrangle a newspaper letter together.
Where is the substance (from anyone?)
I'm expecting the final two weeks to be hectic as that's when most are really paying any attention. Us anoraks are the worst at being patient during this run-up period.
The 'troubled families' scheme was widely derided by Labour and its supporters when it was launched, despite being based on schemes initiated by Labour councils
But this is where we need to be concentrating: helping those who are failing. So many of society's ills come not from the rich, but those who have, for whatever reasons, taken a wrong turn. We can get massive societal improvements for very little money. The problem is Labour just doesn't seem to be interested. They are so obsessed with class war and the rich (despite so many are 'rich' themselves) that they forget the people who they should be helping.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/troubled-families-programme-turning-117000-lives-around
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/helping-troubled-families-turn-their-lives-around
The calculations have changed first because virtually nobody still thinks the LDs are a radical left-wing party, and second because the calculations have changed, with different seats now looking very marginal and winnable for Labour.
Pathetic.
Has it really come to this for Tories?!
That it's finally become reality is heartening. Taken a long time and lots of arm twisting/turf fighting = but it's arrived. The problem is Labour just doesn't seem to be interested. They are so obsessed with class war and the rich (despite so many are 'rich' themselves) that they forget the people who they should be helping.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/troubled-families-programme-turning-117000-lives-around
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/helping-troubled-families-turn-their-lives-around
Remind me, what specific consequences has the UK banking 'community' suffered as a result of their contribution to the financial clusterf*ck of 2008?
ISIS List of Punishments:
CRIME
Blasphemy against God: Death
Blasphemy against his messenger: Death, even if he repents
Blasphemy against Islam: Death
Adultery: Stoning to death for the chaste, 100 lashes & banishment for a year for the unchaste
Homosexuality: Death for the penetrator and receiver
Theft: Cutting off the hand
Drinking wine (alcohol): 80 Lashes
Calumny (slander): 80 Lashes
Spying for 'disbelievers': Death
Apostasy (abandonment) of Islam: Death
Highway criminality: Death by crucifixion
Killing and taking wealth: Death and crucifixion
Killing: Death
Taking wealth: Cut off the right hand and left foot
Terrorising the people: Banishment
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3023027/
Am really surprised at the lack of protests from the UK and EU Human Rights brigade and their lack of eagerness to go and protest in person: shows they just like the easy and soft targets, but not equal justice for all.
But if you're so keen on costing the Treasury money in the name of "relics" where would you prefer to be cut? Do you want to cut the NHS or something else?
Has it really come to this for Labour?
I'm surprised it's that harsh...
"Behead those who insult Islam" was the phrase, I think.
What the hell is a "non-dom"
What are Labour proposing to do to them ?
As I understand it it is potentially good politics and poor economics but I have no idea what the issue actually is !
Apparently he didn't tell him about the housing wheeze over the weekend.
The Tories managed to spew £3bn on a reform no one wanted to make the NHS far worse than it was in 2010. Nothing to do with tax.
Tory bunker billowing with smoke again.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/08/the-poll-of-pollsters-with-a-month-to-go-its-miliband-by-a-whisker
Good on you. This really matters to me; I'd feel much happier about a Labour government if they committed to continuing, or preferably expanding, this scheme. Forget all the non-dom nonsense; this sort of thing makes a real difference.
But I don't think Labour will make such a commitment. I hope I'm wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_non-domiciled_status_in_the_UK
The policy is not designed to be right on detail, it is designed to get people vaguely aware that labour would "do something about rich people" who are probably tories anyway or bankers or in some other generically evil group. That is all.
Labour are happy to be seen in this light irrespective of the details of policy A or policy B. Inattentive and ill-informed voters just hear and feel that "rich" and "bankers" are getting their just desserts. This is as good as it gets for Labour intellectually, and irritatingly it works in terms of garnering support. But it is crap. The silver lining is that it might persuade some people who have not been that impressed with the current government to at least realise that they are not as bad as the alternative.
As I've said before, Labour are better at PR than the Conservatives, but bloody awful at actually governing.
We'll see whether that 1997 promise or Balls a few months ago makes the broadcast or print media.
Last week, I decided I was voting Lib Dem, the bar has been raised for feeling dirty.
'@GuidoFawkes: Boom! Ed Balls in January: Non Dom Reform "Will End Up Costing Britain Money": http://t.co/xdRy6OCiEN'
Must be a record that Ed's policy unravels before he's even made the speech.
Though we may potentially never know the answer to this.
Apparently 60% of non-doms would not be affected by Labour's proposal anyway