This is an excellent article and describes so much of what is wrong with the US approach to policing at the moment, and why we are reading so many cases of death by cop:
Very Good. Gen Petraeus had the right attitude. The US police are downright scary and seem to enjoy it a little bit too much.
I feel proud of the British police by comparison, they still patrol and raid pretty much armed only with a baton and the occasional can of Mace.
Injustice seems to run deep in the American judicial service, where the powerful get off time and time again. It is stunning that one American company claimed that this case was "consensual", given the alleged victim's injuries:
"Your calculation of the effective marginal tax rate is correct: this results from the basic income tax rate of 20% plus the main National Insurance Contribution rate of 12% plus the tax credit taper rate of 48%."
You have no idea what a time-bomb Osborne has planted - next April it will go off.
Out of interest, how wide is that 79% marginal tax rate band?
Edited extra bit: ahem, sorry, missed it the first time.
Income tax and National Insurance apply to everyone.
Presumably tax credit taper is related to getting less from the state in benefits as more is earned?
This situation helps to reinforce the commonly held view, especially amongst those in low pay/long hours jobs and not rearing a family, that they are unduly subsiding larger families. And, of course, knocking on the head the view that these are anything other than benefits. State largesse.
I do wonder if those on the left who are bleating about these sensible moves have ever spoken to the hard working people who do not receive these benefits. They are the recipients' fiercest critics...
This is an excellent article and describes so much of what is wrong with the US approach to policing at the moment, and why we are reading so many cases of death by cop:
Very Good. Gen Petraeus had the right attitude. The US police are downright scary and seem to enjoy it a little bit too much.
I feel proud of the British police by comparison, they still patrol and raid pretty much armed only with a baton and the occasional can of Mace.
You will remember that the Brits failed to subdue Basra. The Americans went in with a different philosophy: a rifle shot was answered with a heavy machine gun; a rocket propelled grenade was answered with a full tank round. They won.
You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).
We are paying benefits out to people earning £32,000 a year? What the....!
Couples with a combined income of £32,000. Hey...did you not realise that we pay benefits to couples on joint income of £75,000+ - it's called Child Benefit. Furthermore we pay benefits to millionaires too - it's called winter fuel payments. Welcome to the real world!
This is an excellent article and describes so much of what is wrong with the US approach to policing at the moment, and why we are reading so many cases of death by cop:
Very Good. Gen Petraeus had the right attitude. The US police are downright scary and seem to enjoy it a little bit too much.
I feel proud of the British police by comparison, they still patrol and raid pretty much armed only with a baton and the occasional can of Mace.
You will remember that the Brits failed to subdue Basra. The Americans went in with a different philosophy: a rifle shot was answered with a heavy machine gun; a rocket propelled grenade was answered with a full tank round. They won.
You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).
We are paying benefits out to people earning £32,000 a year? What the....!
Couples with a combined income of £32,000. Hey...did you not realise that we pay benefits to couples on joint income of £75,000+ - it's called Child Benefit. Furthermore we pay benefits to millionaires too - it's called winter fuel payments. Welcome to the real world!
And you defend all of that?
Why we can't just give people with children/the elderly a different tax code with a higher personal allowance baffles me....
Edit: and it could be called a discretionary circumstances allowance
This is an excellent article and describes so much of what is wrong with the US approach to policing at the moment, and why we are reading so many cases of death by cop:
Very Good. Gen Petraeus had the right attitude. The US police are downright scary and seem to enjoy it a little bit too much.
I feel proud of the British police by comparison, they still patrol and raid pretty much armed only with a baton and the occasional can of Mace.
You will remember that the Brits failed to subdue Basra. The Americans went in with a different philosophy: a rifle shot was answered with a heavy machine gun; a rocket propelled grenade was answered with a full tank round. They won.
Yes, maybe that was what was necessary during a war. In the context of the relationship between the police and the people in the contemporary USA however, there is no war. There's not supposed to be, anyhow.
A really great article by Helen Lewis that I thought PBers may be interested in having a read of. Pretty poignant conclusion she comes to as well:
Ultimately, in the secrecy of the ballot, when there’s no more virtue signalling to be done, Corbyn will fade away. But the country will have taken note of a Labour Party that seems to prefer the purity of opposition to the compromises of power.
I am now so close to giving Jezza a "fuck it, what's the worst that can happen?" vote.
I'm such a bandwagonner. I changed my mind after talking today to some really hyped-up Corbyn fans who made it sound so wonderful, and even persuaded me that the public might take to it.
I might well crash back down to earth before voting, though.
"I think even Jeremy Corbyn is going to struggle to make the argument that somebody should be able to lead a champagne, celebrity lifestyle on benefits..... Poor dear.
Not so sure when 3 million families find out next April that they are going to be losing a sizeable chunk out of their family income in tax credit cuts
....and do better if they increase their work beyond 16 hours - not forgetting the tax allowance rise - it's all about reducing welfare dependency and rewarding work.
And the people already working full time?
They get the full benefit of the tax cuts and the increase in free childcare - do keep up
You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).
If that wasn't bad enough for every pound that they work to make up that £1,981 they will lose 79 pence. An effective marginal rate of tax of 79%
. How the hell does that reward work. If you don't believe me here is conformation from the IFS who emailed me this morning
"Your calculation of the effective marginal tax rate is correct: this results from the basic income tax rate of 20% plus the main National Insurance Contribution rate of 12% plus the tax credit taper rate of 48%."
You have no idea what a time-bomb Osborne has planted - next April it will go off.
We have heard it all before after 2010. The tax credit system is unaffordable and many millions don't get them. If you earn £32000 a year you should largely be managing your own affairs rather than receiving subsidies from others who may well be earning less.
The conservative party is a ruthless, calculating machine. To some degree or other labour, libs and ukip are in a state of flux, the tories have no need to say or do anything remotely controversial, better to stay silent and let others mess around.
Frustrating but effective.
1991-2010 it played catch up. For some reason it couldn't adapt quickly enough to deal with Blair's New Labour.
I'd suggest they played catch up until about 2008. From then on they've been ahead and although there's a been few wobbles along the way I wouldn't mark the end of the period at 2010 anymore than I'd say 1997 for the start of the period.
This is an excellent article and describes so much of what is wrong with the US approach to policing at the moment, and why we are reading so many cases of death by cop:
Very Good. Gen Petraeus had the right attitude. The US police are downright scary and seem to enjoy it a little bit too much.
I feel proud of the British police by comparison, they still patrol and raid pretty much armed only with a baton and the occasional can of Mace.
You will remember that the Brits failed to subdue Basra. The Americans went in with a different philosophy: a rifle shot was answered with a heavy machine gun; a rocket propelled grenade was answered with a full tank round. They won.
You think the current state of northern two thirds of Iraq, which the Americans were responsible for, is a good end game?
You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).
We are paying benefits out to people earning £32,000 a year? What the....!
Couples with a combined income of £32,000. Hey...did you not realise that we pay benefits to couples on joint income of £75,000+ - it's called Child Benefit. Furthermore we pay benefits to millionaires too - it's called winter fuel payments. Welcome to the real world!
As it happens I do not support child benefits for the well off or Winter fuel payments - but give George a chance - he's only just started.
You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).
We are paying benefits out to people earning £32,000 a year? What the....!
Couples with a combined income of £32,000. Hey...did you not realise that we pay benefits to couples on joint income of £75,000+ - it's called Child Benefit. Furthermore we pay benefits to millionaires too - it's called winter fuel payments. Welcome to the real world!
I don't see any of that. Where does my 42% go, and are childless people the only ones that are net contributors? (No I didn't forget Gordon's sneaky 2% NI rise that he hoped no-one would notice or remember)
I am now so close to giving Jezza a "fuck it, what's the worst that can happen?" vote.
Michael Foot elected Leader of the Opposition: 1980 Tony Blair elected Prime Minister: 1997
1997 - 1980 = 17
Forgot to mention - fantastic Tory Propaganda piece yesterday, Tissue_Price!
LOL, not at all! Corbyn would offer a different kind of opposition that would be more difficult in some ways, and certainly more unpleasant: strikes and direct action. That would make the country more divided. But electorally I really don't think the Tories would have a lot to worry about in 2020 (mid-term might be very interesting, though).
Cooper looks by far the most sensible choice to form a pragmatic opposition and theoretical government-in-waiting. Labour still need the Tories (and ideally the SNP) to screw up in some way, but there's plenty of time for that.
You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).
We are paying benefits out to people earning £32,000 a year? What the....!
Couples with a combined income of £32,000. Hey...did you not realise that we pay benefits to couples on joint income of £75,000+ - it's called Child Benefit. Furthermore we pay benefits to millionaires too - it's called winter fuel payments. Welcome to the real world!
As it happens I do not support child benefits for the well off or Winter fuel payments - but give George a chance - he's only just started.
A really great article by Helen Lewis that I thought PBers may be interested in having a read of. Pretty poignant conclusion she comes to as well:
Ultimately, in the secrecy of the ballot, when there’s no more virtue signalling to be done, Corbyn will fade away. But the country will have taken note of a Labour Party that seems to prefer the purity of opposition to the compromises of power.
The trouble is, we are on course for the Compromises of Opposition. Might as well go all-in for a Socialist alternative, and we might just do a Syriza (I mean win an election, before anyone starts)
You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).
We are paying benefits out to people earning £32,000 a year? What the....!
Couples with a combined income of £32,000. Hey...did you not realise that we pay benefits to couples on joint income of £75,000+ - it's called Child Benefit. Furthermore we pay benefits to millionaires too - it's called winter fuel payments. Welcome to the real world!
And you defend all of that?
Why we can't just give people with children/the elderly a different tax code with a higher personal allowance baffles me....
Edit: and it could be called a discretionary circumstances allowance
I don't defend the paying of winter fuel payments to millionaires and I don't agree that a couple earning between them £75,000 to £90,000 should be getting child benefit. George Osborne defends it - not for moral or fiscal reasons but for POLITICAL reasons.
Tax credits have become a crutch for many families and it does need to be reduced but you cannot simply knock that crutch away in this way. Freezing the rates for 5 years would have been fairer and would have given working families a chance.
Osborne bemoans the increase in the cost of Tax Credits but when you create a low-pay economy where income for the low paid is more likely to have dropped rather than increased in the past 5 years then then this is the result...it's not the fault of the poor that they are low paid. Hammering them with a marginal rate of tax of 80% will achieve nothing.
A really great article by Helen Lewis that I thought PBers may be interested in having a read of. Pretty poignant conclusion she comes to as well:
Ultimately, in the secrecy of the ballot, when there’s no more virtue signalling to be done, Corbyn will fade away. But the country will have taken note of a Labour Party that seems to prefer the purity of opposition to the compromises of power.
The trouble is, we are on course for the Compromises of Opposition. Might as well go all-in for a Socialist alternative, and we might just do a Syriza (I mean win an election, before anyone starts)
But Syriza was a start up party, not one with an 100 odd year history.
You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).
We are paying benefits out to people earning £32,000 a year? What the....!
Couples with a combined income of £32,000. Hey...did you not realise that we pay benefits to couples on joint income of £75,000+ - it's called Child Benefit. Furthermore we pay benefits to millionaires too - it's called winter fuel payments. Welcome to the real world!
And you defend all of that?
Why we can't just give people with children/the elderly a different tax code with a higher personal allowance baffles me....
Edit: and it could be called a discretionary circumstances allowance
I don't defend the paying of winter fuel payments to millionaires and I don't agree that a couple earning between them £75,000 to £90,000 should be getting child benefit. George Osborne defends it - not for moral or fiscal reasons but for POLITICAL reasons.
Tax credits have become a crutch for many families and it does need to be reduced but you cannot simply knock that crutch away in this way. Freezing the rates for 5 years would have been fairer and would have given working families a chance.
Osborne bemoans the increase in the cost of Tax Credits but when you create a low-pay economy where income for the low paid is more likely to have dropped rather than increased in the past 5 years then then this is the result...it's not the fault of the poor that they are low paid. Hammering them with a marginal rate of tax of 80% will achieve nothing.
You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).
We are paying benefits out to people earning £32,000 a year? What the....!
Couples with a combined income of £32,000. Hey...did you not realise that we pay benefits to couples on joint income of £75,000+ - it's called Child Benefit. Furthermore we pay benefits to millionaires too - it's called winter fuel payments. Welcome to the real world!
As it happens I do not support child benefits for the well off or Winter fuel payments - but give George a chance - he's only just started.
The conservative party is a ruthless, calculating machine. To some degree or other labour, libs and ukip are in a state of flux, the tories have no need to say or do anything remotely controversial, better to stay silent and let others mess around.
Frustrating but effective.
1991-2010 it played catch up. For some reason it couldn't adapt quickly enough to deal with Blair's New Labour.
I'd suggest they played catch up until about 2008. From then on they've been ahead and although there's a been few wobbles along the way I wouldn't mark the end of the period at 2010 anymore than I'd say 1997 for the start of the period.
It took The Tories 4 general elections to unpick the damage Blair's landslide inflicted on them. Cameron had to go into coalition in 2010. Blair has been the Tories most damaging opponent since the 50s.
You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).
No they won't. Tax credits aren't money that you earn, wages are money that you earn. The tax free allowance is there and is going up as are wages so they'll earn more and keep what they earn. On top of that they'll still be receiving benefits from the state to supplement their income.
"Your calculation of the effective marginal tax rate is correct: this results from the basic income tax rate of 20% plus the main National Insurance Contribution rate of 12% plus the tax credit taper rate of 48%."
You have no idea what a time-bomb Osborne has planted - next April it will go off.
Actually this is the system under Gordon Brown. Everyone on tax credits paid this as the tax free threshold was set so low that you could be working just 16 hours a week on minimum wage and be over the tax free threshold. Under Osborne you'd have to be over the much higher tax free threshold before you being taxed.
Ms. Apocalypse, worth noting that even if Corbyn doesn't win, the other two (I discount Kendall as she seems out of it) aren't exactly stellar.
Yep, it's true. I beginning to wonder whether Cooper/Burnham would even be that better than Corbyn as leaders. I don't think they would improve Labour's image at all - and it's clear many see Labour as incompetent, insular, the party of unlimited immigration and welfare. But more importantly, a party with no ideas as to how to take not only their party forward, but their country too. I think Burnham and Cooper are silent because they genuinely have no ideas. And if they have none, they how will they get back Middle England, or Scotland onside? Corbyn is a disaster, but he's a disaster with ideas - and a disaster that, when push comes to shove I think the Labour establishment will get rid of. Cooper and Burnham would likely trod along as leaders, and are unlikely to even position Labour in a decent place for 2025. The party, ever since this leadership election began, has been talking about a second leadership election for a reason.
Worst evil Tory tax rate is when a poor child has the temerity to grow up and become old.
One minute they are growing up and BAM it's their birthday and on their actual birthday George O hammers you with an evil £2,400 a year TAX BOMBSHELL !
You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).
We are paying benefits out to people earning £32,000 a year? What the....!
Couples with a combined income of £32,000. Hey...did you not realise that we pay benefits to couples on joint income of £75,000+ - it's called Child Benefit. Furthermore we pay benefits to millionaires too - it's called winter fuel payments. Welcome to the real world!
As it happens I do not support child benefits for the well off or Winter fuel payments - but give George a chance - he's only just started.
You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).
We are paying benefits out to people earning £32,000 a year? What the....!
Couples with a combined income of £32,000. Hey...did you not realise that we pay benefits to couples on joint income of £75,000+ - it's called Child Benefit. Furthermore we pay benefits to millionaires too - it's called winter fuel payments. Welcome to the real world!
And you defend all of that?
Why we can't just give people with children/the elderly a different tax code with a higher personal allowance baffles me....
Edit: and it could be called a discretionary circumstances allowance
I don't defend the paying of winter fuel payments to millionaires and I don't agree that a couple earning between them £75,000 to £90,000 should be getting child benefit. George Osborne defends it - not for moral or fiscal reasons but for POLITICAL reasons.
Tax credits have become a crutch for many families and it does need to be reduced but you cannot simply knock that crutch away in this way. Freezing the rates for 5 years would have been fairer and would have given working families a chance.
Osborne bemoans the increase in the cost of Tax Credits but when you create a low-pay economy where income for the low paid is more likely to have dropped rather than increased in the past 5 years then then this is the result...it's not the fault of the poor that they are low paid. Hammering them with a marginal rate of tax of 80% will achieve nothing.
How wide is the 79% marginal rate?
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
The conservative party is a ruthless, calculating machine. To some degree or other labour, libs and ukip are in a state of flux, the tories have no need to say or do anything remotely controversial, better to stay silent and let others mess around.
Frustrating but effective.
1991-2010 it played catch up. For some reason it couldn't adapt quickly enough to deal with Blair's New Labour.
I'd suggest they played catch up until about 2008. From then on they've been ahead and although there's a been few wobbles along the way I wouldn't mark the end of the period at 2010 anymore than I'd say 1997 for the start of the period.
It took The Tories 4 general elections to unpick the damage Blair's landslide inflicted on them. Cameron had to go into coalition in 2010. Blair has been the Tories most damaging opponent since the 50s.
I wouldn't give all the credit/blame to Blair, if there'd been some party discipline in the 90s then a lot less damage would have been inflicted most likely. Plus the mistakes leading up to Black Wednesday weren't made by Blair.
Worst evil Tory tax rate is when a poor child has the temerity to grow up and become old.
One minute they are growing up and BAM it's their birthday and on their actual birthday George O hammers you with an evil £2,400 a year TAX BOMBSHELL !
You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).
We are paying benefits out to people earning £32,000 a year? What the....!
Couples with a combined income of £32,000. Hey...did you not realise that we pay benefits to couples on joint income of £75,000+ - it's called Child Benefit. Furthermore we pay benefits to millionaires too - it's called winter fuel payments. Welcome to the real world!
And you defend all of that?
Why we can't just give people with children/the elderly a different tax code with a higher personal allowance baffles me....
Edit: and it could be called a discretionary circumstances allowance
I don't defend the paying of winter fuel payments to millionaires and I don't agree that a couple earning between them £75,000 to £90,000 should be getting child benefit. George Osborne defends it - not for moral or fiscal reasons but for POLITICAL reasons.
Tax credits have become a crutch for many families and it does need to be reduced but you cannot simply knock that crutch away in this way. Freezing the rates for 5 years would have been fairer and would have given working families a chance.
Osborne bemoans the increase in the cost of Tax Credits but when you create a low-pay economy where income for the low paid is more likely to have dropped rather than increased in the past 5 years then then this is the result...it's not the fault of the poor that they are low paid. Hammering them with a marginal rate of tax of 80% will achieve nothing.
Actually, it is quite often the fault of those on low annual incomes that they are poor - working hours are frequently a lifestyle choice.
Just as I earn less than I did when I was a consultant in London; the difference being that I don't expect the state to subsidise this lifestyle choice.
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
A really great article by Helen Lewis that I thought PBers may be interested in having a read of. Pretty poignant conclusion she comes to as well:
Ultimately, in the secrecy of the ballot, when there’s no more virtue signalling to be done, Corbyn will fade away. But the country will have taken note of a Labour Party that seems to prefer the purity of opposition to the compromises of power.
The trouble is, we are on course for the Compromises of Opposition. Might as well go all-in for a Socialist alternative, and we might just do a Syriza (I mean win an election, before anyone starts)
The idea of Corbyn as PM terrifies me. It's better to bid for the compromises of power, where you can actually change people's lives.
I am terrified by this government. I am truly, honestly worried about how their policies will impact the most vulnerable people in society. These people need a opposition not only to stand up for them, but it is the duty of Labour to present a credible alternative to the government to keep them on their toes. Labour are letting so many down by not even being a good opposition, let alone a credible alternative government.
There is no way Jeremy Corbyn will win an election. At best, he may not be that bad - and we may make progress on the 2015 result. He is, unlike Ed Miliband a decent communicator who comes off as straightforward, and capable of stringing together a populist narrative. But in a media age, where presentability matters signifcantly, he will not be seen by Middle England as a credible PM in waiting. There is also the matter of how Corbyn is portrayed in the media due to his Republicanism, and links with the IRA/Hamas. That is, I believe the real killer. Corbyn can get away with being a bit leftie. But being associated in any way with terrorist groups is what will put your average person off him, and may deprive him of a hearing in the first place. Much like Ed Miliband's weirdness deprived him of a hearing.
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Politically, cutting benefits is viewed as popular by workers- whether it will be viewed as quite so popular when they realise that it's them who are taking the hit we will have to see.
The other thing we will have to see is what effect these cuts will have on the economy as a whole. By reducing spending power to this extent MUST have an impact on the economy particularly as these are the demographic who spend the most.
. How the hell does that reward work. If you don't believe me here is conformation from the IFS who emailed me this morning
"Your calculation of the effective marginal tax rate is correct: this results from the basic income tax rate of 20% plus the main National Insurance Contribution rate of 12% plus the tax credit taper rate of 48%."
Out of curiosity, why on earth would a normal member of the public, who is not a political hack, email the IFS to ask a technical question about the interaction of the tax and welfare system?
To a degree Cameron is lucky. He appears quite detached from the actual details of politics, a large amount of the Conservative operation is run by Osborne. Cameron is just the affable front-man for it. The interesting this, the Tories at their heart appear uninterested in the modernising agenda. They are arguably just as right-wing as they were before.
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
And once the kids are 16+ then BAM the Tory child birthday tax bombshell kicks in and these tax credits for children are taken away cruelly.
To a degree Cameron is lucky. He appears quite detached from the actual details of politics, a large amount of the Conservative operation is run by Osborne. Cameron is just the affable front-man for it. The interesting this, the Tories at their heart appear uninterested in the modernising agenda. They are arguably just as right-wing as they were before.
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Politically, cutting benefits is viewed as popular by workers- whether it will be viewed as quite so popular when they realise that it's them who are taking the hit we will have to see.
The other thing we will have to see is what effect these cuts will have on the economy as a whole. By reducing spending power to this extent MUST have an impact on the economy particularly as these are the demographic who spend the most.
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
So nearly 3 weeks to go until until start of voting, then almost another month for votes to be cast. That's insane.
Actually it's Dr P
I didn't spend 10 years at Evil Medical School Imperial College to be called "Mr."!
Well, the LDs, to their credit, got their leadership contest over and done with comparatively quickly. Pity they elected someone even more Sixth-Formery than Ed Miliband!
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Will we see an Armageddon as massive as when Child benefit for those over 60k pa was cruelly hacked away ? That was going to swing the election according to "Newsense".
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Politically, cutting benefits is viewed as popular by workers- whether it will be viewed as quite so popular when they realise that it's them who are taking the hit we will have to see.
The other thing we will have to see is what effect these cuts will have on the economy as a whole. By reducing spending power to this extent MUST have an impact on the economy particularly as these are the demographic who spend the most.
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
So you're saying that to get the Tories to have policies designed to help you, that you need to vote Tory?
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
Um, that's precisely what he did. You're entitled to your own argument but not your own facts.
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Politically, cutting benefits is viewed as popular by workers- whether it will be viewed as quite so popular when they realise that it's them who are taking the hit we will have to see.
The other thing we will have to see is what effect these cuts will have on the economy as a whole. By reducing spending power to this extent MUST have an impact on the economy particularly as these are the demographic who spend the most.
Like we were repeatedly told the public sector cuts of 2010-15 MUST have an impact on the economy. They did: it improved.
Where do you come up with such assertions? CiF? The wealthier (middle classes and up) spend more than the poor. Perhaps not as a percentage of income, but certainly as net amount, and definitely as a proportion of VATable items/services.
To a degree Cameron is lucky. He appears quite detached from the actual details of politics, a large amount of the Conservative operation is run by Osborne. Cameron is just the affable front-man for it. The interesting this, the Tories at their heart appear uninterested in the modernising agenda. They are arguably just as right-wing as they were before.
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Politically, cutting benefits is viewed as popular by workers- whether it will be viewed as quite so popular when they realise that it's them who are taking the hit we will have to see.
The other thing we will have to see is what effect these cuts will have on the economy as a whole. By reducing spending power to this extent MUST have an impact on the economy particularly as these are the demographic who spend the most.
Alternatively, a reduction in the rate of child birth will greatly alleviate the pressures being felt on class sizes, housing, welfare spending, midwifery, GP services, the NHS, social services etc.
Smaller families will also enable parents to focus more on their children, improving behaviour and educational attainment and making the provision of family childcare easier.
Their access to work will improve, and in the process so will their pool of wealth and standard of living.
It is quite easy to see that the communities in our society with the largest numbers of children are the ones who place the greatest demand on the resources provided by everyone else, whilst often making the least contribution towards them.
It is a matter of fairness that some families stop having so many children.
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
Um, that's precisely what he did. You're entitled to your own argument but not your own facts.
Good spot. Since when did critics of the government let facts get in the way of a good story....eh?
To a degree Cameron is lucky. He appears quite detached from the actual details of politics, a large amount of the Conservative operation is run by Osborne. Cameron is just the affable front-man for it. The interesting this, the Tories at their heart appear uninterested in the modernising agenda. They are arguably just as right-wing as they were before.
Samuel Goldwyn:
I find the harder I work the luckier I get
"In my experience, there's no such thing as luck!" - Obi-Wan Kenobi
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Politically, cutting benefits is viewed as popular by workers- whether it will be viewed as quite so popular when they realise that it's them who are taking the hit we will have to see.
The other thing we will have to see is what effect these cuts will have on the economy as a whole. By reducing spending power to this extent MUST have an impact on the economy particularly as these are the demographic who spend the most.
Alternatively, a reduction in the rate of child birth will greatly alleviate the pressures being felt on class sizes, housing, welfare spending, midwifery, GP services, the NHS, social services etc.
Smaller families will also enable parents to focus more on their children, improving behaviour and educational attainment and making the provision of family childcare easier.
Their access to work will improve, and in the process so will their pool of wealth and standard of living.
It is quite easy to see that the communities in our society with the largest numbers of children are the ones who place the greatest demand on the resources provided by everyone else, whilst often making the least contribution towards them.
It is a matter of fairness that some families stop having so many children.
Excellent point - however I fear sales of screenwipe may go up as lattes are sprayed over screens in the Tower Hamlets public library.
To a degree Cameron is lucky. He appears quite detached from the actual details of politics, a large amount of the Conservative operation is run by Osborne. Cameron is just the affable front-man for it. The interesting this, the Tories at their heart appear uninterested in the modernising agenda. They are arguably just as right-wing as they were before.
That probably depends on what you mean by modernising. The Cameroon project was getting quite the rubbishing by the Tory right wing before the GE, presumably as they thought it nonsense that wouldn't get them elected anyway. Those people presumably feel it is still rubbishm but rubbish that got them elected, so if they are sensible they will keep the same Cameroon approach for the time being.
One of the problems this time for Labour was that their portrayal of Cameron as a scary right winger did not work (and their own reputation for incompetence hindered efforts to portray Cameron and co as such) because Cameron has been a very unthreatening Tory leader. He doesn't frighten people, and his actual level of right wingedness or not, and who that might scare off, does not matter as much.
A new Tory leader might change that, or just a reaction against Cameron's second term might change it, but I do not think just being 'as right wing as before' would put people off. The left-right spectrum is largely nonsense, and it doesn't matter if Ed M or Jezza are not as left wing as portrayed, or if Cameron or Osborne are more right wing than portrayed, if people are not worried about an agenda controlled by whoever is at the top, whatever its left or right wingedness.
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
Um, that's precisely what he did. You're entitled to your own argument but not your own facts.
Hmmm, not quite. There was a loophole: You might have heard a lot about the changes to child benefit in recent months and the main reason why some people are angry is that eligibility for child benefit is being assessed on individual incomes, rather than on household incomes – and in some cases, this loophole seems somewhat unfair.
For example, in Household 1, only one person works, and they earn £60,000 – so child benefit will be cut completely. But in Household 2, both partners work, and they each earn £49,900 (giving a total of £99,800) – but because neither of them earns more than £50,000 individually, they keep all of their child benefit.
But I have five children, and I know just how difficult it is to make ends meet with a larger family. Children are hugely expensive – and child benefit is the state's way of acknowledging the financial hit to parents, and making a small contribution to offset it. For larger families, costs such as clothes and food multiply. It costs £240 per term for my three older children to travel to senior school, for example. And even little things like swimming classes, football practice and music lessons all mount up when multiplied: not to mention the "luxuries" like eating out (one family meal at McDonald's: £20), or the annual holiday (flights out of the question).
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
Um, that's precisely what he did. You're entitled to your own argument but not your own facts.
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Will we see an Armageddon as massive as when Child benefit for those over 60k pa was cruelly hacked away ? That was going to swing the election according to "Newsense".
Child Benefit cuts for the higher earners affected relatively few ...a couple of hundred thousand of those who could afford it most...hence nobody really cared that much
These cuts affect 3 million of those who can afford it the least...let's see
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
Um, that's precisely what he did. You're entitled to your own argument but not your own facts.
Indeed, wasn’t it back in 2013? I seem to recall child benefit cuts for those earning over £50K.
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Will we see an Armageddon as massive as when Child benefit for those over 60k pa was cruelly hacked away ? That was going to swing the election according to "Newsense".
Child Benefit cuts for the higher earners affected relatively few ...a couple of hundred thousand of those who could afford it most...hence nobody really cared that much
These cuts affect 3 million of those who can afford it the least...let's see
But you do know that every single one of those 3 million voters was due to lose ALL of their child tax credits under Gordon Brown ?
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Politically, cutting benefits is viewed as popular by workers- whether it will be viewed as quite so popular when they realise that it's them who are taking the hit we will have to see.
The other thing we will have to see is what effect these cuts will have on the economy as a whole. By reducing spending power to this extent MUST have an impact on the economy particularly as these are the demographic who spend the most.
Alternatively, a reduction in the rate of child birth will greatly alleviate the pressures being felt on class sizes, housing, welfare spending, midwifery, GP services, the NHS, social services etc.
Smaller families will also enable parents to focus more on their children, improving behaviour and educational attainment and making the provision of family childcare easier.
Their access to work will improve, and in the process so will their pool of wealth and standard of living.
It is quite easy to see that the communities in our society with the largest numbers of children are the ones who place the greatest demand on the resources provided by everyone else, whilst often making the least contribution towards them.
It is a matter of fairness that some families stop having so many children.
Yes you are probably right - It is a matter of fairness that some families have few children. The problem is that for those families who ALREADY have children then the impact is going to be massive. I repeat, a couple both working...one on £24,000 the other working part time on £8,000 with three kids at school will, in 2016/2017 lose £1,981
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
Um, that's precisely what he did. You're entitled to your own argument but not your own facts.
Hmmm, not quite. There was a loophole: You might have heard a lot about the changes to child benefit in recent months and the main reason why some people are angry is that eligibility for child benefit is being assessed on individual incomes, rather than on household incomes – and in some cases, this loophole seems somewhat unfair.
For example, in Household 1, only one person works, and they earn £60,000 – so child benefit will be cut completely. But in Household 2, both partners work, and they each earn £49,900 (giving a total of £99,800) – but because neither of them earns more than £50,000 individually, they keep all of their child benefit.
That's not a loophole: it's by design. Household 1 has one partner enjoying a work-free week. Or "working" for the household doing jobs - cleaning, gardening, childcare that Household 2 may have to pay for out of their joint post-tax income.
And regardless, Osborne still got rid of child benefit for the well off. And reduced pension relief for the very well off. And made stamp duty more onerous on the extremely well off. But keep peddling your memes.
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Politically, cutting benefits is viewed as popular by workers- whether it will be viewed as quite so popular when they realise that it's them who are taking the hit we will have to see.
The other thing we will have to see is what effect these cuts will have on the economy as a whole. By reducing spending power to this extent MUST have an impact on the economy particularly as these are the demographic who spend the most.
What you have to realise is that these marginal tax rates have existed for as long as tax credits have existed and were a poverty trap that meant that 16 hours were viewed as a cap and not a starting point to work under Gordon Brown's byzantine mess.
Osborne started the process of fixing this mess years ago raising the threshold repeatedly cutting the tax on the poorest. The fact that you blame George Osborne for Gordon Brown's tax rates shows you to be either disingenuous or ignorant.
Now Osborne is finishing the job trying to move people out of tax credits altogether and onto wages instead. That is a far simpler system and a far fairer system for the poorest. Once out of tax credits you have zero marginal tax on them and the marginal tax rates are lower under Osborne now.
To a degree Cameron is lucky. He appears quite detached from the actual details of politics, a large amount of the Conservative operation is run by Osborne. Cameron is just the affable front-man for it. The interesting this, the Tories at their heart appear uninterested in the modernising agenda. They are arguably just as right-wing as they were before.
Samuel Goldwyn:
I find the harder I work the luckier I get
I think it's somewhat of a fallacy that success is the result of hard work. It comes from outside, not inside. You can't push a peice of string up a hill can you? Even Thatcher, surely the ultimate recent icon of the hard work and determination principle would have got nowhere without Airey Neave using her to bring down Ted Heath. And before that by marrying Dennis which allowed her to pursue her political career. You need sponsors. Cameron had good sponsors all the way through, as anyone successful has.
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Politically, cutting benefits is viewed as popular by workers- whether it will be viewed as quite so popular when they realise that it's them who are taking the hit we will have to see.
The other thing we will have to see is what effect these cuts will have on the economy as a whole. By reducing spending power to this extent MUST have an impact on the economy particularly as these are the demographic who spend the most.
What you have to realise is that these marginal tax rates have existed for as long as tax credits have existed and were a poverty trap that meant that 16 hours were viewed as a cap and not a starting point to work under Gordon Brown's byzantine mess.
Osborne started the process of fixing this mess years ago raising the threshold repeatedly cutting the tax on the poorest. The fact that you blame George Osborne for Gordon Brown's tax rates shows you to be either disingenuous or ignorant.
Now Osborne is finishing the job trying to move people out of tax credits altogether and onto wages instead. That is a far simpler system and a far fairer system for the poorest. Once out of tax credits you have zero marginal tax on them and the marginal tax rates are lower under Osborne now.
To a degree Cameron is lucky. He appears quite detached from the actual details of politics, a large amount of the Conservative operation is run by Osborne. Cameron is just the affable front-man for it. The interesting this, the Tories at their heart appear uninterested in the modernising agenda. They are arguably just as right-wing as they were before.
That probably depends on what you mean by modernising. The Cameroon project was getting quite the rubbishing by the Tory right wing before the GE, presumably as they thought it nonsense that wouldn't get them elected anyway. Those people presumably feel it is still rubbishm but rubbish that got them elected, so if they are sensible they will keep the same Cameroon approach for the time being.
One of the problems this time for Labour was that their portrayal of Cameron as a scary right winger did not work (and their own reputation for incompetence hindered efforts to portray Cameron and co as such) because Cameron has been a very unthreatening Tory leader. He doesn't frighten people, and his actual level of right wingedness or not, and who that might scare off, does not matter as much.
A new Tory leader might change that, or just a reaction against Cameron's second term might change it, but I do not think just being 'as right wing as before' would put people off. The left-right spectrum is largely nonsense, and it doesn't matter if Ed M or Jezza are not as left wing as portrayed, or if Cameron or Osborne are more right wing than portrayed, if people are not worried about an agenda controlled by whoever is at the top, whatever its left or right wingedness.
I think being very right-wing does affect GE chances, as does how left-wing you are. I think it influences how people interpret your capacity to solve solutions to the country's issues. I think Cameron appealed to a lot of people, because as you say, he doesn't come across as threatening, but as a moderate. Cameron, however won't leader in 2020. Osborne, most likely will be - someone who is far more ideological Cameron, and therefore someone with the capacity to come across as more 'extreme' than Cameron, without Cameron's affableness, or likeability.
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Will we see an Armageddon as massive as when Child benefit for those over 60k pa was cruelly hacked away ? That was going to swing the election according to "Newsense".
Child Benefit cuts for the higher earners affected relatively few ...a couple of hundred thousand of those who could afford it most...hence nobody really cared that much
These cuts affect 3 million of those who can afford it the least...let's see
But you do know that every single one of those 3 million voters was due to lose ALL of their child tax credits under Gordon Brown ?
Gordon Brown??? The IFS have said that the cuts will cost 3 million families an average of £1,300
To a degree Cameron is lucky. He appears quite detached from the actual details of politics, a large amount of the Conservative operation is run by Osborne. Cameron is just the affable front-man for it. The interesting this, the Tories at their heart appear uninterested in the modernising agenda. They are arguably just as right-wing as they were before.
As might be obvious, I don't agree.
Cameron was lucky in a big way: the party leadership became available at a time when the party was willing to listen to his brand of politics. But the same can be said for nearly every leader: Blair would not have been elected leader in 1988 or 1992, for instance. Perhaps if Smith had not died, he might have won the GE in 1997 and new up-and-coming Labour MPs would have been better positioned for the leadership in 2002 or later than Blair. There are many possibly great would-be PMs who found that their timing was out.
The thing I have against the 'lucky' meme is that it is generally used by detractors to disguise the failures of the opposition and to hide the skills of him and his team. It got to the stage last parliament where 'lucky' was being attributed to Cameron for so many reasons that it became rather ridiculous.
If you use the term 'lucky' against someone you are opposed to, then you should first ask if is your perception at fault.
"That git David was lucky - he got two promotions in a row whilst I'm still trapped in my cube. I know he worked much harder for me, and gave up weekends for the project when needed - but he's still a lucky git!"
I feel a bit sorry for Apocalypse getting ganged up on a bit here..
Sure - but the lesson is: don't make up "facts" that aren't supported by history! That was one thing tim was very good for (at least for me!) - if he was on a thread (and when wasn't he?) then you'd better have made sure your argument rested on solid foundations.
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
Um, that's precisely what he did. You're entitled to your own argument but not your own facts.
Hmmm, not quite. There was a loophole: You might have heard a lot about the changes to child benefit in recent months and the main reason why some people are angry is that eligibility for child benefit is being assessed on individual incomes, rather than on household incomes – and in some cases, this loophole seems somewhat unfair.
For example, in Household 1, only one person works, and they earn £60,000 – so child benefit will be cut completely. But in Household 2, both partners work, and they each earn £49,900 (giving a total of £99,800) – but because neither of them earns more than £50,000 individually, they keep all of their child benefit.
That's not a loophole: it's by design. Household 1 has one partner enjoying a work-free week. Or "working" for the household doing jobs - cleaning, gardening, childcare that Household 2 may have to pay for out of their joint post-tax income.
And regardless, Osborne still got rid of child benefit for the well off. And reduced pension relief for the very well off. And made stamp duty more onerous on the extremely well off. But keep peddling your memes.
He didn't get rid of CB for the well-off. Getting rid of it for the well-off means including not only individual, but also household income. It doesn't matter how much tax Household 2 has to pay. A joint income of nearly 100k, is by any definition 'well-off'. That Osborne did this essentially shows that this so-called 'CB cut for the well-off' was a part of his usual political PR stunts, as opposed to genuine reform.
And as for reduced pension relief, that's nothing compared to the triple lock, and pensioners keeping all their benefits including free winter fuel allowance etc. The IFS concluded that the budget overall was regressive - impact far more on poorer than richer households. Lone moves on the 'well-off' and the pensioners don't change that overall, the budget was beneficial to these groups.
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
Um, that's precisely what he did. You're entitled to your own argument but not your own facts.
Hmmm, not quite. There was a loophole: You might have heard a lot about the changes to child benefit in recent months and the main reason why some people are angry is that eligibility for child benefit is being assessed on individual incomes, rather than on household incomes – and in some cases, this loophole seems somewhat unfair.
For example, in Household 1, only one person works, and they earn £60,000 – so child benefit will be cut completely. But in Household 2, both partners work, and they each earn £49,900 (giving a total of £99,800) – but because neither of them earns more than £50,000 individually, they keep all of their child benefit.
That's not a loophole: it's by design. Household 1 has one partner enjoying a work-free week. Or "working" for the household doing jobs - cleaning, gardening, childcare that Household 2 may have to pay for out of their joint post-tax income.
(snip)
As I've discovered, looking after a young child leaves precious little time for cleaning or gardening! Sometimes even personal hygiene takes a back seat ...
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
Um, that's precisely what he did. You're entitled to your own argument but not your own facts.
Hmmm, not quite. There was a loophole: You might have heard a lot about the changes to child benefit in recent months and the main reason why some people are angry is that eligibility for child benefit is being assessed on individual incomes, rather than on household incomes – and in some cases, this loophole seems somewhat unfair.
For example, in Household 1, only one person works, and they earn £60,000 – so child benefit will be cut completely. But in Household 2, both partners work, and they each earn £49,900 (giving a total of £99,800) – but because neither of them earns more than £50,000 individually, they keep all of their child benefit.
Yep that was a couple of years ago - didn't seem to affect the GE result too much. The key point about the budget is it is designed to encourage work and disincentivise [is that a word?] benefits. It also puts pressure on employers to make up some of the difference and increases the tax free allowance and child-care provision. The aim is surely laudable - of course you can argue it will fail - but the govt has the mandate to sort out the benefit mess. We should all hope they succeed and that work begins to pay. I expect more reforms from Osborne before he is finished - maybe the merging of Tax and NI. Pensioners under 65 may not get off scot-free there - I'm one of them. however, I'd support this reform however, as in other respects the coalition measures have been good for the elderly.
I feel a bit sorry for Apocalypse getting ganged up on a bit here..
Sure - but the lesson is: don't make up "facts" that aren't supported by history! That was one thing tim was very good for (at least for me!) - if he was on a thread (and when wasn't he?) then you'd better have made sure your argument rested on solid foundations.
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Will we see an Armageddon as massive as when Child benefit for those over 60k pa was cruelly hacked away ? That was going to swing the election according to "Newsense".
Child Benefit cuts for the higher earners affected relatively few ...a couple of hundred thousand of those who could afford it most...hence nobody really cared that much
These cuts affect 3 million of those who can afford it the least...let's see
But you do know that every single one of those 3 million voters was due to lose ALL of their child tax credits under Gordon Brown ?
Gordon Brown??? The IFS have said that the cuts will cost 3 million families an average of £1,300
Under Brown's rules on the 31st August after the child turns 16 you lose the tax credit.
UNLESS - the child is cruelly forced into education or a training course.
So everyone who had tax credits was going to lose them eventually.
I feel a bit sorry for Apocalypse getting ganged up on a bit here..
Sure - but the lesson is: don't make up "facts" that aren't supported by history! That was one thing tim was very good for (at least for me!) - if he was on a thread (and when wasn't he?) then you'd better have made sure your argument rested on solid foundations.
He fouled up on an argument involving where the Higher rate of tax starts, I remember as I was backing him up (wrongly) on that one. HMRC's website was very misleading with it's language on it though
I feel a bit sorry for Apocalypse getting ganged up on a bit here..
Sure - but the lesson is: don't make up "facts" that aren't supported by history! That was one thing tim was very good for (at least for me!) - if he was on a thread (and when wasn't he?) then you'd better have made sure your argument rested on solid foundations.
I didn't make up 'facts' - see my reply. That a household with income of more than 100k can still get CB is not 'cutting CB for the well-off'. If you cut it for the well-off, you do so by both household income and individual income.
Gordon Brown??? The IFS have said that the cuts will cost 3 million families an average of £1,300
Are the IFS privvy to the 2017/2018 personal tax allowance information? How about the rate of the living wage? How about the payrises their fictitious family are being awarded by their employers?
What you have to realise is that these marginal tax rates have existed for as long as tax credits have existed and were a poverty trap that meant that 16 hours were viewed as a cap and not a starting point to work under Gordon Brown's byzantine mess.
Osborne started the process of fixing this mess years ago raising the threshold repeatedly cutting the tax on the poorest. The fact that you blame George Osborne for Gordon Brown's tax rates shows you to be either disingenuous or ignorant.
Now Osborne is finishing the job trying to move people out of tax credits altogether and onto wages instead. That is a far simpler system and a far fairer system for the poorest. Once out of tax credits you have zero marginal tax on them and the marginal tax rates are lower under Osborne now.
You do not live in the real world Phillip...
No you don't. You're adding tax threshold plus NI plus withdrawal of benefits together to get a high marginal rate and blaming Osborne for it. But did Osborne create benefits withdrawal? Or income tax? Or NI? No, no and no.
That marginal tax existed under Brown - and increased under Brown as he increased taxes by abolishing the 10% rate and he increased NI. Which is why in the real world 16 hours was seen as a cap not a starting point. Osborne is fixing that broken system and you blame him for what he inherited. You're a mockery of yourself.
Comments
Tony Blair elected Prime Minister: 1997
1997 - 1980 = 17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Leigh_Jones
I do wonder if those on the left who are bleating about these sensible moves have ever spoken to the hard working people who do not receive these benefits. They are the recipients' fiercest critics...
Why we can't just give people with children/the elderly a different tax code with a higher personal allowance baffles me....
Edit: and it could be called a discretionary circumstances allowance
Ultimately, in the secrecy of the ballot, when there’s no more virtue signalling to be done, Corbyn will fade away. But the country will have taken note of a Labour Party that seems to prefer the purity of opposition to the compromises of power.
http://www.newstatesman.com/helen-lewis/2015/07/echo-chamber-social-media-luring-left-cosy-delusion-and-dangerous-insularity
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/im-more-convinced-ever-jeremy-corbyn-going-win
But unless Corbyn gets some traction with the wider public he won't last long. Though I am getting quite fond of him now.
I have a feeling in my bones Corbyn's going to do it.
I might well crash back down to earth before voting, though.
If that wasn't bad enough for every pound that they work to make up that £1,981 they will lose 79 pence. An effective marginal rate of tax of 79%
. How the hell does that reward work. If you don't believe me here is conformation from the IFS who emailed me this morning
"Your calculation of the effective marginal tax rate is correct: this results from the basic income tax rate of 20% plus the main National Insurance Contribution rate of 12% plus the tax credit taper rate of 48%."
You have no idea what a time-bomb Osborne has planted - next April it will go off.
We have heard it all before after 2010. The tax credit system is unaffordable and many millions don't get them. If you earn £32000 a year you should largely be managing your own affairs rather than receiving subsidies from others who may well be earning less.
Cooper looks by far the most sensible choice to form a pragmatic opposition and theoretical government-in-waiting. Labour still need the Tories (and ideally the SNP) to screw up in some way, but there's plenty of time for that.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tsunami-Democratic-Revolution-Iain-Macwhirter-ebook/dp/B010545JQU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435839236&sr=8-1&keywords=tsunami+iain
Tax credits have become a crutch for many families and it does need to be reduced but you cannot simply knock that crutch away in this way. Freezing the rates for 5 years would have been fairer and would have given working families a chance.
Osborne bemoans the increase in the cost of Tax Credits but when you create a low-pay economy where income for the low paid is more likely to have dropped rather than increased in the past 5 years then then this is the result...it's not the fault of the poor that they are low paid. Hammering them with a marginal rate of tax of 80% will achieve nothing.
https://twitter.com/sunil_p2/status/598513837869015040
One minute they are growing up and BAM it's their birthday and on their actual birthday George O hammers you with an evil £2,400 a year TAX BOMBSHELL !
Evil Tories and their child birthday tax.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
eatingtaxing Tories!So nearly 3 weeks to go until until start of voting, then almost another month for votes to be cast. That's insane.
Just as I earn less than I did when I was a consultant in London; the difference being that I don't expect the state to subsidise this lifestyle choice.
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
Shame for the floating voters though, looks like I already know I'll be voting for Cameron's successor in 2020.
And on that note, the pub becons!
I am terrified by this government. I am truly, honestly worried about how their policies will impact the most vulnerable people in society. These people need a opposition not only to stand up for them, but it is the duty of Labour to present a credible alternative to the government to keep them on their toes. Labour are letting so many down by not even being a good opposition, let alone a credible alternative government.
There is no way Jeremy Corbyn will win an election. At best, he may not be that bad - and we may make progress on the 2015 result. He is, unlike Ed Miliband a decent communicator who comes off as straightforward, and capable of stringing together a populist narrative. But in a media age, where presentability matters signifcantly, he will not be seen by Middle England as a credible PM in waiting. There is also the matter of how Corbyn is portrayed in the media due to his Republicanism, and links with the IRA/Hamas. That is, I believe the real killer. Corbyn can get away with being a bit leftie. But being associated in any way with terrorist groups is what will put your average person off him, and may deprive him of a hearing in the first place. Much like Ed Miliband's weirdness deprived him of a hearing.
Politically, cutting benefits is viewed as popular by workers- whether it will be viewed as quite so popular when they realise that it's them who are taking the hit we will have to see.
The other thing we will have to see is what effect these cuts will have on the economy as a whole. By reducing spending power to this extent MUST have an impact on the economy particularly as these are the demographic who spend the most.
Making it look effortless is really rather rare.
I didn't spend 10 years at
Evil Medical SchoolImperial College to be called "Mr."!Well, the LDs, to their credit, got their leadership contest over and done with comparatively quickly. Pity they elected someone even more Sixth-Formery than Ed Miliband!
;-)
Where do you come up with such assertions? CiF? The wealthier (middle classes and
up) spend more than the poor. Perhaps not as a percentage of income, but certainly as net amount, and definitely as a proportion of VATable items/services.
I find the harder I work the luckier I get
Smaller families will also enable parents to focus more on their children, improving behaviour and educational attainment and making the provision of family childcare easier.
Their access to work will improve, and in the process so will their pool of wealth and standard of living.
It is quite easy to see that the communities in our society with the largest numbers of children are the ones who place the greatest demand on the resources provided by everyone else, whilst often making the least contribution towards them.
It is a matter of fairness that some families stop having so many children.
One of the problems this time for Labour was that their portrayal of Cameron as a scary right winger did not work (and their own reputation for incompetence hindered efforts to portray Cameron and co as such) because Cameron has been a very unthreatening Tory leader. He doesn't frighten people, and his actual level of right wingedness or not, and who that might scare off, does not matter as much.
A new Tory leader might change that, or just a reaction against Cameron's second term might change it, but I do not think just being 'as right wing as before' would put people off. The left-right spectrum is largely nonsense, and it doesn't matter if Ed M or Jezza are not as left wing as portrayed, or if Cameron or Osborne are more right wing than portrayed, if people are not worried about an agenda controlled by whoever is at the top, whatever its left or right wingedness.
You might have heard a lot about the changes to child benefit in recent months and the main reason why some people are angry is that eligibility for child benefit is being assessed on individual incomes, rather than on household incomes – and in some cases, this loophole seems somewhat unfair.
For example, in Household 1, only one person works, and they earn £60,000 – so child benefit will be cut completely. But in Household 2, both partners work, and they each earn £49,900 (giving a total of £99,800) – but because neither of them earns more than £50,000 individually, they keep all of their child benefit.
What a bastard George is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/04/osborne-child-benfit-war-families
These cuts affect 3 million of those who can afford it the least...let's see
And regardless, Osborne still got rid of child benefit for the well off. And reduced pension relief for the very well off. And made stamp duty more onerous on the extremely well off. But keep peddling your memes.
Osborne started the process of fixing this mess years ago raising the threshold repeatedly cutting the tax on the poorest. The fact that you blame George Osborne for Gordon Brown's tax rates shows you to be either disingenuous or ignorant.
Now Osborne is finishing the job trying to move people out of tax credits altogether and onto wages instead. That is a far simpler system and a far fairer system for the poorest. Once out of tax credits you have zero marginal tax on them and the marginal tax rates are lower under Osborne now.
Cameron was lucky in a big way: the party leadership became available at a time when the party was willing to listen to his brand of politics. But the same can be said for nearly every leader: Blair would not have been elected leader in 1988 or 1992, for instance. Perhaps if Smith had not died, he might have won the GE in 1997 and new up-and-coming Labour MPs would have been better positioned for the leadership in 2002 or later than Blair. There are many possibly great would-be PMs who found that their timing was out.
The thing I have against the 'lucky' meme is that it is generally used by detractors to disguise the failures of the opposition and to hide the skills of him and his team. It got to the stage last parliament where 'lucky' was being attributed to Cameron for so many reasons that it became rather ridiculous.
If you use the term 'lucky' against someone you are opposed to, then you should first ask if is your perception at fault.
"That git David was lucky - he got two promotions in a row whilst I'm still trapped in my cube. I know he worked much harder for me, and gave up weekends for the project when needed - but he's still a lucky git!"
And as for reduced pension relief, that's nothing compared to the triple lock, and pensioners keeping all their benefits including free winter fuel allowance etc. The IFS concluded that the budget overall was regressive - impact far more on poorer than richer households. Lone moves on the 'well-off' and the pensioners don't change that overall, the budget was beneficial to these groups.
We've all made a boob on here at least once. Even tim's maths wasn't infallible.
UNLESS - the child is cruelly forced into education or a training course.
So everyone who had tax credits was going to lose them eventually.
In short, they do not know.
That marginal tax existed under Brown - and increased under Brown as he increased taxes by abolishing the 10% rate and he increased NI. Which is why in the real world 16 hours was seen as a cap not a starting point. Osborne is fixing that broken system and you blame him for what he inherited. You're a mockery of yourself.