''The tax credits fiasco is the prime example. Instead of ploughing ahead and telling the Lords where they can stick their objections he u-turned and now middle class private sector workers are about to get clobbered to pay for people's lifestyle choices of having too many children and working part time. ''
It wasn't the lords that made Osborne U-turn, I suspect, it was the many tory waverers who panicked at the first whiff of gunpowder.
Because the Tories have no discipline at the top. They knew the chancellor could be swayed from the objective and scented blood. If the leadership had instructed the Whip's office to make an example of any MP voting against the measure or in favour of any opposition amendment then there would have been no visible dissent outside of the usual lot of David Davis and three or four others. The problem is that Osborne would have seriously dented his leadership chances if he had hit the backbenches hard on an issue that didn't seem very popular with the public.
Sometimes good policies are unpopular with the public, real leaders don't shy away from the fight. Osborne showed that he doesn't have the cojones for the top job when he decided he wasn't up for the fight with the backbenches or the Lords.
I may not agree with Dave's stance on the EU, but the fact that he is going against the majority of the party and the backbenches to campaign for Remain shows that he does have what it takes.
Rubbish, he could have put it in the finance bill and dared the Lords to vote it down. He is timid and weak.
Where is Osborne's march of the makers? Where is this apprenticeship revolution he has talked so much about? Why is the diverted profits tax not working? He is weak and now that the perennial excuse of "the Lib Dems blocked it" isn't available it is becoming obvious that Osborne is the roadblock to bold reforms in taxation and benefits.
1. The problem was that he didn't have a majority in the Commons to put it in a finance bill. That's not being timid and weak, it's being sensible. He probably also calculated that it wasn't worth the political capital fighting this relatively minor detail.
2. The 'march of the makers' isn't really happening yet, alas, but he's doing a lot to try to make it happen. Again, what measures would you suggest?
3. The diverted profits tax came into force this tax year, so you wouldn't expect to see the revenues yet.
Therein lies Osborne's problem, especially today with a majority government and a completely divided opposition. He isn't making bold moves, instead delaying and u-turning every time he is challenged. The tax credits fiasco is the prime example. Instead of ploughing ahead and telling the Lords where they can stick their objections he u-turned and now middle class private sector workers are about to get clobbered to pay for people's lifestyle choices of having too many children and working part time.
He retreated on tax credits because he didn't have enough support in the two chambers to get the original measure through in full. That doesn't support the contention that he could be more radical.
Nonsense. It passed clearly in the Commons and a modified proposal would have passed the Lords.
A £5,000 tax free dividend allowance will be introduced. Dividends above this level will be taxed at 7.5% (basic rate), 32.5% (higher rate), and 38.1% (additional rate)15 Jan 2016
With corporation tax at 20%, and your tax + NI figures would anyone with a small (sole) business (That makes say £30k pa profit) be best off earning a salary of £10,600 and then receiving the rest via dividend income ?
''Sometimes good policies are unpopular with the public, real leaders don't shy away from the fight. Osborne showed that he doesn't have the cojones for the top job when he decided he wasn't up for the fight with the backbenches or the Lords.''
I absolutely agree, just trying to see it from someone else's side for once. It was a deeply untory autumn statement, to be followed by a deeply untory budget, sadly.
Perhaps the waverers will reflect on their stupidity when the howls over middle class pension changes start to hit their inboxes. Idiots.
The thing about tax credits is that it is all getting stuck into the 2017 UC changes anyway. The long term is fine, the short term was all about George getting more colleagues support in the HoC.
Therein lies Osborne's problem, especially today with a majority government and a completely divided opposition. He isn't making bold moves, instead delaying and u-turning every time he is challenged. The tax credits fiasco is the prime example. Instead of ploughing ahead and telling the Lords where they can stick their objections he u-turned and now middle class private sector workers are about to get clobbered to pay for people's lifestyle choices of having too many children and working part time.
He retreated on tax credits because he didn't have enough support in the two chambers to get the original measure through in full. That doesn't support the contention that he could be more radical.
Nonsense. It passed clearly in the Commons and a modified proposal would have passed the Lords.
A £5,000 tax free dividend allowance will be introduced. Dividends above this level will be taxed at 7.5% (basic rate), 32.5% (higher rate), and 38.1% (additional rate)15 Jan 2016
With corporation tax at 20%, and your tax + NI figures would anyone with a small business (That makes say £30k pa profit) be best off earning a salary of £10,600 and then receiving the rest via dividend income ?
At the moment they certainly are. For next year, yes I think it is still better to pay dividends rather than salary.
One little gotcha: the first £5k of dividend income is tax free, but DOES count towards your total taxable income, so it might take you into a higher marginal tax rate or lead to loss of personal allowance at £100K.
In support of runnymede's point about tax reform, here are the nominal marginal tax rates for earned income, including employer's and employee's NI. I define the "nominal marginal tax rate" as (income tax + employee's NI + employer's NI) / annual salary. The actual cost to the employer is the annual salary + employer's NI, so you could argue that the denominator should include employer's NI; however, my 'nominal marginal tax rate' is more useful for tax planning purposes.
Basic rate taxpayer: 45.8% Higher-rate taxpayer up to £100K: 55.8% £100K to £121K: 75.8% £121K to £150K: 55.8% £150K+: 60.8%
Completely bonkers.
It's also very striking how high the so-called basic rate is.
Figures are for current tax year, and exclude the child-benefit effect (which for those affected gives another hike of marginal rate at £50K).
Am I getting my figures wrong?
Someone on £60k. Income Tax £13403 (£6357 at 20%, £7046 at 40%) National Insurance: £4471 (employee), £7160 (employer)
Comes out at 42%.
Someone on £30k Income Tax £3880 National Insurance: £2632 (employee), £3020 (employer)
Comes out at 32%
Have you forgotten the tax free allowance?
I posted the marginal rates, sorry I should have made it clear that the numerator was additional income tax + NI per £1 of additional salary.
You clearly said marginal - I clearly couldn't read! Sleep would be a good thing.
The day she opened the door in Downing St half asleep wearing just a T-shirt I was her biggest fan. Who'd have guessed 17 years later she's be acting for Rachman
It was the family home in Islington where the nightshirt thing happened iirc
Rubbish, he could have put it in the finance bill and dared the Lords to vote it down. He is timid and weak.
Where is Osborne's march of the makers? Where is this apprenticeship revolution he has talked so much about? Why is the diverted profits tax not working? He is weak and now that the perennial excuse of "the Lib Dems blocked it" isn't available it is becoming obvious that Osborne is the roadblock to bold reforms in taxation and benefits.
1. The problem was that he didn't have a majority in the Commons to put it in a finance bill. That's not being timid and weak, it's being sensible. He probably also calculated that it wasn't worth the political capital fighting this relatively minor detail.
2. The 'march of the makers' isn't really happening yet, alas, but he's doing a lot to try to make it happen. Again, what measures would you suggest?
3. The diverted profits tax came into force this tax year, so you wouldn't expect to see the revenues yet.
1. A relatively minor detail that would save £4bn up front and more money over the long term and remove a whole load of disincentives to work more than 16 hours per week. Pull the other one Richard.
2. It's a tough one, but again it needs much bolder and bigger thinking. R&D allowances need to be significantly bigger. We need to axe the green subsidies entirely. The apprentice levy should have come in much earlier and companies should be able to offset their training budgets against it, so companies who do the right thing aren't punished.
3. It never will raise any significant money and we won't see the behavioural changes necessary either. He needs to change it to a pro-rata tax on UK revenue at the same 25% rate using global operating margins. It is now part of the cost of doing business in the UK for overseas companies who refuse to play by the rules. If the ECJ don't like it they can lump it, I'm sure the French and Germans wouldn't be too far behind in implementing a similar tax if it was proved workable.
Jail time only beckons for certain if they find the instruction from Hillary to her minions to do that. So far, no-one is indicating that that particular smoking gun has been found.
Is the email quoted on here a few days ago not a smoking gun?
In another recently released email, Clinton instructed Sullivan to convert a classified document into an unclassified email attachment by scanning it into an unsecured computer and sending it to her without any classified markings. “Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” she ordered.
Nuts Richard. Back in 2011 when I remarked Osborne had chickened out from making necessary reforms I was something of a lone voice. Sitting on PB now when we can see 6 years of Osborne doing very little but play politics I no longer feel quite so isolated and can see the balance of opinion steadily moving my way.
No one has ever explained what different measures he should have taken. We get plenty of moans, and identifying of problems - some of which are justified - but Chancellors don't get to wave magic wands, they get to set tax rates or set spending priorities. The silence about what he should have done differently is golden.
Eliminate all in-work benefits and tax credits and employer's NI, increase the minimum wage to £10/h, raise the thresholds with inflation once we hit £10k so we begin to widen the tax net again. I'm all for taxing people less overall, but we've come to the point where the tax net doesn't have enough people in it so the government have been reduced to getting more out of fewer people, it is the exact opposite of what they have done with corporation tax.
Mr. Max, some years ago the Conservative party position was that the income tax net should not be drawn up too highly. If too many people fell out of the net, so the thinking went, then they would actually have less stake in what HMG did and be less likely to consider the effect of a change in government. If he Peters can vote to steal from the Pauls then it is probably best to restrict the number of Peters.
Under Cameron the Conservatives have forgotten that idea and seized upon the LIbDems one that only the relatively well off and above should pay, but everyone should have a say on how much. Problems were bound to arise.
I am a long way from being a Conservative but I entirely agree with the bolded statement.
I'm a bit of a leftie and I believe very strongly that nobody should receive from the public purse without contributing something themselves, even if only on paper.
Therein lies Osborne's problem, especially today with a majority government and a completely divided opposition. He isn't making bold moves, instead delaying and u-turning every time he is challenged. The tax credits fiasco is the prime example. Instead of ploughing ahead and telling the Lords where they can stick their objections he u-turned and now middle class private sector workers are about to get clobbered to pay for people's lifestyle choices of having too many children and working part time.
He retreated on tax credits because he didn't have enough support in the two chambers to get the original measure through in full. That doesn't support the contention that he could be more radical.
Nonsense. It passed clearly in the Commons and a modified proposal would have passed the Lords.
Then it's up to the Whip's office to show them who's boss. If the leadership aren't willing to give the backbenches a bloody nose once every so often the legislative agenda will just grind to a halt. Especially the 2015 intake.
Mr. Root, Osborne has more sway over the PCP than anyone else, possibly excepting Cameron. He could've made the change happen, but bottled it (and gave in to the Lords on a finance matter, to boot).
You are linking to meaningless opposition amendment the Government didn't bother to oppose.
Sure, but there were enough rebels to make it unlikely - or at least very unsure - that the full measure could get through. Not the end of the world - Ken Clarke had the same problem over VAT on fuel - but you have to choose your battles., and this one didn't look winnable, or at least not winnable without heavy collateral damage.
2. The 'march of the makers' isn't really happening yet, alas, but he's doing a lot to try to make it happen. Again, what measures would you suggest?
Maybe some kind of tax relief on investment in the type of capital expenditure that manufactures need for plant and machinery. So kind of "capital allowance" if you will.
The thing about tax credits is that it is all getting stuck into the 2017 UC changes anyway. The long term is fine, the short term was all about George getting more colleagues support in the HoC.
But it has left a gaping £4bn hole in the public finances which is going to be filled by taxing middle class private sector workers on their pensions.
The thing about tax credits is that it is all getting stuck into the 2017 UC changes anyway. The long term is fine, the short term was all about George getting more colleagues support in the HoC.
But it has left a gaping £4bn hole in the public finances which is going to be filled by taxing middle class private sector workers on their pensions.
No, if you remember the OBR determined that they had underestimated future revenues.
You are linking to meaningless opposition amendment the Government didn't bother to oppose.
Sure, but there were enough rebels to make it unlikely - or at least very unsure - that the full measure could get through. Not the end of the world - Ken Clarke had the same problem over VAT on fuel - but you have to choose your battles., and this one didn't look winnable, or at least not winnable without heavy collateral damage.
Nah, Osborne would have won again clearly if he'd bothered to sensibly modify the proposals and whip the vote. No different to EVEL or HR reform. And this was supposed to be absolutely central to his deficit reduction plans.
He just loves a rabbit and a headline; he instead decided to take advantage of the election of Corbyn to do a Lefty.
Even if you're right he chose the wrong route (a budget would have clearly passed straight into law as the 15th Sept vote showed) and a sensible original proposal wouldn't have even caused the fuss even if he'd insisted on a statutory instrument.
He gambled, rolled the dice..and lost. They he decided to stop being gamekeeper and instead pretend to be poacher.
Don's article identifies a step that is necessary but not sufficient. Yes, Labour does have to dent Osborne's reputation (and the Conservatives - Osborne might always move on). Without that, Labour won't even be given a hearing. But it also has to win the confidence of the British people itself.
If Don's piece is typical of Labour thinking, it won't. You cannot simply award yourself credibility, nor make the other side incompetent just because you wish it. That way lies first self-delusion and then shock as the electorate delivers a judgement you weren't expecting. Repeating the same beliefs to each other within a twitter-circle doesn't count as converting the undecided.
Now, it is true that the government hasn't got everything right, there are weaknesses in the economy, benefit reform has further to go, investment is too low, consumption too high and so on - but what is Labour's response? More spending, higher benefits, more borrowing. If the analysis is right then by definition the solutions are wrong; it's no way to be seen as responsible and prudent.
Don may be half-right that Labour has the ammunition. Certainly some credible economists and economic commentators have it. The problem for Labour is not the lack of ammunition but the lack of weapons. A bullet is little use without a gun.
Bloody stupid leaflet, which may well cost him Iowa.
What on earth is the purpose of the original? Is there some means in Iowa by which infrequent voters are charged twice as much tax or something? Or is there some sort of “use it or lose it” rule?
Therein lies Osborne's problem, especially today with a majority government and a completely divided opposition. He isn't making bold moves, instead delaying and u-turning every time he is challenged. The tax credits fiasco is the prime example. Instead of ploughing ahead and telling the Lords where they can stick their objections he u-turned and now middle class private sector workers are about to get clobbered to pay for people's lifestyle choices of having too many children and working part time.
He retreated on tax credits because he didn't have enough support in the two chambers to get the original measure through in full. That doesn't support the contention that he could be more radical.
Nonsense. It passed clearly in the Commons and a modified proposal would have passed the Lords.
Then it's up to the Whip's office to show them who's boss. If the leadership aren't willing to give the backbenches a bloody nose once every so often the legislative agenda will just grind to a halt. Especially the 2015 intake.
I know Kevin Foster in Torbay voted against because he heard from so many constituents who were worried they would be adversely affected. Done him no harm with his electorate.
Before I helped him, I asked him - if push came to shove and it was the interests of the Party or the interests of the Bay, which way would he vote for. He said without question, the Bay. So he got my help.
I like members of the Awkward Squad. Dr Sarah Wollaston is my MP. Her majority went from 4,900 to 18,300, greatly helped by being a member of the Awkward Squad in the last Parliament.. To the great benefit of the wider Parliamentary Party, who can now use her workers to hang on to marginal seats in the South-west
Nuts Richard. Back in 2011 when I remarked Osborne had chickened out from making necessary reforms I was something of a lone voice. Sitting on PB now when we can see 6 years of Osborne doing very little but play politics I no longer feel quite so isolated and can see the balance of opinion steadily moving my way.
No one has ever explained what different measures he should have taken. We get plenty of moans, and identifying of problems - some of which are justified - but Chancellors don't get to wave magic wands, they get to set tax rates or set spending priorities. The silence about what he should have done differently is golden.
Eliminate all in-work benefits and tax credits and employer's NI, increase the minimum wage to £10/h, raise the thresholds with inflation once we hit £10k so we begin to widen the tax net again. I'm all for taxing people less overall, but we've come to the point where the tax net doesn't have enough people in it so the government have been reduced to getting more out of fewer people, it is the exact opposite of what they have done with corporation tax.
Mr. Max, some years ago the Conservative party position was that the income tax net should not be drawn up too highly. If too many people fell out of the net, so the thinking went, then they would actually have less stake in what HMG did and be less likely to consider the effect of a change in government. If he Peters can vote to steal from the Pauls then it is probably best to restrict the number of Peters.
Under Cameron the Conservatives have forgotten that idea and seized upon the LIbDems one that only the relatively well off and above should pay, but everyone should have a say on how much. Problems were bound to arise.
I am a long way from being a Conservative but I entirely agree with the bolded statement.
I'm a bit of a leftie and I believe very strongly that nobody should receive from the public purse without contributing something themselves, even if only on paper.
Therein lies Osborne's problem, especially today with a majority government and a completely divided opposition. He isn't making bold moves, instead delaying and u-turning every time he is challenged. The tax credits fiasco is the prime example. Instead of ploughing ahead and telling the Lords where they can stick their objections he u-turned and now middle class private sector workers are about to get clobbered to pay for people's lifestyle choices of having too many children and working part time.
He retreated on tax credits because he didn't have enough support in the two chambers to get the original measure through in full. That doesn't support the contention that he could be more radical.
Rubbish, he could have put it in the finance bill and dared the Lords to vote it down. He is timid and weak.
Where is Osborne's march of the makers? Where is this apprenticeship revolution he has talked so much about? Why is the diverted profits tax not working? He is weak and now that the perennial excuse of "the Lib Dems blocked it" isn't available it is becoming obvious that Osborne is the roadblock to bold reforms in taxation and benefits.
Osborne is interested only in what will get him elected as the next Tory leader. All the decisions he makes are based on that. That's why he looks after current pensioners so well and is happy to hammer the young. He knows who votes and who doesn't. And he gets away with it because Dave wants him as his successor and there is no opposition to hold him to account.
“He said, ‘I’m going to walk away with it and win it outright,’” a long-time New York political consultant recalled. “Trump told us, ‘I’m going to get in and all the polls are going to go crazy. I’m going to suck all the oxygen out of the room. I know how to work the media in a way that they will never take the lights off of me.’”
This gathering of New York’s political class was not held on the eve of Trump’s announcement. It was much earlier than that – 25 months ago, in the weeks before Christmas of 2013, a period well before most Americans and even many politicians were thinking about the 2016 presidential contest. Well before Trump would come to utterly dominate the GOP race from the very moment he declared himself a candidate
A £5,000 tax free dividend allowance will be introduced. Dividends above this level will be taxed at 7.5% (basic rate), 32.5% (higher rate), and 38.1% (additional rate)15 Jan 2016
With corporation tax at 20%, and your tax + NI figures would anyone with a small business (That makes say £30k pa profit) be best off earning a salary of £10,600 and then receiving the rest via dividend income ?
At the moment they certainly are. For next year, yes I think it is still better to pay dividends rather than salary.
One little gotcha: the first £5k of dividend income is tax free, but DOES count towards your total taxable income, so it might take you into a higher marginal tax rate or lead to loss of personal allowance at £100K.
Hang on - is it going to take preference to non-savings income for the purpose of the basic rate band?
Shit! I agree with Trump on something... Cruz is a nasty person, no-one who gets to know him likes him and you can't make deals with a person like that. Spot on.
Bloody stupid leaflet, which may well cost him Iowa.
What on earth is the purpose of the original? Is there some means in Iowa by which infrequent voters are charged twice as much tax or something? Or is there some sort of “use it or lose it” rule?
There's nothing official about it, it's just GOTV in a particularly crap form.
Hang on - is it going to take preference to non-savings income for the purpose of the basic rate band?
No, dividend income will be treated as the top band of income, but the £5K tax-free allowance does still count towards your total income. So, for example, if you have £100K of other income plus £5K of dividend income, you don't pay anything on the £5K, but you do lose some of your personal allowance. The net effect is that you pay an effective 20% marginal rate on this 'tax-free' amount.
Idle musing: If Hilary Benn were to become Labour leader (OK, quite an if), I would expect Rachel Reeves to be his Shad Chancellor. Leeds mafia in charge.
With Benn and Reeves, we might be perceived as having economic credibility by centrists.
Therein lies Osborne's problem, especially today with a majority government and a completely divided opposition. He isn't making bold moves, instead delaying and u-turning every time he is challenged. The tax credits fiasco is the prime example. Instead of ploughing ahead and telling the Lords where they can stick their objections he u-turned and now middle class private sector workers are about to get clobbered to pay for people's lifestyle choices of having too many children and working part time.
He retreated on tax credits because he didn't have enough support in the two chambers to get the original measure through in full. That doesn't support the contention that he could be more radical.
Rubbish, he could have put it in the finance bill and dared the Lords to vote it down. He is timid and weak.
Where is Osborne's march of the makers? Where is this apprenticeship revolution he has talked so much about? Why is the diverted profits tax not working? He is weak and now that the perennial excuse of "the Lib Dems blocked it" isn't available it is becoming obvious that Osborne is the roadblock to bold reforms in taxation and benefits.
Osborne is interested only in what will get him elected as the next Tory leader. All the decisions he makes are based on that. That's why he looks after current pensioners so well and is happy to hammer the young. He knows who votes and who doesn't. And he gets away with it because Dave wants him as his successor and there is no opposition to hold him to account.
Well my missus isn't too keen on Mr. Osborne, she will be 60 in April and has to wait six more years for her state pension.
Therein lies Osborne's problem, especially today with a majority government and a completely divided opposition. He isn't making bold moves, instead delaying and u-turning every time he is challenged. The tax credits fiasco is the prime example. Instead of ploughing ahead and telling the Lords where they can stick their objections he u-turned and now middle class private sector workers are about to get clobbered to pay for people's lifestyle choices of having too many children and working part time.
He retreated on tax credits because he didn't have enough support in the two chambers to get the original measure through in full. That doesn't support the contention that he could be more radical.
Rubbish, he could have put it in the finance bill and dared the Lords to vote it down. He is timid and weak.
Where is Osborne's march of the makers? Where is this apprenticeship revolution he has talked so much about? Why is the diverted profits tax not working? He is weak and now that the perennial excuse of "the Lib Dems blocked it" isn't available it is becoming obvious that Osborne is the roadblock to bold reforms in taxation and benefits.
Osborne is interested only in what will get him elected as the next Tory leader. All the decisions he makes are based on that. That's why he looks after current pensioners so well and is happy to hammer the young. He knows who votes and who doesn't. And he gets away with it because Dave wants him as his successor and there is no opposition to hold him to account.
Therein lies Osborne's problem, especially today with a majority government and a completely divided opposition. He isn't making bold moves, instead delaying and u-turning every time he is challenged. The tax credits fiasco is the prime example. Instead of ploughing ahead and telling the Lords where they can stick their objections he u-turned and now middle class private sector workers are about to get clobbered to pay for people's lifestyle choices of having too many children and working part time.
He retreated on tax credits because he didn't have enough support in the two chambers to get the original measure through in full. That doesn't support the contention that he could be more radical.
Rubbish, he could have put it in the finance bill and dared the Lords to vote it down. He is timid and weak.
Where is Osborne's march of the makers? Where is this apprenticeship revolution he has talked so much about? Why is the diverted profits tax not working? He is weak and now that the perennial excuse of "the Lib Dems blocked it" isn't available it is becoming obvious that Osborne is the roadblock to bold reforms in taxation and benefits.
Osborne is interested only in what will get him elected as the next Tory leader. All the decisions he makes are based on that. That's why he looks after current pensioners so well and is happy to hammer the young. He knows who votes and who doesn't. And he gets away with it because Dave wants him as his successor and there is no opposition to hold him to account.
Sadly very true.
No it's not. He was doing the same last parliament and Balls was a pretty effective opposition spokesman. He gets away with it because people accept it as a fact of life.
Idle musing: If Hilary Benn were to become Labour leader (OK, quite an if), I would expect Rachel Reeves to be his Shad Chancellor. Leeds mafia in charge.
With Benn and Reeves, we might be perceived as having economic credibility by centrists.
''Sometimes good policies are unpopular with the public, real leaders don't shy away from the fight. Osborne showed that he doesn't have the cojones for the top job when he decided he wasn't up for the fight with the backbenches or the Lords.''
I absolutely agree, just trying to see it from someone else's side for once. It was a deeply untory autumn statement, to be followed by a deeply untory budget, sadly.
Perhaps the waverers will reflect on their stupidity when the howls over middle class pension changes start to hit their inboxes. Idiots.
The hint is that there will be a flat rate of relief of about 30% which would... ''...bring an end to what some believe is a strange anomaly in the pensions system, where better paid people are more handsomely rewarded for saving for retirement.
If a basic rate taxpayer pays in 80p to a pension, the government adds an extra 20p – equivalent to their 20 per cent income tax rate. Higher or additional rate taxpayers receive a 40 or 45 per cent top-up. Currently, pensions tax relief costs the Treasury £21bn a year, and higher rate payers take the lion’s share of it, at 56 per cent of the total. Basic rate payers take 29 per cent of tax relief and a further 15 per cent goes to additional rate payers, according to the Pensions Policy Institute.
I love the way self appointed experts on PB can tell everyone exactly what Osborne thinks and what his motives are...not one of them has a clue...they should all take up tipping horse race winners..
''Sometimes good policies are unpopular with the public, real leaders don't shy away from the fight. Osborne showed that he doesn't have the cojones for the top job when he decided he wasn't up for the fight with the backbenches or the Lords.''
I absolutely agree, just trying to see it from someone else's side for once. It was a deeply untory autumn statement, to be followed by a deeply untory budget, sadly.
Perhaps the waverers will reflect on their stupidity when the howls over middle class pension changes start to hit their inboxes. Idiots.
It wasn't worth the hassle to fight the Lords, there would have been eternal Ping-Pong. Best to cut the legs off the Lords by radical reform.
Idle musing: If Hilary Benn were to become Labour leader (OK, quite an if), I would expect Rachel Reeves to be his Shad Chancellor. Leeds mafia in charge.
With Benn and Reeves, we might be perceived as having economic credibility by centrists.
''Sometimes good policies are unpopular with the public, real leaders don't shy away from the fight. Osborne showed that he doesn't have the cojones for the top job when he decided he wasn't up for the fight with the backbenches or the Lords.''
I absolutely agree, just trying to see it from someone else's side for once. It was a deeply untory autumn statement, to be followed by a deeply untory budget, sadly.
Perhaps the waverers will reflect on their stupidity when the howls over middle class pension changes start to hit their inboxes. Idiots.
It wasn't worth the hassle to fight the Lords, there would have been eternal Ping-Pong. Best to cut the legs off the Lords by radical reform.
Which is also not happening. Certainly, one or the other and I've been a fan of Lords reform for a while. But ducking both fights is not a good sign.
Nuts Richard. Back in 2011 when I remarked Osborne had chickened out from making necessary reforms I was something of a lone voice. Sitting on PB now when we can see 6 years of Osborne doing very little but play politics I no longer feel quite so isolated and can see the balance of opinion steadily moving my way.
No one has ever explained what different measures he should have taken. We get plenty of moans, and identifying of problems - some of which are justified - but Chancellors don't get to wave magic wands, they get to set tax rates or set spending priorities. The silence about what he should have done differently is golden.
Eliminate all in-work benefits and tax credits and employer's NI, increase the minimum wage to £10/h, raise the thresholds with inflation once we hit £10k so we begin to widen the tax net again. I'm all for taxing people less overall, but we've come to the point where the tax net doesn't have enough people in it so the government have been reduced to getting more out of fewer people, it is the exact opposite of what they have done with corporation tax.
Mr. Max, some years ago the Conservative party position was that the income tax net should not be drawn up too highly. If too many people fell out of the net, so the thinking went, then they would actually have less stake in what HMG did and be less likely to consider the effect of a change in government. If he Peters can vote to steal from the Pauls then it is probably best to restrict the number of Peters.
Under Cameron the Conservatives have forgotten that idea and seized upon the LIbDems one that only the relatively well off and above should pay, but everyone should have a say on how much. Problems were bound to arise.
I am a long way from being a Conservative but I entirely agree with the bolded statement.
I'm a bit of a leftie and I believe very strongly that nobody should receive from the public purse without contributing something themselves, even if only on paper.
No representation without taxation.
20% VAT you mean...
No, because VAT isn't directly related to one's income. The link between income & taxation is important to an individual's appreciation of the costs of public policies.
Council tax is similar, in that it needs to be felt by all adults. IMHO, of course.
The day she opened the door in Downing St half asleep wearing just a T-shirt I was her biggest fan. Who'd have guessed 17 years later she's be acting for Rachman
It was the family home in Islington where the nightshirt thing happened iirc
The day she opened the door in Downing St half asleep wearing just a T-shirt I was her biggest fan. Who'd have guessed 17 years later she's be acting for Rachman
It was the family home in Islington where the nightshirt thing happened iirc
Gordon Brown got 11 years before his luck ran out. George Osborne will be lucky if he gets as long. That will be no use to Labour if they are still less trusted.
Just what inheritance did Brown get? Compare that to a £160 billion deficit and a bunch of bankrupt banks and a shattered economy. A whole bunch of embittered usual suspects are just hyperventilating with hysteria around here. The amount of rational thought is close to zero. A pretty sad bunch.
The day she opened the door in Downing St half asleep wearing just a T-shirt I was her biggest fan. Who'd have guessed 17 years later she's be acting for Rachman
It was the family home in Islington where the nightshirt thing happened iirc
The day she opened the door in Downing St half asleep wearing just a T-shirt I was her biggest fan. Who'd have guessed 17 years later she's be acting for Rachman
It was the family home in Islington where the nightshirt thing happened iirc
Cardiff University has sold the lowest yielding higher education bond in UK history, as the allure of rock bottom borrowing costs continues to entice universities into global capital markets.
The £300m bond priced at a yield of 3.1 per cent, and the coupon was lower than that on any other UK university bond, according to HSBC. The issue, which matures in 40 years, received around £450m of offers, including demand from international investors, writes Thomas Hale.
I love the way self appointed experts on PB can tell everyone exactly what Osborne thinks and what his motives are...not one of them has a clue...they should all take up tipping horse race winners..
The day she opened the door in Downing St half asleep wearing just a T-shirt I was her biggest fan. Who'd have guessed 17 years later she's be acting for Rachman
It was the family home in Islington where the nightshirt thing happened iirc
The day she opened the door in Downing St half asleep wearing just a T-shirt I was her biggest fan. Who'd have guessed 17 years later she's be acting for Rachman
It was the family home in Islington where the nightshirt thing happened iirc
The day she opened the door in Downing St half asleep wearing just a T-shirt I was her biggest fan. Who'd have guessed 17 years later she's be acting for Rachman
It was the family home in Islington where the nightshirt thing happened iirc
The day she opened the door in Downing St half asleep wearing just a T-shirt I was her biggest fan. Who'd have guessed 17 years later she's be acting for Rachman
It was the family home in Islington where the nightshirt thing happened iirc
Gordon Brown got 11 years before his luck ran out. George Osborne will be lucky if he gets as long. That will be no use to Labour if they are still less trusted.
Just what inheritance did Brown get? Compare that to a £160 billion deficit and a bunch of bankrupt banks and a shattered economy. A whole bunch of embittered usual suspects are just hyperventilating with hysteria around here. The amount of rational thought is close to zero. A pretty sad bunch.
Brown got an awful inheritance in terms of public services - schools literally rotting away (one of them in my patch closed several times a year because they couldn't replace the boiler; another was in "temporary" accommodation built in 1916, a third had gaping roof holes that they couldn't do more than patch), NHS waiting times of two years commonplace. The economy was indeed starting to reocver of the nightmare of Black Wednesday a few years before, but a fair description overall would be "improving but still grim".
That, flightpath, is why the Tories lost by the biggest landslide in recent times, and why they failed to get more than a fractional majority in either 2010 or 2015. People got bored with Labour, but they don't actually like the Conservatives.
The day she opened the door in Downing St half asleep wearing just a T-shirt I was her biggest fan. Who'd have guessed 17 years later she's be acting for Rachman
It was the family home in Islington where the nightshirt thing happened iirc
I love the way self appointed experts on PB can tell everyone exactly what Osborne thinks and what his motives are...not one of them has a clue...they should all take up tipping horse race winners..
Judge a man by his actions.
I think some people are indeed judging a few PB commentators by their actions.
Doddy. Do you ever think that instead of coming on here to insult anyone who criticizes the government without even accompanying your post with an argument you could just post your name and we could fill in the rest ourselves?
''Sometimes good policies are unpopular with the public, real leaders don't shy away from the fight. Osborne showed that he doesn't have the cojones for the top job when he decided he wasn't up for the fight with the backbenches or the Lords.''
I absolutely agree, just trying to see it from someone else's side for once. It was a deeply untory autumn statement, to be followed by a deeply untory budget, sadly.
Perhaps the waverers will reflect on their stupidity when the howls over middle class pension changes start to hit their inboxes. Idiots.
It wasn't worth the hassle to fight the Lords, there would have been eternal Ping-Pong. Best to cut the legs off the Lords by radical reform.
Roger I wasn't criticizing the critics of the Government but the ability to know exactly what a Government Minister is thinking..just like Mystic Meg and I do love your eye for detail.. mistaking the door of the Blair house in Islington with Number Ten..just what a director needs ...are you quite sure it was Tampons you were filming..
Comments
Sometimes good policies are unpopular with the public, real leaders don't shy away from the fight. Osborne showed that he doesn't have the cojones for the top job when he decided he wasn't up for the fight with the backbenches or the Lords.
I may not agree with Dave's stance on the EU, but the fact that he is going against the majority of the party and the backbenches to campaign for Remain shows that he does have what it takes.
2. The 'march of the makers' isn't really happening yet, alas, but he's doing a lot to try to make it happen. Again, what measures would you suggest?
3. The diverted profits tax came into force this tax year, so you wouldn't expect to see the revenues yet.
A £5,000 tax free dividend allowance will be introduced. Dividends above this level will be taxed at 7.5% (basic rate), 32.5% (higher rate), and 38.1% (additional rate)15 Jan 2016
With corporation tax at 20%, and your tax + NI figures would anyone with a small (sole) business (That makes say £30k pa profit) be best off earning a salary of £10,600 and then receiving the rest via dividend income ?
I absolutely agree, just trying to see it from someone else's side for once. It was a deeply untory autumn statement, to be followed by a deeply untory budget, sadly.
Perhaps the waverers will reflect on their stupidity when the howls over middle class pension changes start to hit their inboxes. Idiots.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2015/october/mps-debate-tax-credits-20-october-2015/
You are linking to meaningless opposition amendment the Government didn't bother to oppose.
One little gotcha: the first £5k of dividend income is tax free, but DOES count towards your total taxable income, so it might take you into a higher marginal tax rate or lead to loss of personal allowance at £100K.
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/cherie-blair-opens-door-of-her-home-looking-dishevelled-news-footage/1B07331_0074
2. It's a tough one, but again it needs much bolder and bigger thinking. R&D allowances need to be significantly bigger. We need to axe the green subsidies entirely. The apprentice levy should have come in much earlier and companies should be able to offset their training budgets against it, so companies who do the right thing aren't punished.
3. It never will raise any significant money and we won't see the behavioural changes necessary either. He needs to change it to a pro-rata tax on UK revenue at the same 25% rate using global operating margins. It is now part of the cost of doing business in the UK for overseas companies who refuse to play by the rules. If the ECJ don't like it they can lump it, I'm sure the French and Germans wouldn't be too far behind in implementing a similar tax if it was proved workable.
The original proposal went too far and was too harsh. Then rather than modify it sensibly he scrapped the plans entirely.
In both instances he was playing politics, and demonstrated his poor judgement each way.
This is why no one likes him.
So she became Mrs. Pine-Coffin.
So much better....
I'm a bit of a leftie and I believe very strongly that nobody should receive from the public purse without contributing something themselves, even if only on paper.
No representation without taxation.
https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/ted-cruz-shaming-campaign-3.jpg
He just loves a rabbit and a headline; he instead decided to take advantage of the election of Corbyn to do a Lefty.
Even if you're right he chose the wrong route (a budget would have clearly passed straight into law as the 15th Sept vote showed) and a sensible original proposal wouldn't have even caused the fuss even if he'd insisted on a statutory instrument.
He gambled, rolled the dice..and lost. They he decided to stop being gamekeeper and instead pretend to be poacher.
Shorely anyone on that sort of cash hit the "lifetime limit" about 5 years ago ?
If Don's piece is typical of Labour thinking, it won't. You cannot simply award yourself credibility, nor make the other side incompetent just because you wish it. That way lies first self-delusion and then shock as the electorate delivers a judgement you weren't expecting. Repeating the same beliefs to each other within a twitter-circle doesn't count as converting the undecided.
Now, it is true that the government hasn't got everything right, there are weaknesses in the economy, benefit reform has further to go, investment is too low, consumption too high and so on - but what is Labour's response? More spending, higher benefits, more borrowing. If the analysis is right then by definition the solutions are wrong; it's no way to be seen as responsible and prudent.
Don may be half-right that Labour has the ammunition. Certainly some credible economists and economic commentators have it. The problem for Labour is not the lack of ammunition but the lack of weapons. A bullet is little use without a gun.
Before I helped him, I asked him - if push came to shove and it was the interests of the Party or the interests of the Bay, which way would he vote for. He said without question, the Bay. So he got my help.
I like members of the Awkward Squad. Dr Sarah Wollaston is my MP. Her majority went from 4,900 to 18,300, greatly helped by being a member of the Awkward Squad in the last Parliament.. To the great benefit of the wider Parliamentary Party, who can now use her workers to hang on to marginal seats in the South-west
Hard-line nationalists cover Queen’s face on pound coins in quest for declaration of independence
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/hard-line-nationalists-cover-queen-s-face-on-pound-coins-in-quest-for-declaration-of-independence-1.922248
Our tax system provides endless entertainment!
With Benn and Reeves, we might be perceived as having economic credibility by centrists.
Will I miss much in the markets if I get up at 6am?
More pleasingly, I got £12.50 at 1500/1 (now 750/1) on Man City doing the quadruple next year under Guardiola.
And the Iowa firefighters: I could be wrong, but I doubt they made it to New York until some time after the towers had come down.
''...bring an end to what some believe is a strange anomaly in the pensions system, where better paid people are more handsomely rewarded for saving for retirement.
If a basic rate taxpayer pays in 80p to a pension, the government adds an extra 20p – equivalent to their 20 per cent income tax rate. Higher or additional rate taxpayers receive a 40 or 45 per cent top-up. Currently, pensions tax relief costs the Treasury £21bn a year, and higher rate payers take the lion’s share of it, at 56 per cent of the total. Basic rate payers take 29 per cent of tax relief and a further 15 per cent goes to additional rate payers, according to the Pensions Policy Institute.
A single rate of around 33 per cent is being mooted as the most likely alternative, a change which is estimated would save the government over £2bn a year. A lower single rate of relief would save the government even more. ''
http://www.cityam.com/232657/uk-pensions-changes-osborne-prepares-to-raid-retirement-savings-again-by-changing-the-tax-system-and-higher-rate-taxpayers-will-lose-out-from-the-new-single-rate-of-relief-
Council tax is similar, in that it needs to be felt by all adults. IMHO, of course.
Thanks for the reply, anyway.
http://ris.fashion.telegraph.co.uk/RichImageService.svc/imagecontent/1/TMG8102903/m/cherie_1751346a.jpg
Watford. I'm using 'Rachman' as a generic word for a particular type of landlord. I thought you'd know that
Compare that to a £160 billion deficit and a bunch of bankrupt banks and a shattered economy.
A whole bunch of embittered usual suspects are just hyperventilating with hysteria around here.
The amount of rational thought is close to zero.
A pretty sad bunch.
Cardiff University has sold the lowest yielding higher education bond in UK history, as the allure of rock bottom borrowing costs continues to entice universities into global capital markets.
The £300m bond priced at a yield of 3.1 per cent, and the coupon was lower than that on any other UK university bond, according to HSBC. The issue, which matures in 40 years, received around £450m of offers, including demand from international investors, writes Thomas Hale.
@spectator: Does John McDonnell have any savings for a rainy day?https://t.co/MoCqrBOVfV https://t.co/ZIHR0nm6zo
Comparing all landlords operating under modern laws to Rachman is crass.
As the Telegraph notes the buy to let tax is ''central to the Government's aim to grow homeownership and help the young buy property''.
That, flightpath, is why the Tories lost by the biggest landslide in recent times, and why they failed to get more than a fractional majority in either 2010 or 2015. People got bored with Labour, but they don't actually like the Conservatives.
The large gap between the results of online and telephone polls is just one reason to be wary of the numbers"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12134110/How-EU-referendum-polls-are-getting-it-wrong-amid-a-cloud-of-uncertainty.html
Spectator journalists live in an odd, odd bubble.
"Look, I don't earn very much, and pay my taxes"
"You have no savings for a rainy day. A Labour government would spend every penny and bankrupt the country. Again"
"I have a huge savings account"
Umm...