63% of white men voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 63% of white men voted for George Bush snr. in 1988 62% of white men voted for George W. Bush in 2004 62% of white men voted for Mitt Romney in 2012
Additionally the hispanic demographic is unsurprisingly proving difficult for Trump. Romney secured 27% of their vote in 12, presently the best estimate is that Trump is managing only 15% of this increasingly important bloc that is vital in a number of swing states.
Jack, do you think it will ever be possible again for a white male to win the White House as the Republican candidate?
Yes. Hovever the GOP need to to heed their own advice after the 2012 defeat when they realised that alienating vast swathes of the electorate wasn't the route to the White House given the demographic changes and the need to appeal to swing voters.
The question is how many times they will lose before the dime finally drops?
Interesting argument against the 'received wisdom':
Scotland. Voting Brexit seems to me to be the best chance we have to save the union. The SNP is threatening to hold another referendum if we vote out. I suspect they don’t really want to (they do good threats). But their members may force them into it and Westminster may allow it (it isn’t a devolved issue). If they do, they won’t win.
The falling oil price has destroyed an already ropey economic case. And the way the timing works, the UK would already be out of the EU before Scotland was out of the UK — leaving it stranded in the North Sea while it reapplied — in the full knowledge that it would have to take the euro and the EU’s fiscal limits with no UK-style federal transfers. Who would vote for that? Quite. And another decisive loss really would be the end of the matter. Vote Brexit to save the union.
A second democratic mandate for the Union in almost as many years?
Which is why Nicola really doesn't want to hold it.....
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
David Herdson All I get from the state is a pension of under £140 pw..I would get more if I stepped off the boat as an illegal..
If you want cuts across the board that includes your pension. You also gain benefit from public spending on transport, police, health (potentially, if not every year), and so on.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.
The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for
Yet labour kept it for all 13 years... No brainer?
Remember the omnishambles budget? Damian McBride said he recognised all the controversial measures as the ones put forward every year by Treasury civil servants. Perhaps cutting pension tax relief is another from the same source: administratively attractive but politically dangerous.
A better question is why this proposal is all over the papers. Cynics might suggest it was deliberately leaked to provide political cover for a different controversial budget measure.
Interesting argument against the 'received wisdom':
Scotland. Voting Brexit seems to me to be the best chance we have to save the union. The SNP is threatening to hold another referendum if we vote out. I suspect they don’t really want to (they do good threats). But their members may force them into it and Westminster may allow it (it isn’t a devolved issue). If they do, they won’t win.
The falling oil price has destroyed an already ropey economic case. And the way the timing works, the UK would already be out of the EU before Scotland was out of the UK — leaving it stranded in the North Sea while it reapplied — in the full knowledge that it would have to take the euro and the EU’s fiscal limits with no UK-style federal transfers. Who would vote for that? Quite. And another decisive loss really would be the end of the matter. Vote Brexit to save the union.
A second democratic mandate for the Union in almost as many years?
Which is why Nicola really doesn't want to hold it.....
63% of white men voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 63% of white men voted for George Bush snr. in 1988 62% of white men voted for George W. Bush in 2004 62% of white men voted for Mitt Romney in 2012
Additionally the hispanic demographic is unsurprisingly proving difficult for Trump. Romney secured 27% of their vote in 12, presently the best estimate is that Trump is managing only 15% of this increasingly important bloc that is vital in a number of swing states.
Jack, do you think it will ever be possible again for a white male to win the White House as the Republican candidate?
Given the demographics it is hard to see any Republican in the White House.
It's only a few years since George W Bush won his second term. It's eminently possible for the Republicans to win again, they just may have to change in order to do so. Just like Labour have to change currently and the Tories pre-Cameron had to and Labour pre-Blair had to. It's the cycle of politics and the Republicans haven't reached rock bottom yet.
American politics and its division of power makes it harder I suspect for parties to reach rock bottom though. It's hard to say the Republican message is unpopular when they control the House, the Senate and most of the time until a few weeks ago the SCOTUS.
In the last 12 years the demographics have moved against the Republicans for President. Obviously they do have foci of support in parts of the US. The Senate is crazily skewed to low population Republican States, with Wyoming having the same number of Senators as Pennsylvania or New York, so any Dem POTUS is locked in battle from the start. Americans see these checks and balances as a feature not a bug.
"A private poll Bloomberg conducted in late February showed Trump rapidly losing support from mainstream Republicans after being mocked by Rubio as a con man, retweeting a Mussolini quote, and refusing to immediately disavow the KKK. “That did not go over well,” the adviser says. The same poll showed Bloomberg pulling far more votes from the GOP side than the Democrats."
Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.
The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for
Alternatively, the Tories feel they have a licence to squabble because of Corbyn. Which is very dangerous as if Corbyn goes, the Tory divisions won't just go with it.
Agreed. However it is sad that the pension tax relief is so heavily skewed against the average to low earners. The hysterics from Tebbitt/Fox/IDS are wholly irresponsible. There is no natural majority for their views in the country at large.
It's not that skewed, you don't get taxed on what you contribute that is the same throughout.
Sure higher earners avoid (perfectly legally) more tax but that's because they're paying more tax from what they earn themselves, not because money is being gifted to them. We should never forget that.
Yes I understand but I would prefer a greater advantage to be given to low earners as they are currently much more likely to struggle in retirement. High earners do very well under the current arrangements. I for example got 40% tax relief and now pay only 20% on my pension with a very high personal allowance.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it being hard to achieve in a democracy.
So that seems to confirm that they are taking tough decisions does it not?
Well that's one way to appeal to Brits thinking of Leaving
In an astonishing attack on Eurosceptics, the European Commission president dismissed those who criticise the EU as forgetting its role in the years since the Second World War.
The former prime minister of Luxembourg who heads the EU's bureaucracy in Brussels said: 'Europe gains whenever again we point out that Europe is a major project for peace.
'Whosoever does not believe in Europe, who doubts Europe, whoever despairs of Europe, should visit the military cemeteries in Europe.'
Interesting argument against the 'received wisdom':
Scotland. Voting Brexit seems to me to be the best chance we have to save the union. The SNP is threatening to hold another referendum if we vote out. I suspect they don’t really want to (they do good threats). But their members may force them into it and Westminster may allow it (it isn’t a devolved issue). If they do, they won’t win.
The falling oil price has destroyed an already ropey economic case. And the way the timing works, the UK would already be out of the EU before Scotland was out of the UK — leaving it stranded in the North Sea while it reapplied — in the full knowledge that it would have to take the euro and the EU’s fiscal limits with no UK-style federal transfers. Who would vote for that? Quite. And another decisive loss really would be the end of the matter. Vote Brexit to save the union.
A second democratic mandate for the Union in almost as many years?
Which is why Nicola really doesn't want to hold it.....
Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.
The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for
Alternatively, the Tories feel they have a licence to squabble because of Corbyn. Which is very dangerous as if Corbyn goes, the Tory divisions won't just go with it.
Agreed. However it is sad that the pension tax relief is so heavily skewed against the average to low earners. The hysterics from Tebbitt/Fox/IDS are wholly irresponsible. There is no natural majority for their views in the country at large.
It's not that skewed, you don't get taxed on what you contribute that is the same throughout.
Sure higher earners avoid (perfectly legally) more tax but that's because they're paying more tax from what they earn themselves, not because money is being gifted to them. We should never forget that.
Yes I understand but I would prefer a greater advantage to be given to low earners as they are currently much more likely to struggle in retirement. High earners do very well under the current arrangements. I for example got 40% tax relief and now pay only 20% on my pension with a very high personal allowance.
Low earners already have a major advantage. They're untaxed on the first £10k and only pay 20% on the rest. That great advantage is there all the time.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it being hard to achieve in a democracy.
So that seems to confirm that they are taking tough decisions does it not?
No.
They're not.
And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.
Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
Or alternatively politics is reality - PB comment is fun and fantasy.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it being hard to achieve in a democracy.
So that seems to confirm that they are taking tough decisions does it not?
No.
They're not.
And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.
Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.
Yes.
They are
Government spending is going down in real terms. That is fact whether you like it or not.
Interesting argument against the 'received wisdom':
Scotland. Voting Brexit seems to me to be the best chance we have to save the union. The SNP is threatening to hold another referendum if we vote out. I suspect they don’t really want to (they do good threats). But their members may force them into it and Westminster may allow it (it isn’t a devolved issue). If they do, they won’t win.
The falling oil price has destroyed an already ropey economic case. And the way the timing works, the UK would already be out of the EU before Scotland was out of the UK — leaving it stranded in the North Sea while it reapplied — in the full knowledge that it would have to take the euro and the EU’s fiscal limits with no UK-style federal transfers. Who would vote for that? Quite. And another decisive loss really would be the end of the matter. Vote Brexit to save the union.
A second democratic mandate for the Union in almost as many years?
Which is why Nicola really doesn't want to hold it.....
63% of white men voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 63% of white men voted for George Bush snr. in 1988 62% of white men voted for George W. Bush in 2004 62% of white men voted for Mitt Romney in 2012
Additionally the hispanic demographic is unsurprisingly proving difficult for Trump. Romney secured 27% of their vote in 12, presently the best estimate is that Trump is managing only 15% of this increasingly important bloc that is vital in a number of swing states.
Jack, do you think it will ever be possible again for a white male to win the White House as the Republican candidate?
Given the demographics it is hard to see any Republican in the White House.
Any political system will tend towards balance of some sort in the medium term. No ascendecy can last indefinitely because opposition will always arise off the back of inevitable unpopularity.
Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.
The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for
Alternatively, the Tories feel they have a licence to squabble because of Corbyn. Which is very dangerous as if Corbyn goes, the Tory divisions won't just go with it.
Agreed. However it is sad that the pension tax relief is so heavily skewed against the average to low earners. The hysterics from Tebbitt/Fox/IDS are wholly irresponsible. There is no natural majority for their views in the country at large.
It's not that skewed, you don't get taxed on what you contribute that is the same throughout.
Sure higher earners avoid (perfectly legally) more tax but that's because they're paying more tax from what they earn themselves, not because money is being gifted to them. We should never forget that.
Yes I understand but I would prefer a greater advantage to be given to low earners as they are currently much more likely to struggle in retirement. High earners do very well under the current arrangements. I for example got 40% tax relief and now pay only 20% on my pension with a very high personal allowance.
Low earners already have a major advantage. They're untaxed on the first £10k and only pay 20% on the rest. That great advantage is there all the time.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it being hard to achieve in a democracy.
So that seems to confirm that they are taking tough decisions does it not?
No.
They're not.
And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.
Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.
Yes.
They are
Government spending is going down in real terms. That is fact whether you like it or not.
you don't appear to realise that the speed of decrease is also important.
instead ouf cutting the deficit in one Parliamentary term Osborne will need three.
By the third we'll be back in a downturn and all the numbers will go tits up again.
Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.
The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for
Alternatively, the Tories feel they have a licence to squabble because of Corbyn. Which is very dangerous as if Corbyn goes, the Tory divisions won't just go with it.
Agreed. However it is sad that the pension tax relief is so heavily skewed against the average to low earners. The hysterics from Tebbitt/Fox/IDS are wholly irresponsible. There is no natural majority for their views in the country at large.
It's not that skewed, you don't get taxed on what you contribute that is the same throughout.
Sure higher earners avoid (perfectly legally) more tax but that's because they're paying more tax from what they earn themselves, not because money is being gifted to them. We should never forget that.
Yes I understand but I would prefer a greater advantage to be given to low earners as they are currently much more likely to struggle in retirement. High earners do very well under the current arrangements. I for example got 40% tax relief and now pay only 20% on my pension with a very high personal allowance.
Low earners already have a major advantage. They're untaxed on the first £10k and only pay 20% on the rest. That great advantage is there all the time.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it being hard to achieve in a democracy.
So that seems to confirm that they are taking tough decisions does it not?
No.
They're not.
And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.
Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.
Yes.
They are
Government spending is going down in real terms. That is fact whether you like it or not.
The squeeze in the NHS is pretty painful. Just look at the deficits across the board at various Trusts.
My own Trust is keeping the deficit to a modest £40 million again this year. That is a much better than average performance. We have demand rising by about 6% per year every year in terms of admissions and attendances.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it being hard to achieve in a democracy.
So that seems to confirm that they are taking tough decisions does it not?
No.
They're not.
And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.
Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.
Yes.
They are
Government spending is going down in real terms. That is fact whether you like it or not.
The squeeze in the NHS is pretty painful. Just look at the deficits across the board at various Trusts.
My own Trust is keeping the deficit to a modest £40 million again this year. That is a much better than average performance. We have demand rising by about 6% per year every year in terms of admissions and attendances.
63% of white men voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 63% of white men voted for George Bush snr. in 1988 62% of white men voted for George W. Bush in 2004 62% of white men voted for Mitt Romney in 2012
Additionally the hispanic demographic is unsurprisingly proving difficult for Trump. Romney secured 27% of their vote in 12, presently the best estimate is that Trump is managing only 15% of this increasingly important bloc that is vital in a number of swing states.
Jack, do you think it will ever be possible again for a white male to win the White House as the Republican candidate?
Yes. Hovever the GOP need to to heed their own advice after the 2012 defeat when they realised that alienating vast swathes of the electorate wasn't the route to the White House given the demographic changes and the need to appeal to swing voters.
The question is how many times they will lose before the dime finally drops?
Seems it has with those rallying round Trump. Romney got a pathetic share of the historically low turnout of the white vote in 2012. Continuing to run with pro Iraq War and pro amnesty candidates is a recipe for disaster, Trump gives them a chance before immigration turns America into California, a no hope for the GOP. A long way off though as Hispanics remain less than 10% of the vote with it mostly concentrated in states that don't swing, Texas and California. Florida is Trump's second home state and is in the bag already.
Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.
The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for
Alternatively, the Tories feel they have a licence to squabble because of Corbyn. Which is very dangerous as if Corbyn goes, the Tory divisions won't just go with it.
Agreed. However it is sad that the pension tax relief is so heavily skewed against the average to low earners. The hysterics from Tebbitt/Fox/IDS are wholly irresponsible. There is no natural majority for their views in the country at large.
It's not that skewed, you don't get taxed on what you contribute that is the same throughout.
Sure higher earners avoid (perfectly legally) more tax but that's because they're paying more tax from what they earn themselves, not because money is being gifted to them. We should never forget that.
Yes I understand but I would prefer a greater advantage to be given to low earners as they are currently much more likely to struggle in retirement. High earners do very well under the current arrangements. I for example got 40% tax relief and now pay only 20% on my pension with a very high personal allowance.
Low earners already have a major advantage. They're untaxed on the first £10k and only pay 20% on the rest. That great advantage is there all the time.
Doesn't everyone get that?
No. At an income of £106 000 the personal tax allowance is clawed back. The tax rate between 106 000 and 125 000 is the highest rate (and also the best income at which to make pension contributions).
Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.
The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for
Alternatively, the Tories feel they have a licence to squabble because of Corbyn. Which is very dangerous as if Corbyn goes, the Tory divisions won't just go with it.
Agreed. However it is sad that the pension tax relief is so heavily skewed against the average to low earners. The hysterics from Tebbitt/Fox/IDS are wholly irresponsible. There is no natural majority for their views in the country at large.
It's not that skewed, you don't get taxed on what you contribute that is the same throughout.
Sure higher earners avoid (perfectly legally) more tax but that's because they're paying more tax from what they earn themselves, not because money is being gifted to them. We should never forget that.
Yes I understand but I would prefer a greater advantage to be given to low earners as they are currently much more likely to struggle in retirement. High earners do very well under the current arrangements. I for example got 40% tax relief and now pay only 20% on my pension with a very high personal allowance.
Low earners already have a major advantage. They're untaxed on the first £10k and only pay 20% on the rest. That great advantage is there all the time.
Doesn't everyone get that?
No.
At what level of earning do you not get the personal allowance or pay any tax at 20%? Come now don't be coy.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it being hard to achieve in a democracy.
So that seems to confirm that they are taking tough decisions does it not?
No.
They're not.
And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.
Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.
Yes.
They are
Government spending is going down in real terms. That is fact whether you like it or not.
you don't appear to realise that the speed of decrease is also important.
instead ouf cutting the deficit in one Parliamentary term Osborne will need three.
By the third we'll be back in a downturn and all the numbers will go tits up again.
The sun is shining but the roof aint fixed.
A whole new roof is needing to be built with new foundations and supports.
But I wasn't talking about speed so it's not relevant to what was said. rd63 said the government should cut spending, which it is doing in real terms. Mr Herdson explained why it's difficult to do so, though the government is doing so in real terms. You took the explanation of why it is difficult and ran with it as a justification that the government isn't making any hard decisions.
It is extraordinarily rare throughout history to see a real terms cut in spending but this government has achieved that again and again. You may wish it to go faster but don't deny the direction of travel. Unless you have somehow got reason to think spending is going up in real terms.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it being hard to achieve in a democracy.
So that seems to confirm that they are taking tough decisions does it not?
No.
They're not.
And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.
Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.
Yes.
They are
Government spending is going down in real terms. That is fact whether you like it or not.
The squeeze in the NHS is pretty painful. Just look at the deficits across the board at various Trusts.
My own Trust is keeping the deficit to a modest £40 million again this year. That is a much better than average performance. We have demand rising by about 6% per year every year in terms of admissions and attendances.
Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.
The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for
Alternatively, the Tories feel they have a licence to squabble because of Corbyn. Which is very dangerous as if Corbyn goes, the Tory divisions won't just go with it.
Agreed. However it is sad that the pension tax relief is so heavily skewed against the average to low earners. The hysterics from Tebbitt/Fox/IDS are wholly irresponsible. There is no natural majority for their views in the country at large.
It's not that skewed, you don't get taxed on what you contribute that is the same throughout.
Sure higher earners avoid (perfectly legally) more tax but that's because they're paying more tax from what they earn themselves, not because money is being gifted to them. We should never forget that.
Yes I understand but I would prefer a greater advantage to be given to low earners as they are currently much more likely to struggle in retirement. High earners do very well under the current arrangements. I for example got 40% tax relief and now pay only 20% on my pension with a very high personal allowance.
Low earners already have a major advantage. They're untaxed on the first £10k and only pay 20% on the rest. That great advantage is there all the time.
Doesn't everyone get that?
No.
At what level of earning do you not get the personal allowance or pay any tax at 20%? Come now don't be coy.
At £100,000 the personal allowance tapers down to zero.
Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.
The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for
Yet labour kept it for all 13 years... No brainer?
I know and every year it was suggested then put away again as the vested interests made a noise and it didn't happen. It was the same with MIRAS which was even more unfair until someone finally plucked up the courage.
Higher rate pension tax relief is vey reasonable, as pension contributions are deferred income, and it is in the governments interest for people to save for their own retirement.
It only became a problem (or tax dodge) when Labour took the ceiling off the maximum contributions as a percentage of income, and it became possible to make large one off payments.
But the incentive is much greater for a higher rate taxpayer and the amount saved by higher rate taxpayers is significantly greater. As for 'deferring' income it's very possible to make sure that on retirement you no longer come into that bracket not forgetting the 25% tax free lump sum. It's really just a gift to those who prefer to avoid paying higher rate tax
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.
Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.
The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for
Alternatively, the Tories feel they have a licence to squabble because of Corbyn. Which is very dangerous as if Corbyn goes, the Tory divisions won't just go with it.
Agreed. However it is sad that the pension tax relief is so heavily skewed against the average to low earners. The hysterics from Tebbitt/Fox/IDS are wholly irresponsible. There is no natural majority for their views in the country at large.
It's not that skewed, you don't get taxed on what you contribute that is the same throughout.
Sure higher earners avoid (perfectly legally) more tax but that's because they're paying more tax from what they earn themselves, not because money is being gifted to them. We should never forget that.
Yes I understand but I would prefer a greater advantage to be given to low earners as they are currently much more likely to struggle in retirement. High earners do very well under the current arrangements. I for example got 40% tax relief and now pay only 20% on my pension with a very high personal allowance.
Low earners already have a major advantage. They're untaxed on the first £10k and only pay 20% on the rest. That great advantage is there all the time.
Doesn't everyone get that?
No. At an income of £106 000 the personal tax allowance is clawed back. The tax rate between 106 000 and 125 000 is the highest rate (and also the best income at which to make pension contributions).
Thank you. So not a group likely to be struggling to save for the future.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it being hard to achieve in a democracy.
So that seems to confirm that they are taking tough decisions does it not?
No.
They're not.
And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.
Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.
Yes.
They are
Government spending is going down in real terms. That is fact whether you like it or not.
The squeeze in the NHS is pretty painful. Just look at the deficits across the board at various Trusts.
My own Trust is keeping the deficit to a modest £40 million again this year. That is a much better than average performance. We have demand rising by about 6% per year every year in terms of admissions and attendances.
Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.
The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for
Alternatively, the Tories feel they have a licence to squabble because of Corbyn. Which is very dangerous as if Corbyn goes, the Tory divisions won't just go with it.
Agreed. However it is sad that the pension tax relief is so heavily skewed against the average to low earners. The hysterics from Tebbitt/Fox/IDS are wholly irresponsible. There is no natural majority for their views in the country at large.
It's not that skewed, you don't get taxed on what you contribute that is the same throughout.
Sure higher earners avoid (perfectly legally) more tax but that's because they're paying more tax from what they earn themselves, not because money is being gifted to them. We should never forget that.
Yes I understand but I would prefer a greater advantage to be given to low earners as they are currently much more likely to struggle in retirement. High earners do very well under the current arrangements. I for example got 40% tax relief and now pay only 20% on my pension with a very high personal allowance.
Low earners already have a major advantage. They're untaxed on the first £10k and only pay 20% on the rest. That great advantage is there all the time.
Doesn't everyone get that?
No.
At what level of earning do you not get the personal allowance or pay any tax at 20%? Come now don't be coy.
The level at which you don't pay 20% tax on "the rest" of your earnings above the personal threshold is where the 40% threshold kicks in. IIRC around 44k currently. The level at which you begin to lose your Personal Allowance is if I recall correctly 100k.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.
No the issue is the so called tough decisions. The only tough decisions Dave has taken is the EU ref. where he risks a party split.
Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.
The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for
Yet labour kept it for all 13 years... No brainer?
I know and every year it was suggested then put away again as the vested interests made a noise and it didn't happen. It was the same with MIRAS which was even more unfair until someone finally plucked up the courage.
Higher rate pension tax relief is vey reasonable, as pension contributions are deferred income, and it is in the governments interest for people to save for their own retirement.
It only became a problem (or tax dodge) when Labour took the ceiling off the maximum contributions as a percentage of income, and it became possible to make large one off payments.
But the incentive is much greater for a higher rate taxpayer and the amount saved by higher rate taxpayers is significantly greater. As for 'deferring' income it's very possible to make sure that on retirement you no longer come into that bracket not forgetting the 25% tax free lump sum. It's really just a gift to those who prefer to avoid paying higher rate tax
Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.
The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for
Yet labour kept it for all 13 years... No brainer?
I know and every year it was suggested then put away again as the vested interests made a noise and it didn't happen. It was the same with MIRAS which was even more unfair until someone finally plucked up the courage.
Higher rate pension tax relief is vey reasonable, as pension contributions are deferred income, and it is in the governments interest for people to save for their own retirement.
It only became a problem (or tax dodge) when Labour took the ceiling off the maximum contributions as a percentage of income, and it became possible to make large one off payments.
But the incentive is much greater for a higher rate taxpayer and the amount saved by higher rate taxpayers is significantly greater. As for 'deferring' income it's very possible to make sure that on retirement you no longer come into that bracket not forgetting the 25% tax free lump sum. It's really just a gift to those who prefer to avoid paying higher rate tax
For once I agree with Roger!
Higher rate tax relief is grossly unfair (and I receive it) the flat rate proposed is a much better idea.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.
No; reducing pension tax relief is not cutting spending but increasing tax.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it being hard to achieve in a democracy.
So that seems to confirm that they are taking tough decisions does it not?
No.
They're not.
And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.
Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.
Yes.
They are
Government spending is going down in real terms. That is fact whether you like it or not.
you don't appear to realise that the speed of decrease is also important.
instead ouf cutting the deficit in one Parliamentary term Osborne will need three.
By the third we'll be back in a downturn and all the numbers will go tits up again.
The sun is shining but the roof aint fixed.
A whole new roof is needing to be built with new foundations and supports.
But I wasn't talking about speed so it's not relevant to what was said. rd63 said the government should cut spending, which it is doing in real terms. Mr Herdson explained why it's difficult to do so, though the government is doing so in real terms. You took the explanation of why it is difficult and ran with it as a justification that the government isn't making any hard decisions.
It is extraordinarily rare throughout history to see a real terms cut in spending but this government has achieved that again and again. You may wish it to go faster but don't deny the direction of travel. Unless you have somehow got reason to think spending is going up in real terms.
Right so if in your business you had a huge gaping loss maker you'd just let it roll and as long as the loss is getting a bit less each year you wouldn't mind too much ?
Once, twice, three times a loser. Hard to find two more unpopular politicians than Romney and Ryan. Will shift votes, but not the way they hope.
Fun facts on Florida. More than a fifth of votes have already been cast. NE Florida votes a lot like Georgia, NW votes a lot like Alabama, both have big chunks of the Republican voting electorate. In southern Florida there are a lot of NE transplants, no prizes for how these New York retirees will be voting.
Rubio also has just a 30-35% approval rating in Florida.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.
No; reducing pension tax relief is not cutting spending but increasing tax.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it being hard to achieve in a democracy.
So that seems to confirm that they are taking tough decisions does it not?
No.
They're not.
And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.
Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.
Yes.
They are
Government spending is going down in real terms. That is fact whether you like it or not.
you don't appear to realise that the speed of decrease is also important.
instead ouf cutting the deficit in one Parliamentary term Osborne will need three.
By the third we'll be back in a downturn and all the numbers will go tits up again.
The sun is shining but the roof aint fixed.
A whole new roof is needing to be built with new foundations and supports.
But I wasn't talking about speed so it's not relevant to what was said. rd63 said the government should cut spending, which it is doing in real terms. Mr Herdson explained why it's difficult to do so, though the government is doing so in real terms. You took the explanation of why it is difficult and ran with it as a justification that the government isn't making any hard decisions.
It is extraordinarily rare throughout history to see a real terms cut in spending but this government has achieved that again and again. You may wish it to go faster but don't deny the direction of travel. Unless you have somehow got reason to think spending is going up in real terms.
There are some on here who have the same sort of hatred of Osborne as of Brown.. The Brown loathing was fair enough as he was completely bonkers and the list of his lunacies is endless..
Osborne may not be likeable , but it doesn't mean he isn't doing a good job in probably the worst financial circumstances the nation has ever faced
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it being hard to achieve in a democracy.
So that seems to confirm that they are taking tough decisions does it not?
No.
They're not.
And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.
Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.
Yes.
They are
Government spending is going down in real terms. That is fact whether you like it or not.
The squeeze in the NHS is pretty painful. Just look at the deficits across the board at various Trusts.
My own Trust is keeping the deficit to a modest £40 million again this year. That is a much better than average performance. We have demand rising by about 6% per year every year in terms of admissions and attendances.
Why do think that is?
Mostly it is an ageing population. Most healthcare expenditure is in the last two years of life. Dementia, diabetes osteoporosis, arthritis, cancer all get far more common with age. The cost of an average person over 75 to the NHS is 13 times someone of working age (and that figure is just cost, obviously it is people of working age who also pay most in!). An 85 year old is 25 times more likely to spend a night in hospital than an under 65 etc etc. Both figures are from the DoH.
Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.
The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for
Alternatively, the Tories feel they have a licence to squabble because of Corbyn. Which is very dangerous as if Corbyn goes, the Tory divisions won't just go with it.
Agreed. However it is sad that the pension tax relief is so heavily skewed against the average to low earners. The hysterics from Tebbitt/Fox/IDS are wholly irresponsible. There is no natural majority for their views in the country at large.
It's not that skewed, you don't get taxed on what you contribute that is the same throughout.
Sure higher earners avoid (perfectly legally) more tax but that's because they're paying more tax from what they earn themselves, not because money is being gifted to them. We should never forget that.
Yes I understand but I would prefer a greater advantage to be given to low earners as they are currently much more likely to struggle in retirement. High earners do very well under the current arrangements. I for example got 40% tax relief and now pay only 20% on my pension with a very high personal allowance.
Low earners already have a major advantage. They're untaxed on the first £10k and only pay 20% on the rest. That great advantage is there all the time.
Doesn't everyone get that?
No.
At what level of earning do you not get the personal allowance or pay any tax at 20%? Come now don't be coy.
The level at which you don't pay 20% tax on "the rest" of your earnings above the personal threshold is where the 40% threshold kicks in. IIRC around 44k currently. The level at which you begin to lose your Personal Allowance is if I recall correctly 100k.
I am a perpetual Conservative voter but I think Osbornes instinct here is right. Higher earners can expect very comfortable retirements without the full 40% tax relief.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.
No; reducing pension tax relief is not cutting spending but increasing tax.
@ivan_hernandez: I'm proBernie but would vote Hillary as I am a one issue voter and that issue is not opening the seventh seal and ushering in the apocalypse
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.
No the issue is the so called tough decisions. The only tough decisions Dave has taken is the EU ref. where he risks a party split.
Osborne like Brown doesn't do tough deciisions.
Bullshit. Spending is going down in real terms. Fact. That is a tough thing to do. Fact.
Spending under Brown more than doubled in real terms. Another fact.
Just because you have a hard on for hating Osborne doesn't make him this myth you like to make out.
In no reality is a Chancellor who has repeatedly cut spending in real terms, one of if not the only Chancellor in history to regularly do so, remotely comparable to a Chancellor and PM who more than doubled spending in real terms. If you can't tell the difference between up and down then I feel very sorry for you.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it being hard to achieve in a democracy.
So that seems to confirm that they are taking tough decisions does it not?
No.
They're not.
And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.
Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.
Yes.
They are
Government spending is going down in real terms. That is fact whether you like it or not.
you don't appear to realise that the speed of decrease is also important.
instead ouf cutting the deficit in one Parliamentary term Osborne will need three.
By the third we'll be back in a downturn and all the numbers will go tits up again.
The sun is shining but the roof aint fixed.
A whole new roof is needing to be built with new foundations and supports.
But I wasn't talking about speed so it's not relevant to what was said. rd63 said the government should cut spending, which it is doing in real terms. Mr Herdson explained why it's difficult to do so, though the government is doing so in real terms. You took the explanation of why it is difficult and ran with it as a justification that the government isn't making any hard decisions.
It is extraordinarily rare throughout history to see a real terms cut in spending but this government has achieved that again and again. You may wish it to go faster but don't deny the direction of travel. Unless you have somehow got reason to think spending is going up in real terms.
Right so if in your business you had a huge gaping loss maker you'd just let it roll and as long as the loss is getting a bit less each year you wouldn't mind too much ?
can't see it some how. Time matters.
Which part of 'in a democracy' do you not understand? A government can only do what parliament will let it.
George Osborne made a bad mistake trailing his pension changes so far in advance. It gave people time to spot what he was doing. In a Parliament with a tiny majority only a few fainthearts on the Conservative backbenches could kill the idea.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.
No; reducing pension tax relief is not cutting spending but increasing tax.
Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.
The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for
Alternatively, the Tories feel they have a licence to squabble because of Corbyn. Which is very dangerous as if Corbyn goes, the Tory divisions won't just go with it.
Agreed. However it is sad that the pension tax relief is so heavily skewed against the average to low earners. The hysterics from Tebbitt/Fox/IDS are wholly irresponsible. There is no natural majority for their views in the country at large.
It's not that skewed, you don't get taxed on what you contribute that is the same throughout.
Sure higher earners avoid (perfectly legally) more tax but that's because they're paying more tax from what they earn themselves, not because money is being gifted to them. We should never forget that.
Yes I understand but I would prefer a greater advantage to be given to low earners as they are currently much more likely to struggle in retirement. High earners do very well under the current arrangements. I for example got 40% tax relief and now pay only 20% on my pension with a very high personal allowance.
Low earners already have a major advantage. They're untaxed on the first £10k and only pay 20% on the rest. That great advantage is there all the time.
Doesn't everyone get that?
No. At an income of £106 000 the personal tax allowance is clawed back. The tax rate between 106 000 and 125 000 is the highest rate (and also the best income at which to make pension contributions).
Thank you. So not a group likely to be struggling to save for the future.
Nope. The people paying a marginal rate that is highest in the country at over 60% and facing a further tax increase.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.
No; reducing pension tax relief is not cutting spending but increasing tax.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.
No; reducing pension tax relief is not cutting spending but increasing tax.
Reducing a subsidy is increasing tax?
In what way is it a subsidy?
The same way that any form of tax relief is a subsidy, Roger mentioned MIRAS and that is a good example. A more extreme example is the so called bedroom tax.
Don't get me wrong I am not saying the tax relief should not be there but higher rate tax relief is grossly unfair, and I benefit from it!
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it being hard to achieve in a democracy.
So that seems to confirm that they are taking tough decisions does it not?
No.
They're not.
And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.
Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.
Yes.
They are
Government spending is going down in real terms. That is fact whether you like it or not.
you don't appear to realise that the speed of decrease is also important.
instead ouf cutting the deficit in one Parliamentary term Osborne will need three.
By the third we'll be back in a downturn and all the numbers will go tits up again.
The sun is shining but the roof aint fixed.
A whole new roof is needing to be built with new foundations and supports.
But I wasn't talking about speed so it's not relevant to what was said. rd63 said the government should cut spendoing up in real terms.
Right so if in your business you had a huge gaping loss maker you'd just let it roll and as long as the loss is getting a bit less each year you wouldn't mind too much ?
can't see it some how. Time matters.
Which part of 'in a democracy' do you not understand? A government can only do what parliament will let it.
Which part of tough decision don't you ?
If you elect the guys to do the hard slog they should do it. If they can'y do it they should traispae around the place saying they're doing the tough stuff. Setting voter expectations in the wrong place is poor politics.
A whole new roof is needing to be built with new foundations and supports.
But I wasn't talking about speed so it's not relevant to what was said. rd63 said the government should cut spending, which it is doing in real terms. Mr Herdson explained why it's difficult to do so, though the government is doing so in real terms. You took the explanation of why it is difficult and ran with it as a justification that the government isn't making any hard decisions.
It is extraordinarily rare throughout history to see a real terms cut in spending but this government has achieved that again and again. You may wish it to go faster but don't deny the direction of travel. Unless you have somehow got reason to think spending is going up in real terms.
Right so if in your business you had a huge gaping loss maker you'd just let it roll and as long as the loss is getting a bit less each year you wouldn't mind too much ?
can't see it some how. Time matters.
If my business was running a loss but had a plan to get to profit over time and was actively making steps to meeting that target yes. Especially if I was keeping the confidence of banks with a very cheap and getting cheaper line of credit from the banks because they viewed my business as secure and safe. So long as Osborne keeps making progress in a difficult job he is doing the right thing and something almost unprecedented in our nations history.
Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.
The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for
Alternatively, the Tories feel they have a licence to squabble because of Corbyn. Which is very dangerous as if Corbyn goes, the Tory divisions won't just go with it.
Agreed. However it is sad that the pension tax relief is so heavily skewed against the average to low earners. The hysterics from Tebbitt/Fox/IDS are wholly irresponsible. There is no natural majority for their views in the country at large.
It's not that skewed, you don't get taxed on what you contribute that is the same throughout.
Sure higher earners avoid (perfectly legally) more tax but that's because they're paying more tax from what they earn themselves, not because money is being gifted to them. We should never forget that.
Yes I understand
Low earners already have a major advantage. They're untaxed on the first £10k and only pay 20% on the rest. That great advantage is there all the time.
Doesn't everyone get that?
No.
At what level of earning do you not get the personal allowance or pay any tax at 20%? Come now don't be coy.
The level at which you don't pay 20% tax on "the rest" of your earnings above the personal threshold is where the 40% threshold kicks in. IIRC around 44k currently. The level at which you begin to lose your Personal Allowance is if I recall correctly 100k.
I am a perpetual Conservative voter but I think Osbornes instinct here is right. Higher earners can expect very comfortable retirements without the full 40% tax relief.
It does alter the nature of their saving decisions though. It will be relatively foolish to save into a pension, compared to an ISA, or many would instead invest in a second property or BTL.
It would be very rash indeed to expect a tax bonanza without altering saving behaviour.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.
No; reducing pension tax relief is not cutting spending but increasing tax.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.
No; reducing pension tax relief is not cutting spending but increasing tax.
Reducing a subsidy is increasing tax?
In what way is it a subsidy?
The same way that any form of tax relief is a subsidy, Roger mentioned MIRAS and that is a good example. A more extreme example is the so called bedroom tax.
Don't get me wrong I am not saying the tax relief should not be there but higher rate tax Recife is grossly unfair, and I benefit from it!
The so called bedroom tax is not a tax it is a change in welfare. It has the square root of zero to do with tax.
Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.
The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for
Alternatively, the Tories feel they have a licence to squabble because of Corbyn. Which is very dangerous as if Corbyn goes, the Tory divisions won't just go with it.
Agreed. However it is sad that the pension tax relief is so heavily skewed against the average to low earners. The hysterics from Tebbitt/Fox/IDS are wholly irresponsible. There is no natural majority for their views in the country at large.
It's not that skewed, you don't get taxed on what you contribute that is the same throughout.
Sure higher earners avoid (perfectly legally) more tax but that's because they're paying more tax from what they earn themselves, not because money is being gifted to them. We should never forget that.
Yes I understand but I would prefer a greater advantage to be given to low earners as they are currently much more likely to struggle in retirement. High earners do very well under the current arrangements. I for example got 40% tax relief and now pay only 20% on my pension with a very high personal allowance.
Low earners already have a major advantage. They're untaxed on the first £10k and only pay 20% on the rest. That great advantage is there all the time.
Doesn't everyone get that?
No. At an income of £106 000 the personal tax allowance is clawed back. The tax rate between 106 000 and 125 000 is the highest rate (and also the best income at which to make pension contributions).
Thank you. So not a group likely to be struggling to save for the future.
Nope. The people paying a marginal rate that is highest in the country at over 60% and facing a further tax increase.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it being hard to achieve in a democracy.
So that seems to confirm that they are taking tough decisions does it not?
No.
They're not.
And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.
Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.
Yes.
They are
Government spending is going down in real terms. That is fact whether you like it or not.
The squeeze in the NHS is pretty painful. Just look at the deficits across the board at various Trusts.
My own Trust is keeping the deficit to a modest £40 million again this year. That is a much better than average performance. We have demand rising by about 6% per year every year in terms of admissions and attendances.
Why do think that is?
Mostly it is an ageing population. Most healthcare expenditure is in the last two years of life. Dementia, diabetes osteoporosis, arthritis, cancer all get far more common with age. The cost of an average person over 75 to the NHS is 13 times someone of working age (and that figure is just cost, obviously it is people of working age who also pay most in!). An 85 year old is 25 times more likely to spend a night in hospital than an under 65 etc etc. Both figures are from the DoH.
Yes I know that and totally agree, I am a PMI broker.
But what both you and Innocent Abroad are both trying to avoid saying is that immigration has played a part. Surely it makes sense that any business, or institution with a budget, that suddenly has significantly more customers needs to expand.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
No, a
Osborne like Brown doesn't do tough deciisions.
Bullshit. Spending is going down in real terms. Fact. That is a tough thing to do. Fact.
Spending under Brown more than doubled in real terms. Another fact.
Just because you have a hard on for hating Osborne doesn't make him this myth you like to make out.
In no reality is a Chancellor who has repeatedly cut spending in real terms, one of if not the only Chancellor in history to regularly do so, remotely comparable to a Chancellor and PM who more than doubled spending in real terms. If you can't tell the difference between up and down then I feel very sorry for you.
One of the fun things on being in PB is watching how the arguments change.
The Tories who spent ages in 2009 and 2010 criticisng Brown for his policies are now those defending Osborne for implementing the self same policies.
Why Osborne pissing billions away is better than Brown pissing billions away is one of politics great mysteries.
Which part of 'in a democracy' do you not understand? A government can only do what parliament will let it.
Which part of tough decision don't you ?
If you elect the guys to do the hard slog they should do it. If they can'y do it they should traispae around the place saying they're doing the tough stuff. Setting voter expectations in the wrong place is poor politics.
How do you think the government is, against all precedent, getting spending down without taking tough decisions?
Some tough decisions become a bridge too far in a democracy and need to be rowed back on but if they weren't making tough decisions in the first place that'd be moot.
63% of white men voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 63% of white men voted for George Bush snr. in 1988 62% of white men voted for George W. Bush in 2004 62% of white men voted for Mitt Romney in 2012
Additionally the hispanic demographic is unsurprisingly proving difficult for Trump. Romney secured 27% of their vote in 12, presently the best estimate is that Trump is managing only 15% of this increasingly important bloc that is vital in a number of swing states.
Jack, do you think it will ever be possible again for a white male to win the White House as the Republican candidate?
Yes. Hovever the GOP need to to heed their own advice after the 2012 defeat when they realised that alienating vast swathes of the electorate wasn't the route to the White House given the demographic changes and the need to appeal to swing voters.
The question is how many times they will lose before the dime finally drops?
Seems it has with those rallying round Trump. Romney got a pathetic share of the historically low turnout of the white vote in 2012. Continuing to run with pro Iraq War and pro amnesty candidates is a recipe for disaster, Trump gives them a chance before immigration turns America into California, a no hope for the GOP. A long way off though as Hispanics remain less than 10% of the vote with it mostly concentrated in states that don't swing, Texas and California. Florida is Trump's second home state and is in the bag already.
Incorrect.
Hispanics will make up 12% of the eligible vote this year only 0.5% below the AA vote.
Their vote in swing states will be 18% in Florida, 17% in Nevada, 15% in Colorado. They will also make up crucial blocs in Virginia and the rust belt states.
The latest Florida poll has Trump +2. Hardly "in the bag".
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.
No; reducing pension tax relief is not cutting spending but increasing tax.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.
No; reducing pension tax relief is not cutting spending but increasing tax.
Reducing a subsidy is increasing tax?
In what way is it a subsidy?
The same way that any form of tax relief is a subsidy, Roger mentioned MIRAS and that is a good example. A more extreme example is the so called bedroom tax.
Don't get me wrong I am not saying the tax relief should not be there but higher rate tax Recife is grossly unfair, and I benefit from it!
The so called bedroom tax is not a tax it is a change in welfare. It has the square root of zero to do with tax.
A whole new roof is needing to be built with new foundations and supports.
But I wasn't talking about speed so it's not relevant to what was said. rd63 said the government should cut spending, which it is doing in real terms. Mr Herdson explained why it's difficult to do so, though the government is doing so in real terms. You took the explanation of why it is difficult and ran with it as a justification that the government isn't making any hard decisions.
It is extraordinarily rare throughout history to see a real terms cut in spending but this government has achieved that again and again. You may wish it to go faster but don't deny the direction of travel. Unless you have somehow got reason to think spending is going up in real terms.
Right so if in your business you had a huge gaping loss maker you'd just let it roll and as long as the loss is getting a bit less each year you wouldn't mind too much ?
can't see it some how. Time matters.
If my business was running a loss but had a plan to get to profit over time and was actively making steps to meeting that target yes. Especially if I was keeping the confidence of banks with a very cheap and getting cheaper line of credit from the banks because they viewed my business as secure and safe. So long as Osborne keeps making progress in a difficult job he is doing the right thing and something almost unprecedented in our nations history.
So you've told the bank you can eliminate the loss in 5 years but now because you wouldn't cut that charity donation to Dfid or invest in that IT system to make your business more profitable, you won't return to profit for 12 years even on your own flaky forecast.
Mr Harrington, who is a Home Office minister, spoke out after MPs criticised the Government for failing to send back illegals. ‘Where would they be deported to, most of them?’ he said. ‘This deportation sounds easy, it sounds a common sense thing to do. But the truth is most of these illegal migrants have got no place to be deported to.’
Tory MPs said the UK had become a ‘soft touch’ and efforts to tackle illegal immigration were at an ‘all-time low’.
Home Office data shows the number kicked out had almost halved from 21,425 in 2004 to just 12,056 last year. The Conservative revolt comes amid mounting anger at David Cameron’s failure to seize back control of Britain’s borders in his EU negotiations ahead of June’s referendum.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.
No; reducing pension tax relief is not cutting spending but increasing tax.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might agree and you may well be one of the exceptions who are happy to receive less from the state in cash and/or services, on ideological grounds. However, that such a view is exceptional explains why it's so hard for a government to achieve in a democracy.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
No, as has been mentioned downthread, the government has had some success in cutting government spend but the reaction to proposals like this show why it's so hard.
No; reducing pension tax relief is not cutting spending but increasing tax.
Reducing a subsidy is increasing tax?
In what way is it a subsidy?
The same way that any form of tax relief is a subsidy, Roger mentioned MIRAS and that is a good example. A more extreme example is the so called bedroom tax.
Don't get me wrong I am not saying the tax relief should not be there but higher rate tax relief is grossly unfair, and I benefit from it!
People being able to spend their own money pre-tax isn't a subsidy, it's a tax exclusion. Housing benefit - money received directly from the government - is, I agree, a subsidy
Interesting argument against the 'received wisdom':
Scotland. Voting Brexit seems to me to be the best chance we have to save the union. The SNP is threatening to hold another referendum if we vote out. I suspect they don’t really want to (they do good threats). But their members may force them into it and Westminster may allow it (it isn’t a devolved issue). If they do, they won’t win.
The falling oil price has destroyed an already ropey economic case. And the way the timing works, the UK would already be out of the EU before Scotland was out of the UK — leaving it stranded in the North Sea while it reapplied — in the full knowledge that it would have to take the euro and the EU’s fiscal limits with no UK-style federal transfers. Who would vote for that? Quite. And another decisive loss really would be the end of the matter. Vote Brexit to save the union.
A second democratic mandate for the Union in almost as many years?
Which is why Nicola really doesn't want to hold it.....
A whole new roof is needing to be built with new foundations and supports.
But I wasn't talking about speed so it's not relevant to what was said. rd63 said the government should cut spending, which it is doing in real terms. Mr Herdson explained why it's difficult to do so, though the government is doing so in real terms. You took the explanation of why it is difficult and ran with it as a justification that the government isn't making any hard decisions.
It is extraordinarily rare throughout history to see a real terms cut in spending but this government has achieved that again and again. You may wish it to go faster but don't deny the direction of travel. Unless you have somehow got reason to think spending is going up in real terms.
Right so if in your business you had a huge gaping loss maker you'd just let it roll and as long as the loss is getting a bit less each year you wouldn't mind too much ?
can't see it some how. Time matters.
If my business was running a loss but had a plan to get to profit over time and was actively making steps to meeting that target yes. Especially if I was keeping the confidence of banks with a very cheap and getting cheaper line of credit from the banks because they viewed my business as secure and safe. So long as Osborne keeps making progress in a difficult job he is doing the right thing and something almost unprecedented in our nations history.
So you've told the bank you can eliminate the loss in 5 years but now because you wouldn't cut that charity donation to Dfid or invest in that IT system to make your business more profitable, you won't return to profit for 12 years even on your own flaky forecast.
What do you think the bank will say ?
Times change so long as I can provide a robust business plan and case to the bank then I will keep my line of credit.
As Osborne has. He has been rewarded for his sound fiscal management and almost unprecedented cutting of real terms spending by seeing his borrowing costs plummet as we are a safe harbour.
If Osborne was remotely the same as Brown, perhaps by increasing rather than cutting spending, the markets would be punishing rather than rewarding him.
George Osborne made a bad mistake trailing his pension changes so far in advance. It gave people time to spot what he was doing. In a Parliament with a tiny majority only a few fainthearts on the Conservative backbenches could kill the idea.
To be fair, if some fancy-pants pensions lawyer hadn't written a pb leader on the subject, the papers would not even be looking in the right direction.
63% of white men voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 63% of white men voted for George Bush snr. in 1988 62% of white men voted for George W. Bush in 2004 62% of white men voted for Mitt Romney in 2012
Additionally the hispanic demographic is unsurprisingly proving difficult for Trump. Romney secured 27% of their vote in 12, presently the best estimate is that Trump is managing only 15% of this increasingly important bloc that is vital in a number of swing states.
Jack, do you think it will ever be possible again for a white male to win the White House as the Republican candidate?
Yes. Hovever the GOP need to to heed their own advice after the 2012 defeat when they realised that alienating vast swathes of the electorate wasn't the route to the White House given the demographic changes and the need to appeal to swing voters.
The question is how many times they will lose before the dime finally drops?
Seems it has with those rallying round Trump. Romney got a pathetic share of the historically low turnout of the white vote in 2012. Continuing to run with pro Iraq War and pro amnesty candidates is a recipe for disaster, Trump gives them a chance before immigration turns America into California, a no hope for the GOP. A long way off though as Hispanics remain less than 10% of the vote with it mostly concentrated in states that don't swing, Texas and California. Florida is Trump's second home state and is in the bag already.
Incorrect.
Hispanics will make up 12% of the eligible vote this year only 0.5% below the AA vote.
Their vote in swing states will be 18% in Florida, 17% in Nevada, 15% in Colorado. They will also make up crucial blocs in Virginia and the rust belt states.
The latest Florida poll has Trump +2. Hardly "in the bag".
The Census Bureau had the Hispanic vote at only 8.4 percent of the electorate 2012, so it may jump by 4%, it may not though.
Only 18%, 17% and 15% don't you mean, a small fraction of the vote. Most who will never vote Republican anyway.
Surprised you left Minnesota off there, after all you think that should be a GOP target.
bb63..I agree about spending less...right across the board..
You might ay.
so when the PM and CoE talk of taking tough decisions, they're basically lying to our faces.
fair comment.
What lie? The PM and CoE are cutting spending significantly in real terms despite it
No.
They're not.
And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.
Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.
Yes.
They are
The squeeze in the NHS is pretty painful. Just look at the deficits across the board at various Trusts.
Why do think that is?
Mostly it is an ageing population. Most healthcare expenditure is in the last two years of life. Dementia, diabetes osteoporosis, arthritis, cancer all get far more common with age. The cost of an average person over 75 to the NHS is 13 times someone of working age (and that figure is just cost, obviously it is people of working age who also pay most in!). An 85 year old is 25 times more likely to spend a night in hospital than an under 65 etc etc. Both figures are from the DoH.
Yes I know that and totally agree, I am a PMI broker.
But what both you and Innocent Abroad are both trying to avoid saying is that immigration has played a part. Surely it makes sense that any business, or institution with a budget, that suddenly has significantly more customers needs to expand.
Immigrants are overwhelmingly of younger age. They are relatively high users of obstetric, paediatric, GP and non-admitted A/E attendances. These are a tiny fraction of the NHS budgets though. General Practice is only 7% of the NHS budget, but 90% of patient contacts.
The high cost patients to the NHS are the over 65's, and the over 75's and over 85's even more so. These are overwhelmingly either people born in the UK or people who migrated here 3 or more decades ago. Go on any medical, surgical, geriatric, oncology or orthopedic ward - even in a multicultural city like Leicester - and the patients are disproportionally white British.
Immigrants also have a very high employment rate both within and outside the NHS. The net effect is that immigration pays for the care of elderly Britons.
A whole new roof is needing to be built with new foundations and supports.
But I wasn't talking about speed so it's not relevant to what was said. rd63 said the government should cut spending, which it is doing in real terms. Mr Herdson explained why it's difficult to do so, though the government is doing so in real terms. You took the explanation of why it is difficult and ran with it as a justification that the government isn't making any hard decisions.
It is extraordinarily rare throughout history to see a real terms cut in spending but this government has achieved that again and again. You may wish it to go faster but don't deny the direction of travel. Unless you have somehow got reason to think spending is going up in real terms.
Right so if in your business you had a huge gaping loss maker you'd just let it roll and as long as the loss is getting a bit less each year you wouldn't mind too much ?
can't see it some how. Time matters.
If my business
So you've told th
What do you think the bank will say ?
Times change so long as I can provide a robust business plan and case to the bank then I will keep my line of credit.
As Osborne has. He has been rewarded for his sound fiscal management and almost unprecedented cutting of real terms spending by seeing his borrowing costs plummet as we are a safe harbour.
If Osborne was remotely the same as Brown, perhaps by increasing rather than cutting spending, the markets would be punishing rather than rewarding him.
Even stranger
Borrowing costs are low because they are low across the world due to QE and central banks forcing rates down.
We lost our AAA rating in casue you hadn't noticed but rates globally are so low it made no difference.
Claiming the benfit of a windfall just looks desperate. You might as well claim he created the fall in oil prices.
The level at which you don't pay 20% tax on "the rest" of your earnings above the personal threshold is where the 40% threshold kicks in. IIRC around 44k currently. The level at which you begin to lose your Personal Allowance is if I recall correctly 100k.
Yes, happening to me this year as translation is going well - you lose £1 personal allowance for every £2 income over £100K. So your marginal tax rate for 100-120 is the usual 40% plus half the 40% that you're losing, i.e. 60%. I'm philosophical about it as I don't mind paying tax, and indeed voted for the measure back in the day, but it's a bit illogical that the marginal rate goes 40-60-40-45 as you move up the scale. A flat 42-43 rate in the 100-150 range would be more logical.
Hispanics will make up 12% of the eligible vote this year only 0.5% below the AA vote.
Their vote in swing states will be 18% in Florida, 17% in Nevada, 15% in Colorado. They will also make up crucial blocs in Virginia and the rust belt states.
The latest Florida poll has Trump +2. Hardly "in the bag".
Alsio 5% of the population of Florida is Jewish and Trump isn't going to get those votes.
One of the fun things on being in PB is watching how the arguments change.
The Tories who spent ages in 2009 and 2010 criticisng Brown for his policies are now those defending Osborne for implementing the self same policies.
Why Osborne pissing billions away is better than Brown pissing billions away is one of politics great mysteries.
Cutting spending is now the same as increasing spending is it?
It's totally pointless discussing this with you any further you've completely jumped the shark.
Let's talk again when you've learnt the difference between a cut and an increase *rolleyes*
LOL I take it you've run out of road.
You can't understand that a person saying what they'll do and then abysmally failing by the standards they've set themselves isn't success.
While you can't understand that times change and the free market has judged Osborne the same as I have.
You also can't understand why up is not the same as down as much as you flail around trying to change the subject.
Au contraire. Ive been on this board on the self same subject of the deficit longer than you have. And have been totally consistent in the way spending has been managed.
The only thing that has changed is the blue team who savaged Brown for his policies are giving a let for Osborne because he's their man.
63% of white men voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 63% of white men voted for George Bush snr. in 1988 62% of white men voted for George W. Bush in 2004 62% of white men voted for Mitt Romney in 2012
Additionally the hispanic demographic is unsurprisingly proving difficult for Trump. Romney secured 27% of their vote in 12, presently the best estimate is that Trump is managing only 15% of this increasingly important bloc that is vital in a number of swing states.
Jack, do you think it will ever be possible again for a white male to win the White House as the Republican candidate?
Yes. Hovever the GOP need to to heed their own advice after the 2012 defeat when they realised that alienating vast swathes of the electorate wasn't the route to the White House given the demographic changes and the need to appeal to swing voters.
The question is how many times they will lose before the dime finally drops?
Seems it has with those rallying round Trump. Romney got a pathetic share of the historically low turnout of the white vote in 2012. Continuing to run with pro Iraq War and pro amnesty candidates is a recipe for disaster, Trump gives them a chance before immigration turns America into California, a no hope for the GOP. A long way off though as Hispanics remain less than 10% of the vote with it mostly concentrated in states that don't swing, Texas and California. Florida is Trump's second home state and is in the bag already.
Incorrect.
Hispanics will make up 12% of the eligible vote this year only 0.5% below the AA vote.
Their vote in swing states will be 18% in Florida, 17% in Nevada, 15% in Colorado. They will also make up crucial blocs in Virginia and the rust belt states.
The latest Florida poll has Trump +2. Hardly "in the bag".
Hispanics in Florida are usually Cuban-Americans, and often hard right as a legacy of fleeing the communists. Hispanics in the SW are much more working class, and nearly all of Mexican or Central American heritage. It is a very different demographic and migration.
I suspect part of Rubio's problem is that his Hispanic appeal is mostly to the former. The others will be voting Democrat if they vote at all. Class trumps ethnicity in most elections.
It is difficult to fault David's logic. And Hillary will be the Democratic nominee. And one of these deeply flawed candidates will be POTUS, however unlikely that looks in each case when they are considered on their individual merits.
Which one? I still think Trump. Hillary just has too much baggage. She is a poor speaker, no charisma and no obvious vision beyond being the first female President. And that is not enough as all those young women running after Sanders demonstrate all too vividly.
Immigrants also have a very high employment rate both within and outside the NHS. The net effect is that immigration pays for the care of elderly Britons.
So what happens when the immigrants get old? Do we bring in some more?
The latest numbers are from Pew Research published this year. Small fractions are vital in swing states where you are likely to win or lose by a few points and where you are losing that demographic by at least 80/20.
A whole new roof is needing to be built with new foundations and supports.
But I wasn't talking about speed so it's not relevant to what was said. rd63 said the government should cut spending, which it is doing in real terms. Mr Herdson explained why it's difficult to do so, though the government is doing so in real terms. You took the explanation of why it is difficult and ran with it as a justification that the government isn't making any hard decisions.
It is extraordinarily rare throughout history to see a real terms cut in spending but this government has achieved that again and again. You may wish it to go faster but don't deny the direction of travel. Unless you have somehow got reason to think spending is going up in real terms.
Right so if in your business you had a huge gaping loss maker you'd just let it roll and as long as the loss is getting a bit less each year you wouldn't mind too much ?
can't see it some how. Time matters.
If my business
So you've told th
What do you think the bank will say ?
Times change so long as I can provide a robust business plan and case to the bank then I will keep my line of credit.
As Osborne has. He has been rewarded for his sound fiscal management and almost unprecedented cutting of real terms spending by seeing his borrowing costs plummet as we are a safe harbour.
If Osborne was remotely the same as Brown, perhaps by increasing rather than cutting spending, the markets would be punishing rather than rewarding him.
Even stranger
Borrowing costs are low because they are low across the world due to QE and central banks forcing rates down.
We lost our AAA rating in casue you hadn't noticed but rates globally are so low it made no difference.
Claiming the benfit of a windfall just looks desperate. You might as well claim he created the fall in oil prices.
You may have had a point if it wasn't for us being able to deal with facts rather than your myths. In the past 12 months bond yields on UK government debt has come down by more than any major western nation. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/bonds
One of the fun things on being in PB is watching how the arguments change.
The Tories who spent ages in 2009 and 2010 criticisng Brown for his policies are now those defending Osborne for implementing the self same policies.
Why Osborne pissing billions away is better than Brown pissing billions away is one of politics great mysteries.
Cutting spending is now the same as increasing spending is it?
It's totally pointless discussing this with you any further you've completely jumped the shark.
Let's talk again when you've learnt the difference between a cut and an increase *rolleyes*
LOL I take it you've run out of road.
You can't understand that a person saying what they'll do and then abysmally failing by the standards they've set themselves isn't success.
While you can't understand that times change and the free market has judged Osborne the same as I have.
You also can't understand why up is not the same as down as much as you flail around trying to change the subject.
Au contraire. Ive been on this board on the self same subject of the deficit longer than you have. And have been totally consistent in the way spending has been managed.
The only thing that has changed is the blue team who savaged Brown for his policies are giving a let for Osborne because he's their man.
Brown's policy was increasing spending Osborne's policy is cutting spending
Are you really to ignorant to understand there's a difference?
George Osborne made a bad mistake trailing his pension changes so far in advance. It gave people time to spot what he was doing. In a Parliament with a tiny majority only a few fainthearts on the Conservative backbenches could kill the idea.
It has been badly handled by Osborne. Another reason to doubt he would be any cop at the top. Added to his early vocal support for the Prime Minister's renegotiation "deal" - and his subsequent personal silence (although someone has got his EU finance chums to pipe up for Project Fear) he has recently lost a lot of credibility.
The real reason "this is not the right time" is the polling on the referendum is way closer than he would have expected when the idea was allowed to escape into the ether. He clearly didn't want to piss off a segment of the electorate and have them vote Leave just to spite him.
There is a delicious irony that if he had the brass neck to say he engineered it so that pissed off pensioners caused the UK to leave the EU, with a swift promise to change back the pension reforms he would actually be out in front in the next leader stakes with the voting Party membership.
Immigrants also have a very high employment rate both within and outside the NHS. The net effect is that immigration pays for the care of elderly Britons.
So what happens when the immigrants get old? Do we bring in some more?
So you accept my reasoning that at present immigration is both a net funder and net provider of NHS care?
I agree that immigrants will get old themselves, but this is decades into the future and gives us time to address the ageing challenge. Countries like Japan are facing that timebomb much sooner.
I think the answer lies in continuing the trends that governments in the UK have been working at for years: later retirement, higher contributions, more employment of older people.
A whole new roof is needing to be built with new foundations and supports.
But I wasn't talking about speed so it's not relevant to what was said. rd63 said the government should cut spending, which it is doing in real terms. Mr Herdson explained why it's difficult to do so, though the government is doing so in real terms. You took the explanation of why it is difficult and ran with it as a justification that the government isn't making any hard decisions.
It is extraordinarily rare throughout history to see a real terms cut in spending but this government has achieved that again and again. You may wish it to go faster but don't deny the direction of travel. Unless you have somehow got reason to think spending is going up in real terms.
Right so if in your business you had a huge gaping loss maker you'd just let it roll and as long as the loss is getting a bit less each year you wouldn't mind too much ?
can't see it some how. Time matters.
If my business
So you've told th
What do you think the bank will say ?
Times change so long as I can provide a robust business plan and case to the bank then I will keep my line of credit.
As Osborne has. He has been rewarded for his sound fiscal management and almost unprecedented cutting of real terms spending by seeing his borrowing costs plummet as we are a safe harbour.
If Osborne was remotely the same as Brown, perhaps by increasing rather than cutting spending, the markets would be punishing rather than rewarding him.
Even stranger
Borrowing costs are low because they are low across the world due to QE and central banks forcing rates down.
We lost our AAA rating in casue you hadn't noticed but rates globally are so low it made no difference.
Claiming the benfit of a windfall just looks desperate. You might as well claim he created the fall in oil prices.
You may have had a point if it wasn't for us being able to deal with facts rather than your myths. In the past 12 months bond yields on UK government debt has come down by more than any major western nation. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/bonds
It is difficult to fault David's logic. And Hillary will be the Democratic nominee. And one of these deeply flawed candidates will be POTUS, however unlikely that looks in each case when they are considered on their individual merits.
Which one? I still think Trump. Hillary just has too much baggage. She is a poor speaker, no charisma and no obvious vision beyond being the first female President. And that is not enough as all those young women running after Sanders demonstrate all too vividly.
The same young women are going to be running away from Trump.
Hilary will corral them back into the Democrat camp. Nearer the election, she will generate a buzz about The First Female President. As poor a candidate as she is, she still has that edge.
One of the fun things on being in PB is watching how the arguments change.
The Tories who spent ages in 2009 and 2010 criticisng Brown for his policies are now those defending Osborne for implementing the self same policies.
Why Osborne pissing billions away is better than Brown pissing billions away is one of politics great mysteries.
Cutting spending is now the same as increasing spending is it?
It's totally pointless discussing this with you any further you've completely jumped the shark.
Let's talk again when you've learnt the difference between a cut and an increase *rolleyes*
LOL I take it you've run out of road.
You can't understand that a person saying what they'll do and then abysmally failing by the standards they've set themselves isn't success.
While you can't understand that times change and the free market has judged Osborne the same as I have.
You also can't understand why up is not the same as down as much as you flail around trying to change the subject.
Au contraire. Ive been on this board on the self same subject of the deficit longer than you have. And have been totally consistent in the way spending has been managed.
The only thing that has changed is the blue team who savaged Brown for his policies are giving a let for Osborne because he's their man.
Brown's policy was increasing spending Osborne's policy is cutting spending
Are you really to ignorant to understand there's a difference?
Oh I do understand there's a difference.
Gordon went for the top job by buying everyone doubles at the bar and slapping it on the credit card
George is buyng everyone singles.
But both of them are spending money they don't have.
A whole new roof is needing to be built with new foundations and supports.
But I wasn't talking about speed so it's not relevant to what was said. rd63 said the government should cut spending, which it is doing in real terms. Mr Herdson explained why it's difficult to do so, though the government is doing so in real terms. You took the explanation of why it is difficult and ran with it as a justification that the government isn't making any hard decisions.
It is extraordinarily rare throughout history to see a real terms cut in spending but this government has achieved that again and again. You may wish it to go faster but don't deny the direction of travel. Unless you have somehow got reason to think spending is going up in real terms.
Right so if in your business you had a huge gaping loss maker you'd just let it roll and as long as the loss is getting a bit less each year you wouldn't mind too much ?
can't see it some how. Time matters.
If my business
So you've told th
What do you think the bank will say ?
Times change so long as I can provide a robust business plan and case to the bank then I will keep my line of credit.
As Osborne has. He has been rewarded for his sound fiscal management and almost unprecedented cutting of real terms spending by seeing his borrowing costs plummet as we are a safe harbour.
If Osborne was remotely the same as Brown, perhaps by increasing rather than cutting spending, the markets would be punishing rather than rewarding him.
Even stranger
Borrowing costs are low because they are low across the world due to QE and central banks forcing rates down.
We lost our AAA rating in casue you hadn't noticed but rates globally are so low it made no difference.
Claiming the benfit of a windfall just looks desperate. You might as well claim he created the fall in oil prices.
You may have had a point if it wasn't for us being able to deal with facts rather than your myths. In the past 12 months bond yields on UK government debt has come down by more than any major western nation. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/bonds
That is not just good luck but good management.
And there is the real pension crisis in a nutshell by the way. Employers struggling with final salary schemes, even closed ones, have less and less free cash to invest as their deficits soar. In the meantime public sector schemes become ever less defensible.
It's not that skewed, you don't get taxed on what you contribute that is the same throughout.
Sure higher earners avoid (perfectly legally) more tax but that's because they're paying more tax from what they earn themselves, not because money is being gifted to them. We should never forget that.
Yes I understand but I would prefer a greater advantage to be given to low earners as they are currently much more likely to struggle in retirement. High earners do very well under the current arrangements. I for example got 40% tax relief and now pay only 20% on my pension with a very high personal allowance.
Low earners already have a major advantage. They're untaxed on the first £10k and only pay 20% on the rest. That great advantage is there all the time.
Doesn't everyone get that?
No. At an income of £106 000 the personal tax allowance is clawed back. The tax rate between 106 000 and 125 000 is the highest rate (and also the best income at which to make pension contributions).
Thank you. So not a group likely to be struggling to save for the future.
Nope. The people paying a marginal rate that is highest in the country at over 60% and facing a further tax increase.
Lol - maybe it's personal for you.
It has to be admitted that that there are large numbers of GPs and Drs caught in that particular tax net on their incomes above £106k :-).
But to me the wrinkle was just another of Gordon Brown's cynical hidden backstabbings, and needs to be abolished under the Tax Simplification agenda.
I don't say this as a criticism of Osborne as such, just a personal observation.
Government spending is, in my opinion, far too high. Looking at the figures over the last 30 years we should be aiming for well below 40% of GDP as the absolute maximum of spending (which we achieved in 2000) and preferably down below 35% as a norm in the long term.
One of the fun things on being in PB is watching how the arguments change.
The Tories who spent ages in 2009 and 2010 criticisng Brown for his policies are now those defending Osborne for implementing the self same policies.
Why Osborne pissing billions away is better than Brown pissing billions away is one of politics great mysteries.
Cutting spending is now the same as increasing spending is it?
It's totally pointless discussing this with you any further you've completely jumped the shark.
Let's talk again when you've learnt the difference between a cut and an increase *rolleyes*
LOL I take it you've run out of road.
You can't understand that a person saying what they'll do and then abysmally failing by the standards they've set themselves isn't success.
While you can't understand that times change and the free market has judged Osborne the same as I have.
You also can't understand why up is not the same as down as much as you flail around trying to change the subject.
Au contraire. Ive been on this board on the self same subject of the deficit longer than you have. And have been totally consistent in the way spending has been managed.
The only thing that has changed is the blue team who savaged Brown for his policies are giving a let for Osborne because he's their man.
Brown's policy was increasing spending Osborne's policy is cutting spending
Are you really to ignorant to understand there's a difference?
Oh I do understand there's a difference.
Gordon went for the top job by buying everyone doubles at the bar and slapping it on the credit card
George is buyng everyone singles.
But both of them are spending money they don't have.
At last you're starting to face reality and admit there's a difference. Of course it's a lot easier to not increase spending than it is to cut it, which is why we have a Chancellor doing such a thankless and almost unprecedented task. But to put him in the same sentence as Brown is preposterous. If Brown had done an Osborne and cut spending from what he inherited then Brown would have been an excellent Chancellor. But he didn't he doubled it instead.
Now I must go as it's 230 am and I have to get up in 3 hours to catch a flight back to Blighty.
It is difficult to fault David's logic. And Hillary will be the Democratic nominee. And one of these deeply flawed candidates will be POTUS, however unlikely that looks in each case when they are considered on their individual merits.
Which one? I still think Trump. Hillary just has too much baggage. She is a poor speaker, no charisma and no obvious vision beyond being the first female President. And that is not enough as all those young women running after Sanders demonstrate all too vividly.
The same young women are going to be running away from Trump.
Hilary will corral them back into the Democrat camp. Nearer the election, she will generate a buzz about The First Female President. As poor a candidate as she is, she still has that edge.
You pays your money and you make your choice. It is so much easier to make a case as to why either loses than why one wins but this is a 2 horse race (whether Bloomberg throws his hat in the ring or not) and there will be a winner.
One of the fun things on being in PB is watching how the arguments change.
The Tories who spent ages in 2009 and 2010 criticisng Brown for his policies are now those defending Osborne for implementing the self same policies.
Why Osborne pissing billions away is better than Brown pissing billions away is one of politics great mysteries.
Cutting spending is now the same as increasing spending is it?
It's totally pointless discussing this with you any further you've completely jumped the shark.
Let's talk again when you've learnt the difference between a cut and an increase *rolleyes*
LOL I take it you've run out of road.
You can't understand that a person saying what they'll do and then abysmally failing by the standards they've set themselves isn't success.
While you can't understand that times change and the free market has judged Osborne the same as I have.
You also can't understand why up is not the same as down as much as you flail around trying to change the subject.
Au contraire. Ive been on this board on the self same subject of the deficit longer than you have. And have been totally consistent in the way spending has been managed.
The only thing that has changed is the blue team who savaged Brown for his policies are giving a let for Osborne because he's their man.
Brown's policy was increasing spending Osborne's policy is cutting spending
Are you really to ignorant to understand there's a difference?
Oh I do understand there's a difference.
Gordon went for the top job by buying everyone doubles at the bar and slapping it on the credit card
George is buyng everyone singles.
But both of them are spending money they don't have.
At last you're starting to face reality and admit there's a difference. Of course it's a lot easier to not increase spending than it is to cut it, which is why we have a Chancellor doing such a thankless and almost unprecedented task. But to put him in the same sentence as Brown is preposterous. If Brown had done an Osborne and cut spending from what he inherited then Brown would have been an excellent Chancellor. But he didn't he doubled it instead.
Now I must go as it's 230 am and I have to get up in 3 hours to catch a flight back to Blighty.
One of the fun things on being in PB is watching how the arguments change.
The Tories who spent ages in 2009 and 2010 criticisng Brown for his policies are now those defending Osborne for implementing the self same policies.
Why Osborne pissing billions away is better than Brown pissing billions away is one of politics great mysteries.
Cutting spending is now the same as increasing spending is it?
It's totally pointless discussing this with you any further you've completely jumped the shark.
Let's talk again when you've learnt the difference between a cut and an increase *rolleyes*
LOL I take it you've run out of road.
You can't understand that a person saying what they'll do and then abysmally failing by the standards they've set themselves isn't success.
While you can't understand that times change and the free market has judged Osborne the same as I have.
You also can't understand why up is not the same as down as much as you flail around trying to change the subject.
Au contraire. Ive been on this b.
The only thing that has changed is the blue team who savaged Brown for his policies are giving a let for Osborne because he's their man.
Brown's policy was increasing spending Osborne's policy is cutting spending
Are you really to ignorant to understand there's a difference?
Oh I But both of them are spending money they don't have.
At last you're starting to face reality and admit there's a difference. Of course it's a lot easier to not increase spending than it is to cut it, which is why we have a Chancellor doing such a thankless and almost unprecedented task. But to put him in the same sentence as Brown is preposterous. If Brown had done an Osborne and cut spending from what he inherited then Brown would have been an excellent Chancellor. But he didn't he doubled it instead.
Now I must go as it's 230 am and I have to get up in 3 hours to catch a flight back to Blighty.
There's nothing preposterous about it at all. They're from the same mould. Osborne hasn't just accepted the Blairite settlement, but reinforced it. Osborne is simply Brown in second gear.
Comments
The question is how many times they will lose before the dime finally drops?
Mr. Herdson, the implication is, and I'd agree with it, that Trump has effectively got the red nomination already, it's just a matter of time.
fair comment.
A better question is why this proposal is all over the papers. Cynics might suggest it was deliberately leaked to provide political cover for a different controversial budget measure.
At least someone will have answered your currency question for you......
Btw, for anyone with a betting interest on a Bloomberg run;
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/#
"A private poll Bloomberg conducted in late February showed Trump rapidly losing support from mainstream Republicans after being mocked by Rubio as a con man, retweeting a Mussolini quote, and refusing to immediately disavow the KKK. “That did not go over well,” the adviser says. The same poll showed Bloomberg pulling far more votes from the GOP side than the Democrats."
Pinch of salt and all that...
So that seems to confirm that they are taking tough decisions does it not?
Yes all those Luxemburgers who died in German Army uniforms valiantly fighting for an authoritarian Reich.
They're not.
And Osborne has just about missed every target for deficit elimination he has set himself.
Only a few months back he could have whacked another £4-5 billion off the annual deficit but chose to spend it instead using the OBR as cover. If he won;t take the hit early in Parliament he'll never do it.
They are
Government spending is going down in real terms. That is fact whether you like it or not.
instead ouf cutting the deficit in one Parliamentary term Osborne will need three.
By the third we'll be back in a downturn and all the numbers will go tits up again.
The sun is shining but the roof aint fixed.
My own Trust is keeping the deficit to a modest £40 million again this year. That is a much better than average performance. We have demand rising by about 6% per year every year in terms of admissions and attendances.
the prophetNicola now?Remember, it's not a cult...
But I wasn't talking about speed so it's not relevant to what was said. rd63 said the government should cut spending, which it is doing in real terms. Mr Herdson explained why it's difficult to do so, though the government is doing so in real terms. You took the explanation of why it is difficult and ran with it as a justification that the government isn't making any hard decisions.
It is extraordinarily rare throughout history to see a real terms cut in spending but this government has achieved that again and again. You may wish it to go faster but don't deny the direction of travel. Unless you have somehow got reason to think spending is going up in real terms.
Osborne like Brown doesn't do tough deciisions.
Higher rate tax relief is grossly unfair (and I receive it) the flat rate proposed is a much better idea.
can't see it some how. Time matters.
https://twitter.com/JustinRaimondo/status/705802637069852672
Once, twice, three times a loser. Hard to find two more unpopular politicians than Romney and Ryan. Will shift votes, but not the way they hope.
Fun facts on Florida. More than a fifth of votes have already been cast. NE Florida votes a lot like Georgia, NW votes a lot like Alabama, both have big chunks of the Republican voting electorate. In southern Florida there are a lot of NE transplants, no prizes for how these New York retirees will be voting.
Rubio also has just a 30-35% approval rating in Florida.
Osborne may not be likeable , but it doesn't mean he isn't doing a good job in probably the worst financial circumstances the nation has ever faced
Spending under Brown more than doubled in real terms. Another fact.
Just because you have a hard on for hating Osborne doesn't make him this myth you like to make out.
In no reality is a Chancellor who has repeatedly cut spending in real terms, one of if not the only Chancellor in history to regularly do so, remotely comparable to a Chancellor and PM who more than doubled spending in real terms. If you can't tell the difference between up and down then I feel very sorry for you.
Don't get me wrong I am not saying the tax relief should not be there but higher rate tax relief is grossly unfair, and I benefit from it!
If you elect the guys to do the hard slog they should do it. If they can'y do it they should traispae around the place saying they're doing the tough stuff. Setting voter expectations in the wrong place is poor politics.
It would be very rash indeed to expect a tax bonanza without altering saving behaviour.
But what both you and Innocent Abroad are both trying to avoid saying is that immigration has played a part. Surely it makes sense that any business, or institution with a budget, that suddenly has significantly more customers needs to expand.
Some tough decisions become a bridge too far in a democracy and need to be rowed back on but if they weren't making tough decisions in the first place that'd be moot.
Hispanics will make up 12% of the eligible vote this year only 0.5% below the AA vote.
Their vote in swing states will be 18% in Florida, 17% in Nevada, 15% in Colorado. They will also make up crucial blocs in Virginia and the rust belt states.
The latest Florida poll has Trump +2. Hardly "in the bag".
It's totally pointless discussing this with you any further you've completely jumped the shark.
Let's talk again when you've learnt the difference between a cut and an increase *rolleyes*
What do you think the bank will say ?
You can't understand that a person saying what they'll do and then abysmally failing by the standards they've set themselves isn't success.
As Osborne has. He has been rewarded for his sound fiscal management and almost unprecedented cutting of real terms spending by seeing his borrowing costs plummet as we are a safe harbour.
If Osborne was remotely the same as Brown, perhaps by increasing rather than cutting spending, the markets would be punishing rather than rewarding him.
Only 18%, 17% and 15% don't you mean, a small fraction of the vote. Most who will never vote Republican anyway.
Surprised you left Minnesota off there, after all you think that should be a GOP target.
The high cost patients to the NHS are the over 65's, and the over 75's and over 85's even more so. These are overwhelmingly either people born in the UK or people who migrated here 3 or more decades ago. Go on any medical, surgical, geriatric, oncology or orthopedic ward - even in a multicultural city like Leicester - and the patients are disproportionally white British.
Immigrants also have a very high employment rate both within and outside the NHS. The net effect is that immigration pays for the care of elderly Britons.
You also can't understand why up is not the same as down as much as you flail around trying to change the subject.
Borrowing costs are low because they are low across the world due to QE and central banks forcing rates down.
We lost our AAA rating in casue you hadn't noticed but rates globally are so low it made no difference.
Claiming the benfit of a windfall just looks desperate. You might as well claim he created the fall in oil prices.
http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.706970
The only thing that has changed is the blue team who savaged Brown for his policies are giving a let for Osborne because he's their man.
I suspect part of Rubio's problem is that his Hispanic appeal is mostly to the former. The others will be voting Democrat if they vote at all. Class trumps ethnicity in most elections.
Which one? I still think Trump. Hillary just has too much baggage. She is a poor speaker, no charisma and no obvious vision beyond being the first female President. And that is not enough as all those young women running after Sanders demonstrate all too vividly.
The latest numbers are from Pew Research published this year. Small fractions are vital in swing states where you are likely to win or lose by a few points and where you are losing that demographic by at least 80/20.
Minnesota is not a GOP target.
That is not just good luck but good management.
Osborne's policy is cutting spending
Are you really to ignorant to understand there's a difference?
The real reason "this is not the right time" is the polling on the referendum is way closer than he would have expected when the idea was allowed to escape into the ether. He clearly didn't want to piss off a segment of the electorate and have them vote Leave just to spite him.
There is a delicious irony that if he had the brass neck to say he engineered it so that pissed off pensioners caused the UK to leave the EU, with a swift promise to change back the pension reforms he would actually be out in front in the next leader stakes with the voting Party membership.
I agree that immigrants will get old themselves, but this is decades into the future and gives us time to address the ageing challenge. Countries like Japan are facing that timebomb much sooner.
I think the answer lies in continuing the trends that governments in the UK have been working at for years: later retirement, higher contributions, more employment of older people.
Deficit, BOP, growth, investment all off.
The only true success is employment.
Hilary will corral them back into the Democrat camp. Nearer the election, she will generate a buzz about The First Female President. As poor a candidate as she is, she still has that edge.
Gordon went for the top job by buying everyone doubles at the bar and slapping it on the credit card
George is buyng everyone singles.
But both of them are spending money they don't have.
But to me the wrinkle was just another of Gordon Brown's cynical hidden backstabbings, and needs to be abolished under the Tax Simplification agenda.
I wonder whether Mr O will ever do so?
Government spending is, in my opinion, far too high. Looking at the figures over the last 30 years we should be aiming for well below 40% of GDP as the absolute maximum of spending (which we achieved in 2000) and preferably down below 35% as a norm in the long term.
Now I must go as it's 230 am and I have to get up in 3 hours to catch a flight back to Blighty.