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.
The director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce has been temporarily suspended over his personal views on Brexit, according to the Financial Times. John Longworth told the BCC's annual conference on Thursday that the UK's long-term prospects could be "brighter" outside the EU. The BCC has said it will not campaign for either side before the 23 June referendum as its membership is split.
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.
The Eurozone has been much more effective at cutting deficits than the UK:
Only Spain is worse than us. We are still pumping in "stimulus" into the economy years after a return to growth. For all their faults the rEU are better at managing a budget than us.
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.
Interesting that in the exit polls for the primaries so far only 49% of Republicans would be happy if Trump was the candidate. By comparison 63% were happy with Romney in 2012 and 77% happy with McCain in 2008.
79% of democrats would be happy with Hilary.
Attacks like Romney's will not affect the core-trump vote but will put of independents and floaters. Bear in mind that amidst all the Trump razzmatazz he has only polled 34% of the votes in the Republican primaries (admittedly with a large field) If he is going to win POTUS he is going to have to expand his coalition fast but I can't see which groups he is going to do it with. There are not enough "mad as hell" non-college educated white males to take him to the White House.
The director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce has been temporarily suspended over his personal views on Brexit, according to the Financial Times. John Longworth told the BCC's annual conference on Thursday that the UK's long-term prospects could be "brighter" outside the EU. The BCC has said it will not campaign for either side before the 23 June referendum as its membership is split.
So the Institute of Directors polls its members in 2014. A total of 4% actually respond to the poll and of those only 31% say they support staying in the EU without significant reform.
Yet the IoD claims its membership is against Brexit and supports REMAIN. No one gets suspended
When the BCC DG comes out for LEAVE, he is told he is not reflecting the views of his membership and is suspended.
"Britain’s shortfall in its finances amounted to 10.4pc of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010, according to data for each of the EU’s 27 member states from the statistics agency Eurostat. That meant the UK had a bigger deficit, or annual shortfall, than the recently bailed-out Portugal and also Spain, which is viewed as the next euro-using nation to potentially need international aid."
Of course any attempt to bring under control Browns damage is met with the cry from the lefties of "Tory savage cuts" at every turn. Even the present LOTO just castigated Brown for his methods and busting parts of the NHS with his PFI slights of hand.
The director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce has been temporarily suspended over his personal views on Brexit, according to the Financial Times. John Longworth told the BCC's annual conference on Thursday that the UK's long-term prospects could be "brighter" outside the EU. The BCC has said it will not campaign for either side before the 23 June referendum as its membership is split.
There's a real risk that horribly backfires for Remain: i.e. you can only speak for a large business, trade association, institution or union if you hold the "right" views, or you lose your job.
The reason they might get away with it is simply due to its lack of headline news prominence.
If I were in Vote Leave I'd be making a big deal of this and trying to get it headline splashed across all the Sunday newspapers.
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.
It is unfair and I find it comical that those who are most vocal in urging Osborn to cut the deficit scream like stuck pigs the moment he does anything that affects them personally!
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.
It is unfair and I find it comical that those who are most vocal in urging Osborn to cut the deficit scream like stuck pigs the moment he does anything that affects them personally!
Foxinsoxuk's dictum: fair taxes are those paid by other people :-)
Anythough on Spurs vs the Arsenal? Looks nailed on for Spurs to me. Arsenal are pisspoor at present.
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.
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.
It is unfair and I find it comical that those who are most vocal in urging Osborn to cut the deficit scream like stuck pigs the moment he does anything that affects them personally!
Foxinsoxuk's dictum: fair taxes are those paid by other people :-)
Anythough on Spurs vs the Arsenal? Looks nailed on for Spurs to me. Arsenal are pisspoor at present.
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.
It is unfair and I find it comical that those who are most vocal in urging Osborn to cut the deficit scream like stuck pigs the moment he does anything that affects them personally!
What he should be doing is making a radical attack on benefits and handouts to the middle classes. The State should not provide any form of benefit to anyone who is earning a decent wage (or independently wealthy). Benefits should be a safety net for those unable to look after themselves, not a bribe to those you hope are going to vote for you. Cutting Middle Class benefits would be a good start in trying to get overall levels of public spending down.
I also support the flat rate tax system and think it should be extended far beyond what Osborne was proposing.
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.
It is unfair and I find it comical that those who are most vocal in urging Osborn to cut the deficit scream like stuck pigs the moment he does anything that affects them personally!
Foxinsoxuk's dictum: fair taxes are those paid by other people :-)
Anythough on Spurs vs the Arsenal? Looks nailed on for Spurs to me. Arsenal are pisspoor at present.
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.
It is unfair and I find it comical that those who are most vocal in urging Osborn to cut the deficit scream like stuck pigs the moment he does anything that affects them personally!
Foxinsoxuk's dictum: fair taxes are those paid by other people :-)
Anythough on Spurs vs the Arsenal? Looks nailed on for Spurs to me. Arsenal are pisspoor at present.
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.
It is unfair and I find it comical that those who are most vocal in urging Osborn to cut the deficit scream like stuck pigs the moment he does anything that affects them personally!
What he should be doing is making a radical attack on benefits and handouts to the middle classes. The State should not provide any form of benefit to anyone who is earning a decent wage (or independently wealthy). Benefits should be a safety net for those unable to look after themselves, not a bribe to those you hope are going to vote for you. Cutting Middle Class benefits would be a good start in trying to get overall levels of public spending down.
I also support the flat rate tax system and think it should be extended far beyond what Osborne was proposing.
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.
Correct.
The problem here is that income tax rates + surrender of the personal allowance is only that start of it.
Between £0 and £50,000 all sorts of benefits and entitlements are phased out. Then child benefit. And NI - different for class IV.
Universal credit is supposed to help with some of this stuff. While I express no particular confidence in it, let's hope so.
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.
Again a demographic that never votes Republican regardless, much more worthwhile alienating in order to get more of the white and black vote. To say nothing of the catastrophic effect on America of military adventurism in the ME and open borders.
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.
Which is fine but if you want to cut more than £100bn from annual government spending then you need to say where it's coming from because that implies some pretty big changes about what government does.
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.
Correct.
The problem here is that income tax rates + surrender of the personal allowance is only that start of it.
Between £0 and £50,000 all sorts of benefits and entitlements are phased out. Then child benefit. And NI - different for class IV.
Universal credit is supposed to help with some of this stuff. While I express no particular confidence in it, let's hope so.
Again I have to ask why anyone earning £50K a year should get any sort of benefit or entitlement?
I'm a big fan of Merryn's, of Brexit, and of her second point in that piece.
I'm less a believer in point one. Why? Because, however you cut it, private sector debt levels are simply lower in the Eurozone. The St Louis Federal Reserve has a website devoted to economic data (called, wonderfully, FRED) which can be found here: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/
In it they have fabulously detailed data on debts by country. And while the Eurozone has many, many problems, debt is simply not one of them. In the UK, household debt is (what) 170% of GDP. It's more than 100% in a whole bunch of major economies. In Italy, France and Germany, it's barely more than 50%. This doesn't mean these economies are all in great shape (obviously), but it means expecting that the next Eurozone crisis will emerge from over indebted consumers on the continent is a classic example of recency bias (the UK and the US has housing debt crises therefore...), rather than any kind of sensible analysis of the data.
For some reason that FRED site is actually reporting our household debt to income ratio which is how the UK typically measures debt ratios but is not the international standard, debt to GDP is.
Actually, the OECD agrees with me too. And I trust the OECD and St Louis Fed more than I trust Trading Economics.
Here is the OECD data on household debt to GDP:
Australia 205.5 Sweden 173.4 UK 156.2 Spain 127.3 USA 113.4 France 104.7 Germany 93.6 Italy 90.1 Austria 89.1
We're not the worst, I agree. But we're not in that great a shape.
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.....
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.
Correct.
The problem here is that income tax rates + surrender of the personal allowance is only that start of it.
Between £0 and £50,000 all sorts of benefits and entitlements are phased out. Then child benefit. And NI - different for class IV.
Universal credit is supposed to help with some of this stuff. While I express no particular confidence in it, let's hope so.
Again I have to ask why anyone earning £50K a year should get any sort of benefit or entitlement?
I agree Richard - we have to phase out benefits somehow. Without any regard for marginal rates, however, you can end up in a mess.
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.
Correct.
The problem here is that income tax rates + surrender of the personal allowance is only that start of it.
Between £0 and £50,000 all sorts of benefits and entitlements are phased out. Then child benefit. And NI - different for class IV.
Universal credit is supposed to help with some of this stuff. While I express no particular confidence in it, let's hope so.
Again I have to ask why anyone earning £50K a year should get any sort of benefit or entitlement?
It's not the £50k, it's the £30-35k that's the problem, but you need to taper it off to avoid weird skewing.
I currently earn £30k and am the sole earner in the family - so compared to two incomes on £15k I get clobbered with tax, NI, student loan. If I get a pay rise to £40k the net impact will only be an additional £200 per month in my bank, because of the removal of tax credits.
The more the tax system can take account of the whole household (like the marriage tax allowance), the better.
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.
Which is fine but if you want to cut more than £100bn from annual government spending then you need to say where it's coming from because that implies some pretty big changes about what government does.
Absolutely. But that is what we need. As I have said before I would return the benefits system to a safety net only system. Cut out all benefits for those earning a reasonable wage (which can be argued about of course) and stop using the tax and benefits system as a means of bribing certain sections of society - like the pensioners. It won't go all the way but it will certainly be a start at cutting into Government spending.
Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.
I'm a big fan of Merryn's, of Brexit, and of her second point in that piece.
I'm less a believer in point one. Why? Because, however you cut it, private sector debt levels are simply lower in the Eurozone. The St Louis Federal Reserve has a website devoted to economic data (called, wonderfully, FRED) which can be found here: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/
In it they have fabulously detailed data on debts by country. And while the Eurozone has many, many problems, debt is simply not one of them. In the UK, household debt is (what) 170% of GDP. It's more than 100% in a whole bunch of major economies. In Italy, France and Germany, it's barely more than 50%. This doesn't mean these economies are all in great shape (obviously), but it means expecting that the next Eurozone crisis will emerge from over indebted consumers on the continent is a classic example of recency bias (the UK and the US has housing debt crises therefore...), rather than any kind of sensible analysis of the data.
For some reason that FRED site is actually reporting our household debt to income ratio which is how the UK typically measures debt ratios but is not the international standard, debt to GDP is.
Actually, the OECD agrees with me too. And I trust the OECD and St Louis Fed more than I trust Trading Economics.
Here is the OECD data on household debt to GDP:
Australia 205.5 Sweden 173.4 UK 156.2 Spain 127.3 USA 113.4 France 104.7 Germany 93.6 Italy 90.1 Austria 89.1
We're not the worst, I agree. But we're not in that great a shape.
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.
Very true.
I don't think that Trump guarantees a win for Hillary. She is a weak candidate and Trump is an energetic and charismatic campaigner, which she isn't. She will have a far better grasp of issues but that will reinforce an impression of her as the insider (which she is). If she's sensible, she'll aim to make that an asset but the evidence so far is the opposite; that she's somehow an outsider, which is a game she can't win.
My guess is that Trump will probably inadvertently destroy his own chances by saying something beyond the pale, uncalled for and probably sexist towards Hillary. He doesn't seem to be able to help himself and given that it's not damaged his run to the nomination, he may well feel justified in having mouthed off at every opportunity. But the GE electorate is different from that in the primaries and there's legitimate and unfair criticism; I'm not sure he perceives the line well. Not that he should need to - there's enough to go for Hillary on that is fair game.
As for demographics, yes, they're very bad for him but if they were truly appalling then he wouldn't be within a handful of points of Hillary on head-to-heads. That he is suggests that it's a weakness but not a fatal one. Clinton should still win but I wouldn't take it for granted.
I'm a big fan of Merryn's, of Brexit, and of her second point in that piece.
I'm less a believer in point one. Why? Because, however you cut it, private sector debt levels are simply lower in the Eurozone. The St Louis Federal Reserve has a website devoted to economic data (called, wonderfully, FRED) which can be found here: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/
In it they have fabulously detailed data on debts by country. And while the Eurozone has many, many problems, debt is simply not one of them. In the UK, household debt is (what) 170% of GDP. It's more than 100% in a whole bunch of major economies. In Italy, France and Germany, it's barely more than 50%. This doesn't mean these economies are all in great shape (obviously), but it means expecting that the next Eurozone crisis will emerge from over indebted consumers on the continent is a classic example of recency bias (the UK and the US has housing debt crises therefore...), rather than any kind of sensible analysis of the data.
For some reason that FRED site is actually reporting our household debt to income ratio which is how the UK typically measures debt ratios but is not the international standard, debt to GDP is.
Actually, the OECD agrees with me too. And I trust the OECD and St Louis Fed more than I trust Trading Economics.
Here is the OECD data on household debt to GDP:
Australia 205.5 Sweden 173.4 UK 156.2 Spain 127.3 USA 113.4 France 104.7 Germany 93.6 Italy 90.1 Austria 89.1
We're not the worst, I agree. But we're not in that great a shape.
Housing bubbles. Wonderful aren't they.
You're absolutely right: Sweden (housing bubble), us (housing bubble), Australia (housing bubble)... Spain (used to have a housing bubble), US (used to have a housing bubble...)
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.
Interesting that in the exit polls for the primaries so far only 49% of Republicans would be happy if Trump was the candidate. By comparison 63% were happy with Romney in 2012 and 77% happy with McCain in 2008.
79% of democrats would be happy with Hilary.
Attacks like Romney's will not affect the core-trump vote but will put of independents and floaters. Bear in mind that amidst all the Trump razzmatazz he has only polled 34% of the votes in the Republican primaries (admittedly with a large field) If he is going to win POTUS he is going to have to expand his coalition fast but I can't see which groups he is going to do it with. There are not enough "mad as hell" non-college educated white males to take him to the White House.
They might not be happy with Trump but I can't see the Cruz and Rubio supporters jumping ship to Hillary.
I see the Scotland hating Chuckle brothers are busy on the thread
Oh dear, Malky, are you not even allowed to look at a cartoon featuring the prophet Nicola now?
Remember, it's not a cult...
You must have been there yesterday and its addled what brain cells were remaining. Is there anything about Scotland you don't hate , what drives you to denigrate Scotland 24x7, what could have caused such hatred.
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.
Correct.
Three different rates, at 40 / 42 / 45 is just silly. You'd be better having the 45% rate kick in at a lower threshold.
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.
Which is fine but if you want to cut more than £100bn from annual government spending then you need to say where it's coming from because that implies some pretty big changes about what government does.
Absolutely. But that is what we need. As I have said before I would return the benefits system to a safety net only system. Cut out all benefits for those earning a reasonable wage (which can be argued about of course) and stop using the tax and benefits system as a means of bribing certain sections of society - like the pensioners. It won't go all the way but it will certainly be a start at cutting into Government spending.
Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.
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.
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.
Which is fine but if you want to cut more than £100bn from annual government spending then you need to say where it's coming from because that implies some pretty big changes about what government does.
Absolutely. But that is what we need. As I have said before I would return the benefits system to a safety net only system. Cut out all benefits for those earning a reasonable wage (which can be argued about of course) and stop using the tax and benefits system as a means of bribing certain sections of society - like the pensioners. It won't go all the way but it will certainly be a start at cutting into Government spending.
Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.
As a campaigning point, that's a fair start. I'll give you a cut in international development aid as another easy win but even so, as you accept, that wouldn't go all the way but would kick up the mother of all protests.
It might be deliverable in an economic crisis when there's an acceptance that cuts need to be made but I don't think any parliament in the near future would go near accepting that scale of reductions.
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.
Which is fine but if you want to cut more than £100bn from annual government spending then you need to say where it's coming from because that implies some pretty big changes about what government does.
Absolutely. But that is what we need. As I have said before I would return the benefits system to a safety net only system. Cut out all benefits for those earning a reasonable wage (which can be argued about of course) and stop using the tax and benefits system as a means of bribing certain sections of society - like the pensioners. It won't go all the way but it will certainly be a start at cutting into Government spending.
Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.
At least 10%. I wish people would stop using the net number.
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.
Interesting that in the exit polls for the primaries so far only 49% of Republicans would be happy if Trump was the candidate. By comparison 63% were happy with Romney in 2012 and 77% happy with McCain in 2008.
79% of democrats would be happy with Hilary.
Attacks like Romney's will not affect the core-trump vote but will put of independents and floaters. Bear in mind that amidst all the Trump razzmatazz he has only polled 34% of the votes in the Republican primaries (admittedly with a large field) If he is going to win POTUS he is going to have to expand his coalition fast but I can't see which groups he is going to do it with. There are not enough "mad as hell" non-college educated white males to take him to the White House.
They might not be happy with Trump but I can't see the Cruz and Rubio supporters jumping ship to Hillary.
Possibly not many though some, particularly, neocons like Robert Kagan who think Trump's Foreign Policy is insane, have said they will vote for Clinton. The point is a lot will simply not vote at all. Although the other candidates said through gritted teeth they would support a Trump candidacy I would expect them to sit on their hands. It will be enough to see Hilary home comfortably.
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.
Which is fine but if you want to cut more than £100bn from annual government spending then you need to say where it's coming from because that implies some pretty big changes about what government does.
Absolutely. But that is what we need. As I have said before I would return the benefits system to a safety net only system. Cut out all benefits for those earning a reasonable wage (which can be argued about of course) and stop using the tax and benefits system as a means of bribing certain sections of society - like the pensioners. It won't go all the way but it will certainly be a start at cutting into Government spending.
Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.
As a campaigning point, that's a fair start. I'll give you a cut in international development aid as another easy win but even so, as you accept, that wouldn't go all the way but would kick up the mother of all protests.
It might be deliverable in an economic crisis when there's an acceptance that cuts need to be made but I don't think any parliament in the near future would go near accepting that scale of reductions.
As with so many other of my views, I have never pretended they were going to be popular at least in the short term or that any party was likely to pick them up. But it doesn't change the fact that we are living on both borrowed money and borrowed time and the sorts of suggestions I am making are going to have to come at some point anyway. If we wait then the change will be far more disruptive and dangerous than if we gradually move towards the position in advance
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.
Which is fine but if you want to cut more than £100bn from annual government spending then you need to say where it's coming from because that implies some pretty big changes about what government does.
Absolutely. But that is what we need. As I have said before I would return the benefits system to a safety net only system. Cut out all benefits for those earning a reasonable wage (which can be argued about of course) and stop using the tax and benefits system as a means of bribing certain sections of society - like the pensioners. It won't go all the way but it will certainly be a start at cutting into Government spending.
Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.
At least 10%. I wish people would stop using the net number.
Well, if you want it gross then you should deduct what EU spending we would replicate. That's fair enough of course; there will be areas we won't match.
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.
Very true.
I don't think that Trump guarantees a win for Hillary. She is a weak candidate and Trump is an energetic and charismatic campaigner, which she isn't. She will have a far better grasp of issues but that will reinforce an impression of her as the insider (which she is). If she's sensible, she'll aim to make that an asset but the evidence so far is the opposite; that she's somehow an outsider, which is a game she can't win.
My guess is that Trump will probably inadvertently destroy his own chances by saying something beyond the pale, uncalled for and probably sexist towards Hillary. He doesn't seem to be able to help himself and given that it's not damaged his run to the nomination, he may well feel justified in having mouthed off at every opportunity. But the GE electorate is different from that in the primaries and there's legitimate and unfair criticism; I'm not sure he perceives the line well. Not that he should need to - there's enough to go for Hillary on that is fair game.
As for demographics, yes, they're very bad for him but if they were truly appalling then he wouldn't be within a handful of points of Hillary on head-to-heads. That he is suggests that it's a weakness but not a fatal one. Clinton should still win but I wouldn't take it for granted.
In practice, I think both candidates have a high floor (45% or so) and a low ceiling (52% or so). Of course a 52/45 win can produce a landslide in the Electoral College, but it's not much in percentage terms.
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.
Which is fine but if you want to cut more than £100bn from annual government spending then you need to say where it's coming from because that implies some pretty big changes about what government does.
Absolutely. But that is what we need. As I have said before I would return the benefits system to a safety net only system. Cut out all benefits for those earning a reasonable wage (which can be argued about of course) and stop using the tax and benefits system as a means of bribing certain sections of society - like the pensioners. It won't go all the way but it will certainly be a start at cutting into Government spending.
Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.
At least 10%. I wish people would stop using the net number.
Well, if you want it gross then you should deduct what EU spending we would replicate. That's fair enough of course; there will be areas we won't match.
And we also need to include our "access charge" too, if you want to be strictly accurate.
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.
Very true.
I don't think that Trump guarantees a win for Hillary. She is a weak candidate and Trump is an energetic and charismatic campaigner, which she isn't. She will have a far better grasp of issues but that will reinforce an impression of her as the insider (which she is). If she's sensible, she'll aim to make that an asset but the evidence so far is the opposite; that she's somehow an outsider, which is a game she can't win.
My guess is that Trump will probably inadvertently destroy his own chances by saying something beyond the pale, uncalled for and probably sexist towards Hillary. He doesn't seem to be able to help himself and given that it's not damaged his run to the nomination, he may well feel justified in having mouthed off at every opportunity. But the GE electorate is different from that in the primaries and there's legitimate and unfair criticism; I'm not sure he perceives the line well. Not that he should need to - there's enough to go for Hillary on that is fair game.
As for demographics, yes, they're very bad for him but if they were truly appalling then he wouldn't be within a handful of points of Hillary on head-to-heads. That he is suggests that it's a weakness but not a fatal one. Clinton should still win but I wouldn't take it for granted.
In practice, I think both candidates have a high floor (45% or so) and a low ceiling (52% or so). Of course a 52/45 win can produce a landslide in the Electoral College, but it's not much in percentage terms.
Normally poll-lead size is correlated strongly with probability of victory, such that 52/48 implies no better than a 60/40 chance of winning. However that might not be true here; Trump will struggle to find the extra few percent.
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.
Which is fine but if you want to cut more than £100bn from annual government spending then you need to say where it's coming from because that implies some pretty big changes about what government does.
Absolutely. But that is what we need. As I have said before I would return the benefits system to a safety net only system. Cut out all benefits for those earning a reasonable wage (which can be argued about of course) and stop using the tax and benefits system as a means of bribing certain sections of society - like the pensioners. It won't go all the way but it will certainly be a start at cutting into Government spending.
Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.
At least 10%. I wish people would stop using the net number.
The gross number is more accurate, as we do not control how the money that gets returned to us is spent.
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.
Which is fine but if you want to cut more than £100bn from annual government spending then you need to say where it's coming from because that implies some pretty big changes about what government does.
Absolutely. But that is what we need. As I have said before I would return the benefits system to a safety net only system. Cut out all benefits for those earning a reasonable wage (which can be argued about of course) and stop using the tax and benefits system as a means of bribing certain sections of society - like the pensioners. It won't go all the way but it will certainly be a start at cutting into Government spending.
Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.
At least 10%. I wish people would stop using the net number.
I use the net number as it is the easiest way to counter the argument that we would need to replace much of the net/gross difference with our own spending, at least in the short term.
So the net figure is the actual extra money we would have available if we still continued to support directly those areas paid for currently by the EU.
But I agree with you basic point. And also agree with the 6% aim. But you have to accept that it is never going to be politically acceptable.
I am very perplexed at the moment as I am genuinely undecided and can see advantages on both sides. However, the ‘project fear’ and instant dismissal of the issues by leave is creating a climate of distrust among the voters, and frustration, as I am convinced most voters, like myself, want to come to a considered fact based decision on this very important matter. I believe a truce should be called by both sides until April when one of the leave’s campaigns is confirmed as the official one and real fact based debates can begin with Boris, Gove, IDS, Kate Hoey, and campaigners from both sides answering, under intense scrutiny, the many questions voters are genuinely seeking answers to. I do have worries over a lot of the print media who are so biased for leave that most if not all their articles are so prejudiced they lack authenticity. This really frustrates and may turn out to be counter productive as I am sure that many readers want a sensible balanced view.
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.
It is unfair and I find it comical that those who are most vocal in urging Osborn to cut the deficit scream like stuck pigs the moment he does anything that affects them personally!
Correct. But equally we have the usual attacks on the most helpless the ones in receipt of the state pension and not ever having the luxury of paying the higher rate of tax. The lifetime allowance for pensions has been regularly cut. So pensioners are not being given much. I think income tax rates are too high BTW and as a pensioner would not benefit particularly if they were cut. If the costs of the pension allowance was cut for higher rate earners then money might be available to cut the basic rates. The people the govt need to encourage to save are not the higher rate earners but the average normal people. The 25% flat rate would do that. But we see numpty Tory backbenchers egged on by EU hating and therefore Osborne bashing press pushing the other way.
I am very perplexed at the moment as I am genuinely undecided and can see advantages on both sides. However, the ‘project fear’ and instant dismissal of the issues by leave is creating a climate of distrust among the voters, and frustration, as I am convinced most voters, like myself, want to come to a considered fact based decision on this very important matter. I believe a truce should be called by both sides until April when one of the leave’s campaigns is confirmed as the official one and real fact based debates can begin with Boris, Gove, IDS, Kate Hoey, and campaigners from both sides answering, under intense scrutiny, the many questions voters are genuinely seeking answers to. I do have worries over a lot of the print media who are so biased for leave that most if not all their articles are so prejudiced they lack authenticity. This really frustrates and may turn out to be counter productive as I am sure that many readers want a sensible balanced view.
I think it's very rare to see a "fact-based" political campaign. It's always going to be about mud-slinging and scare stories.
I am very perplexed at the moment as I am genuinely undecided and can see advantages on both sides. However, the ‘project fear’ and instant dismissal of the issues by leave is creating a climate of distrust among the voters, and frustration, as I am convinced most voters, like myself, want to come to a considered fact based decision on this very important matter. I believe a truce should be called by both sides until April when one of the leave’s campaigns is confirmed as the official one and real fact based debates can begin with Boris, Gove, IDS, Kate Hoey, and campaigners from both sides answering, under intense scrutiny, the many questions voters are genuinely seeking answers to. I do have worries over a lot of the print media who are so biased for leave that most if not all their articles are so prejudiced they lack authenticity. This really frustrates and may turn out to be counter productive as I am sure that many readers want a sensible balanced view.
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.
Correct.
Three different rates, at 40 / 42 / 45 is just silly. You'd be better having the 45% rate kick in at a lower threshold.
Possibly so but either is better than the current 62% distortion of Darlings.
I don't see what's wrong with my Project 6%: the goal being to get government spending as a percentage of GDP back to where it was before WW1.
Explain to yourself how government spending rose above 6% and then you'll know, won't you?
We designed a tax and benefit system with the express goal of discouraging economic activity.
It's far less generous than it was. I got my mortgage paid when unemployed and was not forced into taking the first job available. That gave me time to find the right job, which - in turn - has helped to create more jobs and lots of tax money for the treasury. Today, none of that would be possible.
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.
Correct.
Three different rates, at 40 / 42 / 45 is just silly. You'd be better having the 45% rate kick in at a lower threshold.
If you ever make a run for parliament, I'll put you down for the "Tories for taxing the rich" party ;-)
Lots of rich Republicans will cross over to Hillary compared to when Romney/McCain were in the field Not many poor Democrats will cross over to Trump compared to when Obama was running Thus I see Hillary upside and am reluctant to bet on Trump beyond the convention
I'm not going to survive these next few hours... COYS!
There is no way on God's earth that Arsenal will lose four games in a row. The best Spurs can hope for is a draw. More likely, though, is a defeat. I have a horrible feeling it could be a mauling.
They might not be happy with Trump but I can't see the Cruz and Rubio supporters jumping ship to Hillary.
Possibly not many though some, particularly, neocons like Robert Kagan who think Trump's Foreign Policy is insane, have said they will vote for Clinton.
Trump's opponents on both the left and right think he's insane for completely the wrong reasons. Whether this will prove an asset to him in the long term is unclear but it does mean they're likely to be aiming at the wrong targets in fighting him.
Putting the final result (Arsenal win) to one side, I see two things happening at WHL today: 1. Arsenal will score inside the last five minutes of the game. 2. Harry Kane will miss a penalty. I have been a Spurs fan for long enough to know we just don't do well in games like this. Changes of guard, new dawns etc - not a chance. It's not the Tottenham way.
Lots of rich Republicans will cross over to Hillary compared to when Romney/McCain were in the field Not many poor Democrats will cross over to Trump compared to when Obama was running Thus I see Hillary upside and am reluctant to bet on Trump beyond the convention
Quite a lot of poor Democrats won't vote for Hillary either. The key question may not be swing voters so much as GOTV.
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.
Correct.
Three different rates, at 40 / 42 / 45 is just silly. You'd be better having the 45% rate kick in at a lower threshold.
Possibly so but either is better than the current 62% distortion of Darlings.
I agree. That was introduced for political rather than fiscal reasons and is a complexity and an unfairness that could easily be done without. That Osborne hasn't done without it says something.
Putting the final result (Arsenal win) to one side, I see two things happening at WHL today: 1. Arsenal will score inside the last five minutes of the game. 2. Harry Kane will miss a penalty. I have been a Spurs fan for long enough to know we just don't do well in games like this. Changes of guard, new dawns etc - not a chance. It's not the Tottenham way.
Pessimist. Spurs fans cannot back themselves to win after 55 years ! They will win the Prem this year.
Putting the final result (Arsenal win) to one side, I see two things happening at WHL today: 1. Arsenal will score inside the last five minutes of the game. 2. Harry Kane will miss a penalty. I have been a Spurs fan for long enough to know we just don't do well in games like this. Changes of guard, new dawns etc - not a chance. It's not the Tottenham way.
Pessimist. Spurs fans cannot back themselves to win after 55 years ! They will win the Prem this year.
Nope - that will not happen. I also think we may struggle to make the Top 4. Man Utd are starting to look very ominous. And after this weekend they'll be within striking distance, with a game at WHL still to come.
Sadly, the season is going to catch up with Tottenham legs. They are knackered. Too many players have had to play too many games because of lack of back-up. Kane is out on his feet.
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.
Correct.
Three different rates, at 40 / 42 / 45 is just silly. You'd be better having the 45% rate kick in at a lower threshold.
If you ever make a run for parliament, I'll put you down for the "Tories for taxing the rich" party ;-)
But, yep. Far more sensible.
I am in favour of significantly lower income taxes for everyone which would make various allowances more pointless. However this would come with a cost to the exchequer which would have to be recovered some how. Less avoidance ? Fewer allowances? Withdrawal of in work benefits? General boost to the economy?
Putting the final result (Arsenal win) to one side, I see two things happening at WHL today: 1. Arsenal will score inside the last five minutes of the game. 2. Harry Kane will miss a penalty. I have been a Spurs fan for long enough to know we just don't do well in games like this. Changes of guard, new dawns etc - not a chance. It's not the Tottenham way.
Pessimist. Spurs fans cannot back themselves to win after 55 years ! They will win the Prem this year.
Their track record would suggest they won't. But then Leicester haven't finished in the top two for 87 years.
Putting the final result (Arsenal win) to one side, I see two things happening at WHL today: 1. Arsenal will score inside the last five minutes of the game. 2. Harry Kane will miss a penalty. I have been a Spurs fan for long enough to know we just don't do well in games like this. Changes of guard, new dawns etc - not a chance. It's not the Tottenham way.
Pessimist. Spurs fans cannot back themselves to win after 55 years ! They will win the Prem this year.
Agree, it's hilarious watching them fall over themselves in self defeat.
Arsenal without Cech today, I've seen cream turn quicker than Mertesacker, just keep their forwards relatively quiet and your home.
And by the way, a draw wouldn't be a bad result either.
Lots of rich Republicans will cross over to Hillary compared to when Romney/McCain were in the field Not many poor Democrats will cross over to Trump compared to when Obama was running Thus I see Hillary upside and am reluctant to bet on Trump beyond the convention
Quite a lot of poor Democrats won't vote for Hillary either. The key question may not be swing voters so much as GOTV.
Bernie Sanders and Trump have both been claiming they can win by appealing to non-voters. But as was pointed out to Corbyn's admirers on these threads a few months ago, the problem is that non-voters don't vote. Indeed, it's more or less a requirement to be called a non-voter.
The difference is that Trump is set to be the candidate and Sanders is not. He will get support from those who then fail to vote. But that's not where or how elections are won. Accepting what you say upthread about Clinton's mistakes and weaknesses, this alone should make her favourite.
She should therefore hope the FBI get a move on. It would not look good if she entered the election as the first president since 1972* to be under criminal investigation during the campaign, particularly given the Clintons' public image. That's surely where her greatest danger lies.
*I don't think Iran-Contra was being investigated in 1984, although I could be wrong.
Lots of rich Republicans will cross over to Hillary compared to when Romney/McCain were in the field Not many poor Democrats will cross over to Trump compared to when Obama was running Thus I see Hillary upside and am reluctant to bet on Trump beyond the convention
Quite a lot of poor Democrats won't vote for Hillary either. The key question may not be swing voters so much as GOTV.
Much will depend on where these voters are though; Hilary could pile up big votes in “liberal” areas and it wouldn’t make a difference. The popular vote can be lost and the Presidency won. Hasn’t happened often, but it has. Will Trump bring out some (many?) of the 45% who didn’t vote last time?
Putting the final result (Arsenal win) to one side, I see two things happening at WHL today: 1. Arsenal will score inside the last five minutes of the game. 2. Harry Kane will miss a penalty. I have been a Spurs fan for long enough to know we just don't do well in games like this. Changes of guard, new dawns etc - not a chance. It's not the Tottenham way.
but this time it's different.
it never is.
i've sold harry kane as point 2 is inevitable... but also cos my action of selling him might mean my 'powers' do the old double bluff, it's that hope which kills me!
I'm a big fan of Merryn's, of Brexit, and of her second point in that piece.
I'm less a believer in point one. Why? Because, however you cut it, private sector debt levels are simply lower in the Eurozone. The St Louis Federal Reserve has a website devoted to economic data (called, wonderfully, FRED) which can be found here: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/
In it they have fabulously detailed data on debts by country. And while the Eurozone has many, many problems, debt is simply not one of them. In the UK, household debt is (what) 170% of GDP. It's more than 100% in a whole bunch of major economies. In Italy, France and Germany, it's barely more than 50%. This doesn't mean these economies are all in great shape (obviously), but it means expecting that the next Eurozone crisis will emerge from over indebted consumers on the continent is a classic example of recency bias (the UK and the US has housing debt crises therefore...), rather than any kind of sensible analysis of the data.
For some reason that FRED site is actually reporting our household debt to income ratio which is how the UK typically measures debt ratios but is not the international standard, debt to GDP is.
Actually, the OECD agrees with me too. And I trust the OECD and St Louis Fed more than I trust Trading Economics.
Here is the OECD data on household debt to GDP:
Australia 205.5 Sweden 173.4 UK 156.2 Spain 127.3 USA 113.4 France 104.7 Germany 93.6 Italy 90.1 Austria 89.1
We're not the worst, I agree. But we're not in that great a shape.
It is important to know whether the debt/GDP ratio is using gross debt or net debt. Having a £100,000 mortgage but no equity in the house is very different from a £100,000 mortgage on a £300,000 house with £200,000 of equity.
In the UK more people have equity in their house than they do in Germany where more people rent and so don't accumulate wealth in property to use as security for borrowing.
Trump is getting new voters though, 20,000 Dems switching party in MA. Look at the VA turnout too !
Turnout up all across the board.
Sanders is basically getting Hillary's 2008 vote + some young people.
Hillary's margins amongst black voters are so enormous though her lead is far better than it looks.
She'll run up a tremendous victory in LA today, which will overwhelm what I expect to be Bernie victories in the other two states and will gain another +20 voters I think.
Putting the final result (Arsenal win) to one side, I see two things happening at WHL today: 1. Arsenal will score inside the last five minutes of the game. 2. Harry Kane will miss a penalty. I have been a Spurs fan for long enough to know we just don't do well in games like this. Changes of guard, new dawns etc - not a chance. It's not the Tottenham way.
Pessimist. Spurs fans cannot back themselves to win after 55 years ! They will win the Prem this year.
Nope - that will not happen. I also think we may struggle to make the Top 4. Man Utd are starting to look very ominous. And after this weekend they'll be within striking distance, with a game at WHL still to come.
Sadly, the season is going to catch up with Tottenham legs. They are knackered. Too many players have had to play too many games because of lack of back-up. Kane is out on his feet.
It is not certain Clinton can beat Trump, although it is likely.
It is almost inconceivable the GOP can find a challenger to Trump now. Under the rules, the only possible challenger at the moment is Cruz and he's an even worse candidate.
Therefore the first is better value at identical odds.
It is important to know whether the debt/GDP ratio is using gross debt or net debt. Having a £100,000 mortgage but no equity in the house is very different from a £100,000 mortgage on a £300,000 house with £200,000 of equity.
In the UK more people have equity in their house than they do in Germany where more people rent and so don't accumulate wealth in property to use as security for borrowing.
Yes but as Mervyn King once said, house prices are an opinion but debt is real. The equity in people's houses is linked to what other people are able and willing to pay, which in aggregate is a function of the availability of more debt.
but even as matters stand 7 percent of the SNP’s Westminster group belong in the Map Truther camp. There are probably more of them out there than that.
Now you may think this reflects a certain lack of perspective. Even, also, an unawareness that perspective even exists. The curvature of the earth may also remain a mystery to flat-earth nationalists.
Putting the final result (Arsenal win) to one side, I see two things happening at WHL today: 1. Arsenal will score inside the last five minutes of the game. 2. Harry Kane will miss a penalty. I have been a Spurs fan for long enough to know we just don't do well in games like this. Changes of guard, new dawns etc - not a chance. It's not the Tottenham way.
Pessimist. Spurs fans cannot back themselves to win after 55 years ! They will win the Prem this year.
Nope - that will not happen. I also think we may struggle to make the Top 4. Man Utd are starting to look very ominous. And after this weekend they'll be within striking distance, with a game at WHL still to come.
Sadly, the season is going to catch up with Tottenham legs. They are knackered. Too many players have had to play too many games because of lack of back-up. Kane is out on his feet.
happens every year...
Oh please give it up...
Utd are at West Brom today, a game they won't win. Spurs two games after today are at Villa and home to Bournemouth, Utd are at City that day, you will be well clear of 5th spot by then.
Only real problem is away at my lot, where for reasons I've never understood you struggle to even get a corner.
According to The Daily Telegraph, George Osborne has abandoned plans for a tax raid on the pensions of millions of middle-class workers in his forthcoming Budget after a furious backlash from Tory MPs. The severely wounded Chancellor is clearly struggling to square the circle in attempting to keep Government borrowing under control. Last year he was forced to capitulate as regards plans to severely curtail tax credits and now this. Why is it that Chancellors continue to meddle with stealth taxes and in attacking peoples' savings instead of taking a far more honest, common sense approach to the problem? The simple fact is that the standard rate of income tax has been progressively reduced from 35% right down to its present level of 20%, whilst at the same time, the basic personal allowance has been increased to £10,000, both resulting in once unimaginable reductions in income tax. The truth of the matter is that these reductions have gone too far in terms of what the country can and can't afford. The Chancellor should stop messing about and announce at least a 2p or 3p increase in the basic rate of income tax, with unfortunately the prospect of further rises to come. Hopefully such necessary action might just help to shore up the value of Sterling which has fallen by an alarming 10% or more over just the last few weeks.
I agree. The persistance of the deficit despite the stage we are in the economic cycle does mean that we need tax rises. Stealth taxes that further damage pension planning are not wise. A simple and honest uptick in income tax is the fairest way.
GO has clearly lost it ...... first his forced abandonment of scrapping tax credits last year, then his having to give up on the withdrawal of pension tax breaks for the middle classes .... it's high time he was replaced, but will Dave dare take such action against his best mate? It's rather beginning to look as if Mike Smithson's recent 10/1 tip on Osborne leaving the Treasury this year may prove to be the bet of the year so far (leaving aside Roger's outrageous suggestion of Ex Machina winning an Oscar at odds of up to 80/1).
Lots of rich Republicans will cross over to Hillary compared to when Romney/McCain were in the field Not many poor Democrats will cross over to Trump compared to when Obama was running Thus I see Hillary upside and am reluctant to bet on Trump beyond the convention
Quite a lot of poor Democrats won't vote for Hillary either. The key question may not be swing voters so much as GOTV.
Bernie Sanders and Trump have both been claiming they can win by appealing to non-voters. But as was pointed out to Corbyn's admirers on these threads a few months ago, the problem is that non-voters don't vote. Indeed, it's more or less a requirement to be called a non-voter.
The difference is that Trump is set to be the candidate and Sanders is not. He will get support from those who then fail to vote. But that's not where or how elections are won. Accepting what you say upthread about Clinton's mistakes and weaknesses, this alone should make her favourite.
She should therefore hope the FBI get a move on. It would not look good if she entered the election as the first president since 1972* to be under criminal investigation during the campaign, particularly given the Clintons' public image. That's surely where her greatest danger lies.
*I don't think Iran-Contra was being investigated in 1984, although I could be wrong.
We should remember though that Obama *did* bring out a lot of former non-voters in the form of poor blacks. His effect will to a large extent drop out this time so Hillary needs to either keep them engaged, replace them or accept that all else being equal, she starts off close to level. (That said, she does have strong support from the black community but I've not seen whether that extends to the 'new' black voters Obama reached out to).
Lots of rich Republicans will cross over to Hillary compared to when Romney/McCain were in the field Not many poor Democrats will cross over to Trump compared to when Obama was running Thus I see Hillary upside and am reluctant to bet on Trump beyond the convention
Quite a lot of poor Democrats won't vote for Hillary either. The key question may not be swing voters so much as GOTV.
Trump as GOP candidate will be a massive boost to Democrats' GOTV.
Mitt Romney's top strategist in 2012, Stuart Stevens, says Hillary Clinton would be a better president than Donald Trump.
"Personally, I think Hillary Clinton would be a better president than Donald Trump because I think that Donald Trump is a dangerous person and is someone who would embarrass America," Stuart Stevens, who advised 2012 nominee Mitt Romney, said Tuesday on Bloomberg's "With All Due Respect."
Is ridicule a powerful weapon.? Nicknaming him as Donald trumpet might have some mileage. Describing him as elephant trump might be damaging elephants after all do trump and cause a lot of damage. I'm reminded of the song Nellie the elephant some words from the song ." Nellie the elephnat phant packed her trunk and said goodbye to the circus.And of course we have elephants on parade from the jungle book with Donald as the colonel elephant. The other line of attack is exposing any financial scandals in his business dealings.
Lots of rich Republicans will cross over to Hillary compared to when Romney/McCain were in the field Not many poor Democrats will cross over to Trump compared to when Obama was running Thus I see Hillary upside and am reluctant to bet on Trump beyond the convention
Quite a lot of poor Democrats won't vote for Hillary either. The key question may not be swing voters so much as GOTV.
Trump as GOP candidate will be a massive boost to Democrats' GOTV.
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.
Romney won 60% of the white vote in 2012, the highest share since 1988 of any GOP candidate but it was his low share of the Hispanic and Black vote which killed him
Is ridicule a powerful weapon.? Nicknaming him as Donald trumpet might have some mileage. Describing him as elephant trump might be damaging elephants after all do trump and cause a lot of damage. I'm reminded of the song Nellie the elephant some words from the song ." Nellie the elephnat phant packed her trunk and said goodbye to the circus.And of course we have elephants on parade from the jungle book with Donald as the colonel elephant. The other line of attack is exposing any financial scandals in his business dealings.
You can't ridicule Donald Trump. You might think you have an angle. But then he goes and says or does something even more ridiculous. And his folks just laugh along with him.
I'm beginning to think it's only the old adage of being found in bed with a live boy/dead girl that stands a chance of making large numbers of people go Eeeeeeeuuuw at Donald.
The BBC's new weather map has caused a political storm with the Scottish National Party claiming it gives a "distorted" view of Scotland. New 3-D television weather forecast graphics began on Monday but the SNP MP for the Western Isles, Angus MacNeil, called for the BBC to think again.
Comments
The director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce has been temporarily suspended over his personal views on Brexit, according to the Financial Times. John Longworth told the BCC's annual conference on Thursday that the UK's long-term prospects could be "brighter" outside the EU.
The BCC has said it will not campaign for either side before the 23 June referendum as its membership is split.
The BCC said it had no comment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35732291
http://www.debtclocks.eu/public-debt-and-budget-deficits-comparison-of-the-eu-member-states.html
Only Spain is worse than us. We are still pumping in "stimulus" into the economy years after a return to growth. For all their faults the rEU are better at managing a budget than us.
I'm far too modest to point out which pb'er predicted that.
http://youtu.be/9Gi7qqvRlY0
79% of democrats would be happy with Hilary.
Attacks like Romney's will not affect the core-trump vote but will put of independents and floaters. Bear in mind that amidst all the Trump razzmatazz he has only polled 34% of the votes in the Republican primaries (admittedly with a large field) If he is going to win POTUS he is going to have to expand his coalition fast but I can't see which groups he is going to do it with. There are not enough "mad as hell" non-college educated white males to take him to the White House.
Yet the IoD claims its membership is against Brexit and supports REMAIN. No one gets suspended
When the BCC DG comes out for LEAVE, he is told he is not reflecting the views of his membership and is suspended.
In 2010
"Britain’s shortfall in its finances amounted to 10.4pc of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010, according to data for each of the EU’s 27 member states from the statistics agency Eurostat.
That meant the UK had a bigger deficit, or annual shortfall, than the recently bailed-out Portugal and also Spain, which is viewed as the next euro-using nation to potentially need international aid."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8473705/UK-has-third-biggest-budget-deficit-in-Europe.html
Of course any attempt to bring under control Browns damage is met with the cry from the lefties of "Tory savage cuts" at every turn. Even the present LOTO just castigated Brown for his methods and busting parts of the NHS with his PFI slights of hand.
There's a real risk that horribly backfires for Remain: i.e. you can only speak for a large business, trade association, institution or union if you hold the "right" views, or you lose your job.
The reason they might get away with it is simply due to its lack of headline news prominence.
If I were in Vote Leave I'd be making a big deal of this and trying to get it headline splashed across all the Sunday newspapers.
Anythough on Spurs vs the Arsenal? Looks nailed on for Spurs to me. Arsenal are pisspoor at present.
I also support the flat rate tax system and think it should be extended far beyond what Osborne was proposing.
Between £0 and £50,000 all sorts of benefits and entitlements are phased out. Then child benefit. And NI - different for class IV.
Universal credit is supposed to help with some of this stuff. While I express no particular confidence in it, let's hope so.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/
Demonstrates the awesome power of the non-college educated whites.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/jim-webb-no-hillary-clinton-220255
Jim Webb, no to HRC, maybe yes to Trump. Won't be a VP for Trump but I have seen him touted.
To be taken with a pinch of salt re: Oklahoma, but nevertheless 2.72 (Betfair) is value.
And I trust the OECD and St Louis Fed more than I trust Trading Economics.
Here is the OECD data on household debt to GDP: We're not the worst, I agree. But we're not in that great a shape.
It's not the £50k, it's the £30-35k that's the problem, but you need to taper it off to avoid weird skewing.
I currently earn £30k and am the sole earner in the family - so compared to two incomes on £15k I get clobbered with tax, NI, student loan. If I get a pay rise to £40k the net impact will only be an additional £200 per month in my bank, because of the removal of tax credits.
The more the tax system can take account of the whole household (like the marriage tax allowance), the better.
Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.
I don't think that Trump guarantees a win for Hillary. She is a weak candidate and Trump is an energetic and charismatic campaigner, which she isn't. She will have a far better grasp of issues but that will reinforce an impression of her as the insider (which she is). If she's sensible, she'll aim to make that an asset but the evidence so far is the opposite; that she's somehow an outsider, which is a game she can't win.
My guess is that Trump will probably inadvertently destroy his own chances by saying something beyond the pale, uncalled for and probably sexist towards Hillary. He doesn't seem to be able to help himself and given that it's not damaged his run to the nomination, he may well feel justified in having mouthed off at every opportunity. But the GE electorate is different from that in the primaries and there's legitimate and unfair criticism; I'm not sure he perceives the line well. Not that he should need to - there's enough to go for Hillary on that is fair game.
As for demographics, yes, they're very bad for him but if they were truly appalling then he wouldn't be within a handful of points of Hillary on head-to-heads. That he is suggests that it's a weakness but not a fatal one. Clinton should still win but I wouldn't take it for granted.
I agree with Sven....
It might be deliverable in an economic crisis when there's an acceptance that cuts need to be made but I don't think any parliament in the near future would go near accepting that scale of reductions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35730041
So the net figure is the actual extra money we would have available if we still continued to support directly those areas paid for currently by the EU.
But I agree with you basic point. And also agree with the 6% aim. But you have to accept that it is never going to be politically acceptable.
Crib sheet for #labourdoorstep this morning:
1. Trident
2. Falklands
3. Prostitutes
Let's go win an election!
But equally we have the usual attacks on the most helpless the ones in receipt of the state pension and not ever having the luxury of paying the higher rate of tax. The lifetime allowance for pensions has been regularly cut. So pensioners are not being given much.
I think income tax rates are too high BTW and as a pensioner would not benefit particularly if they were cut. If the costs of the pension allowance was cut for higher rate earners then money might be available to cut the basic rates.
The people the govt need to encourage to save are not the higher rate earners but the average normal people. The 25% flat rate would do that. But we see numpty Tory backbenchers egged on by EU hating and therefore Osborne bashing press pushing the other way.
I've been very surprised at the kitchen sinks thrown so early on.
But, yep. Far more sensible.
Not many poor Democrats will cross over to Trump compared to when Obama was running
Thus I see Hillary upside and am reluctant to bet on Trump beyond the convention
its only 3 points
I'm not going to survive these next few hours... COYS!
1. Arsenal will score inside the last five minutes of the game.
2. Harry Kane will miss a penalty.
I have been a Spurs fan for long enough to know we just don't do well in games like this. Changes of guard, new dawns etc - not a chance. It's not the Tottenham way.
Sadly, the season is going to catch up with Tottenham legs. They are knackered. Too many players have had to play too many games because of lack of back-up. Kane is out on his feet.
Arsenal without Cech today, I've seen cream turn quicker than Mertesacker, just keep their forwards relatively quiet and your home.
And by the way, a draw wouldn't be a bad result either.
The difference is that Trump is set to be the candidate and Sanders is not. He will get support from those who then fail to vote. But that's not where or how elections are won. Accepting what you say upthread about Clinton's mistakes and weaknesses, this alone should make her favourite.
She should therefore hope the FBI get a move on. It would not look good if she entered the election as the first president since 1972* to be under criminal investigation during the campaign, particularly given the Clintons' public image. That's surely where her greatest danger lies.
*I don't think Iran-Contra was being investigated in 1984, although I could be wrong.
Will Trump bring out some (many?) of the 45% who didn’t vote last time?
Donald GOP Nom
Clinton POTUS
Odds are almost identical.
it never is.
i've sold harry kane as point 2 is inevitable... but also cos my action of selling him might mean my 'powers' do the old double bluff, it's that hope which kills me!
It is important to know whether the debt/GDP ratio is using gross debt or net debt. Having a £100,000 mortgage but no equity in the house is very different from a £100,000 mortgage on a £300,000 house with £200,000 of equity.
In the UK more people have equity in their house than they do in Germany where more people rent and so don't accumulate wealth in property to use as security for borrowing.
Turnout up all across the board.
Sanders is basically getting Hillary's 2008 vote + some young people.
Hillary's margins amongst black voters are so enormous though her lead is far better than it looks.
She'll run up a tremendous victory in LA today, which will overwhelm what I expect to be Bernie victories in the other two states and will gain another +20 voters I think.
It is almost inconceivable the GOP can find a challenger to Trump now. Under the rules, the only possible challenger at the moment is Cruz and he's an even worse candidate.
Therefore the first is better value at identical odds.
In what non-Zoomer Universe is that "denigrating Scotland" ?
I guess Matt will "rue the day", eh?
3. Lamela gets sent off.
Utd are at West Brom today, a game they won't win. Spurs two games after today are at Villa and home to Bournemouth, Utd are at City that day, you will be well clear of 5th spot by then.
Only real problem is away at my lot, where for reasons I've never understood you struggle to even get a corner.
It's rather beginning to look as if Mike Smithson's recent 10/1 tip on Osborne leaving the Treasury this year may prove to be the bet of the year so far (leaving aside Roger's outrageous suggestion of Ex Machina winning an Oscar at odds of up to 80/1).
Rupert Murdoch
UK Brexit campaign gathers force as government makes obviously false claims aimed at scaring voters. Early days yet.
"Personally, I think Hillary Clinton would be a better president than Donald Trump because I think that Donald Trump is a dangerous person and is someone who would embarrass America," Stuart Stevens, who advised 2012 nominee Mitt Romney, said Tuesday on Bloomberg's "With All Due Respect."
"I have no desire to see Hillary Clinton as president of the United States," he added. "But if this is the choice -- I will not give her my vote, but I can't support Donald Trump."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitt-romney-stuart-stevens-hillary-clinton-donald-trump_us_56d63a3be4b0871f60ed2a8f
Nicknaming him as Donald trumpet might have some mileage.
Describing him as elephant trump might be damaging elephants after all do trump and cause a lot of damage.
I'm reminded of the song Nellie the elephant some words from the song ." Nellie the elephnat phant packed her trunk and said goodbye to the circus.And of course we have elephants on parade from the jungle book with Donald as the colonel elephant.
The other line of attack is exposing any financial scandals in his business dealings.
All the Trump vs Clinton polls are like 42-38.
Turnout will be awful.
I'm beginning to think it's only the old adage of being found in bed with a live boy/dead girl that stands a chance of making large numbers of people go Eeeeeeeuuuw at Donald.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4556025.stm
The BBC's new weather map has caused a political storm with the Scottish National Party claiming it gives a "distorted" view of Scotland.
New 3-D television weather forecast graphics began on Monday but the SNP MP for the Western Isles, Angus MacNeil, called for the BBC to think again.
From 2005.........