Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New GE2017 study suggests that CON>LAB swing was larger in mar
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New GE2017 study suggests that CON>LAB swing was larger in marginals facing NHS charges and A&E closures
This sounds feasible. LAB did better in seat most threatened with NHS reform & A&E closures https://t.co/wKddsX78qb
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
So the bbc solution to sexism is more sexism...
Year Top rate Income tax take %GDP
2010 50% 9.79%
2011 50% 9.85%
2012 50% 9.61%
2013 45% 9.24%
2014 45% 9.19%
2015 45% 9.20%
2016 45% 9.33%
Incidentally, re your point about SMEs, the Labour manifesto pledged "We will protect small businesses by reintroducing the lower small pro ts rate of corporation tax."
"Labour will reintroduce maintenance grants for university students, and we will abolish university tuition fees.
University tuition is free in many northern European countries, and under a Labour government it will be free here too."
If you don't get the budget right, then the policy will come crashing down in ruins.
It is obvious to anyone with basic numeracy skills that many of the numbers in the Labour Party manifesto are fairytales.
Note -- I am not opposed to free tuition or a National Care Service -- but it damn well won't happen if you think it costs 8 billion (former case) or 3 billion (later case), which apparently the Labour Party does.
??? Go on, help me understand then.
And still the tax take as a percentage of GDP has basically been maintained, and of course the net figures are massively different. Using the fact that the economy has grown in part because of these measures as a stick with which to beat the philosophy of lower taxation might seem clever - but in fact the choice of percentages shows you know you dont have the ammo here.
I don't particularly blame them for this - it wasn't political bias, it was a sensible reflection of the fact that the Conservative manifesto seemed very likely to be implemented, and the Labour manifesto seemed to be an amusing fantasy from a party which had zero chance of getting elected. The news interest, therefore, was in what Theresa May planned to do, not in the silly things Corbyn was saying.
That should have been countered by the Conservatives, but they abjectly failed to attack Corbyn's and McDonnell's fantasy economics. Hopefully it's not a mistake which they'll ever make again.
This is a basic neoliberal article of faith... but I just can't see any evidence for that. That's all.
But if the economy doubles then what the government spends doesnt need to double, so you don't. You can see the data (more actual money is taken in when tax rates are cut, partly because the very act of cutting taxes stimulates economic activity) but you clearly don't want to.
It does seem to be that the print media are having little impact these days, especially on the young (who presumably don't read it). I can't see any future Labour party bothering to kowtow to Murdoch and co in the future (which I regard as a good thing).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08z1g83/the-andrew-marr-show-23072017
Got to say, despite the local difficulty over tuition fee's Jez is looking very much the assured and professional politician now.
I could actually imagine him walking into Downing Street as PM and could even see myself voting him into Downing Street...
I can believe tax rate cuts do stimulate the economy (especially lower end cuts including PA rises because they will go to people who will spend every extra penny they get). But whether that happens to the extent that the reduced tax rate is offset by increased economic activity, I'm not convinced. Is there any evidence?
There are some interesting consequences, aren't there?
But, if you go from 80% marginal tax rates to 60%, you are effectively doubling your take home pay, while the government only sees its take fall by a quarter. I suspect reductions from very high rates of tax pay for themselves in terms of reduced (legal) tax avoidance.
However, I think it's fair to say the Laffer curve does not have a constant gradient. (What with it being a curve with an an apex and all.)
Good grief, is that really you GIN ?!?
- Individuals receive little certainty
- The economy booms more when it booms, but busts more when it busts
I'm really tired after a weekend family party, so I'm sure I'm missing more obvious consequences; but it seems to be a recipe for disaster...
If government tries to shut off all those options, then there will be less immediate effect but the income will gradually gravitate towards less rapacious tax jurisdictions - so it's relative to what other countries are charging.
It's also strange how people neglect that there are factors determining where we live and how much we work other than tax rate, and in fact, some of those factors will be improved by more government spending. For example, I can legally live and work in either the UK or the US, and in fact I'd be likely to earn a lot more in the US. Things like the NHS are significant factors in why I prefer to stay here.
Of course, if you are self-employed you have other options (which is a separate anomaly that should be closed down imho) but there are limits to how much you can manipulate (or if not there jolly well should be!)
Laws should be changed because you don't buy an idea about how capitalism works? The left summed up in one post...
Next to some the possible tory candidates being mentioned (JRM, BoJo, Patel, Leadsome, Gove etc.), Corbyn and Cable begin to look like actual grown-up politicians.
Come on Tories, surely you can do better than that?!
I see it more and more now in my line of business (IT) and even Hammond recognised it in his proposed NI changes in the budget. Unfortunately (but unsurprisingly) he didn't have the courage of his convictions to see the change through.
Taxation should be a level playing field, that's all I'm saying.
For example, when I was delivering leaflets in Croydon Central (not even canvassing), one person spontaneously said that he wouldn't vote Conservative because "he [i.e. Gavin Barwell] will legalise fox-hunting". Never mind the fact that Gavin is against fox-hunting, and has said so, or that it would be a free vote, or that it would never get a majority in the House of Commons anyway. The mere fact that the issue of fox-hunting was even mentioned in the manifesto at all was a huge misjudgment; the fact that it would be a free vote didn't register or wasn't recognised.
That was just on my own regular delivery patch of c.300 households. There would have been numerous other such voters all over the constituency, and countless across the country.
Only an extra 97 votes in four constituencies would have been enough for a de-facto overall majority. Those extra votes were lost because of fox-hunting, the NHS, Brexit, Remainers, same-sex marriage, or any other issue you care to mention - individually, and not even in combination.
Backing yourself is an investment and based on a risk - it is the basis of capitslism. it is why even Ltd company sole trader contractors are able to pay themselves dividends (yes, I'm defending the most difficult to defend examples of the Ltd company route).
Taxation for the same pay on the same terms should be a level playing field. You're comparing apples and oranges.
NI should have been rolled into Income tax years ago (Employers NI rolled into CT). As I am about to become a pensioner such a change would hurt me personally, but it would still be the right thing to do. (Won't happen though, too much of a hot potato!)
Anyway, it's past my bedtime but I've enjoyed debating with you, Mortimer and the others. It's made me think a bit!
It was asking me about electoral "reform". Some nonsense about multiple voting and preferences and putting parties in orders of who I disliked least? All seemed very silly and overly complicated.
Back in my day you just ticked the box of the bloke you wanted. I blame Brexit.
1) On the Corporation Tax take, its not clear to me that the direct CT value gives you the full picture. If the CT rate goes down, then more dividends can be paid. The dividends are then taxed at up to 38.1% (unless the shareholders are outside the UK)- so presumably an increase in income tax take because of a fall in CT rate. There could be other effects too, in terms of making business in this country more attractive and hence increasing employment and again more income tax (and NI). So just looking at direct CT payments to the exchequer isn't very useful.
2) On the balance between PAYE and self-employed people paying themselves via dividends and related matters. Something close to my heart as someone that set up and works for an SME. If you look at the top rates, tax and NI via PAYE is 45% IT plus 2% NI. So altogether 47%. If paid in dividends then the effective tax rate is CT rate + (1-CT rate) * 38.1%. So if CT is 20%, then effective tax rate is 50.48%. Though if you add in 13.8% employers NI it gets to 60.8% for the PAYE case. So its really employers NI that is the difference. Expenses shouldn't differentiate since they can only be claimed if valid. CGT is lower but you need to sell something to have a capital gain - not something you can do if you want to carry on owning the business - a having a cake and eating it problem.
3) Benpointer commented above "The other sneaky thing about it is that PAYE income tax (with NI) is nowhere near as progessive as it looks (effectively 32% and 42%, rather than 20%/40%)" . Its worse than that - its effectively 45.8% and 55.8% when you add in the employers NI!
1832 has a lot to answer for.
Mr. F, aye. Bit like the referendum.
Rather like bus passes, loads of people don't care about the WFA, until the government threatens to take it away. Then they think "I've paid into the system all my life, and I'm damn well going to get my share."
Otherwise, seems to make sense,
So -- serious question -- at what point should I call the insurance company? Is it just that private hospitals are better hotels than the NHS equivalents or is there more to it?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Traitors-Prize-Bloody-Crown-Trilogy-ebook/dp/B073WGRF3W/
My mother was operated on privately, within 10 days of being diagnosed with cancer.
And yes, the food is much better.
I've talked on here before about how we treat the elderly as being one of the big questions with which Government and society is confronted but it cuts both ways.
The problem with what many would consider gestures of kindness, recognition for a long life and gratitude for work carried out and families raised is that it creates a sense of entitlement. As with child benefit, simply giving it to everyone is fine when the money's there and the demand isn't but change those parameters and it becomes a problem.
The elderly have worked hard and deserve the respect and assistance we would all want in our latter years but that doesn't stop them being members of society and having a part to play if we are at a time of financial stringency. That's a difficult one and many will argue there are other areas of Government expenditure (as well as income generation) that should be looked at before benefits for the elderly are reduced and that's an entirely fair comment.
I'd also add that in terms of that income generation the reaction from one or two individuals to notions of taxing wealth through property and land values has been enlightening. The Mail on Saturday (and I only got to the Op Ed before I literally couldn't read any more of its sanctimonious claptrap) was banging on again about "the bloated State" in one of its predictable anti-BBC tirades, Clearly, the anti-tax rise brigade is getting ready for a fight but if faux austerity is done with tax rises (or increased borrowing) are the inevitable consequence.
Better to tie it to Pensions Credit, so that it goes to those who struggle to get through the winter - rather than as a nice Christmas bonus to the middle classes.
These are not even first world problems however; they are "top 5% of first world" problems, which I personally feel extremely lucky to have faced.
I like the bus pass, I use it regularly, and the winter fuel allowance bought me a good winter coat last year/
You young lot with all your money worries ... Pah!
As my mother used to say - "you young 'uns, the more you get, you more you want, you're never satisfied." And we weren't related to the four Yorkshiremen!
I wouldn’t mind (much) paying having to pay £5-£10 for my bus pass, either. Or having that ‘allowed for’ in my tax number. At £5+ each way for a trip to Essex cricket I’d be well in pocket over having to pay ordinary fares.
As an example, a decade or so ago my father needed minor surgery on his knee, it was quite painful and restrictive. The NHS wait was around six months, the private clinic booked him in one week later. The surgery itself was a new keyhole technique that wasn't then in use by the NHS, which cut the recovery time from three months to one month with intensive physio afterwards.
The major reason that his company paid for private insurance is that he would have been unable to drive to work for up to nine months by using the NHS, but was only off for one month by going private.
The NHS is good for accidents and cancer, but for the routine stuff, especially for those of working age, private care is in a different league.
OTOH my brother faced bladder cancer 12 years ago and as he had bupa he asked to go privately but was told it would make no difference. He recieved fantastic, fast treatment from the NHS and had the all clear at the end of his treatment (and cancelled his bupa lol!)
Politically, it would be an extinction event for the government that did this,
“[The government] is not stupid,” he says. They realise how important the City is to the UK economy and they don’t want to have a situation where the City is completely destroyed by Brexit.” He adds: “I’m confident the sort of deal the UK will get with the EU will allow financial services to stay and prosper and thrive in the City of London.”
https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/an-audience-with-matthew-elliott-leaving-eu-was-the-better-option-20170724
I trust you don't use NHS facilities , " juniors " , nurses and secretaries in your extramural money grubbing.
We have to get past the idea that that's undeserved.
I think the bigger issue is whopping great levels of asset wealth and company/board salaries in the millions.
An acquaintance's father had a heart attack whilst driving. Someone behind him noticed he was swerving all over the road, and decided to follow him instead of turning off, so was on hand when he crashed. Then one of the next people along was a paramedic, and CPR worked.
He was very lucky.
Now for the praise of the NHS: he had a heart op immediately, and he;s now gong to ?twice? weekly group exercise and advice sessions at Addenbrookes.
When the NHS does things well, it can do them very well.
If you need pensioner votes to win an election (which all parties do) you aren't going to antagonise that group by suggesting detrimental. The irony is in creating the triple lock for pensions, the Conservatives (and others) have unintentionally created a quadruple lock which is that the maintenance of political power and popularity is directly linked to keeping pensioners happy.
I'd also challenge the absurd culture of the right to inheritance. The proposed change in the adult social care cost arrangements that annoyed me was the notion £100k of assets would be left untouched for inheritance (compared to £23,500 now). That meant an additional £76,500 of care to be picked up by the rest of us while the person's family walked off with the money in inheritance.
We know rising asset values are seen by the next generation as a nice nest egg to help them. If Mum and Dad's house, which they bought for £15,000 in the late 1960s is now worth £700,000 it's a nice bonus when they are gone and it can be sold. Who needs a pension ? Who needs to plan for the future and save ? Let's just wait for Mum and Dad to die and sell their house and we'll live off that.
It's a great time for the children of those who bought property forty or fifty years ago and have just sat in it, raising a family perhaps, doing it up a little maybe but doing nothing to raise its value forty or fifty times apart from enjoying the benefits of an absurd housing market.
Now we are seeing some who recognise the asset as a source of income generation for the Government and property and land value taxation are coming back onto the agenda. Perhaps we will also see a long overdue re-organisation and re-valuation of the Council Tax bands so if you live in a house worth £1 million you don't pay the same as someone in the next road whose house is worth half that.