It is equally valid to say that lots of other issues were each, on their own, enough to deny the Conservative Party a majority.
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.
Agreed. Everything and anything cost the Conservatives their majority. A swing of 0.5% would have given 327 seats, a swing of 1% would have given 334.
To my mind , it was the lunacy of the winter fuel allowance that stuffed the Tories. It affected 11million people FFS.... just ludicrous.
The lunacy was that they said they would means test it but gave no indication of at what level. So my 80 year old mother, for example, whose pension is not enough to use her tax allowance up, was convinced she'd have no heating this winter. (She is still worrying about it now tbh, not being entirely convinced that the Tories won't implement any changes.)
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.
This is a basic neoliberal article of faith... but I just can't see any evidence for that. That's all.
The Laffer curve definitely exists, how it is shaped is - however - a mystery. Sadly, we cannot run multiple regressions on identical economies to see the impact of changing marginal tax rates. However, what we can say is that at both 0% tax, and 100% tax, you would end up with exactly zero tax collected.
HMRC should be able to model the gradient of the curve for income tax in the UK extremely well at around £100K, where Darling's bonkers 60% rate (plus employee's and employer's NI) kicks in. I suspect the bunching of income at just under £100K, especially amongst directors and senior employees in small companies, will be quite dramatic.
I don't yet, but I'm certainly interested in earning £95k in a way I'm not for £105k.
On the other hand earnings between 125-150k come back into a better bracket. I try to keep my earnings at the upper end of that range, via extra duties payments or my modest Private Practice.
It was once thought despicable for NHS Consultants to run private practices. Tempi cambi. I trust you don't use NHS facilities , " juniors " , nurses and secretaries in your extramural money grubbing.
NHS consultants have done private work for as long as I can remember. It's no different from a State School teacher giving private tuition.
The money grubbing quacks leach off their private patients but, when things get hairy, bail and send their victims to NHS hospitals. It's a long running scandal.
I like my winter fuel allowance. I usually deposit it straight away into my Betfair account.
Which, much as your Betfair account likes it, is not really the best use of scarce public funds when the government's books have a £50bn hole in them! Likewise, my parents spent theirs on a winter holiday last year.
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.
Agreed! Waste of scarce public funds to pay WFA to the well-off.
There is a top article by Shiv Malik in this month's Prospect on intergeneration issues such as WFA and voting. Very well worth a read for anyone who is interested in what might happen in next GE as youth awaken from their slumbers:
This is a basic neoliberal article of faith... but I just can't see any evidence for that. That's all.
The Laffer curve definitely exists, how it is shaped is - however - a mystery. Sadly, we cannot run multiple regressions on identical economies to see the impact of changing marginal tax rates. However, what we can say is that at both 0% tax, and 100% tax, you would end up with exactly zero tax collected.
HMRC should be able to model the gradient of the curve for income tax in the UK extremely well at around £100K, where Darling's bonkers 60% rate (plus employee's and employer's NI) kicks in. I suspect the bunching of income at just under £100K, especially amongst directors and senior employees in small companies, will be quite dramatic.
I don't yet, but I'm certainly interested in earning £95k in a way I'm not for £105k.
On the other hand earnings between 125-150k come back into a better bracket. I try to keep my earnings at the upper end of that range, via extra duties payments or my modest Private Practice.
It was once thought despicable for NHS Consultants to run private practices. Tempi cambi. I trust you don't use NHS facilities , " juniors " , nurses and secretaries in your extramural money grubbing.
NHS consultants have done private work for as long as I can remember. It's no different from a State School teacher giving private tuition.
It was part of the deal that Nye Bevan struck. The consultants were reluctant, so he allowed private practice.
This is a basic neoliberal article of faith... but I just can't see any evidence for that. That's all.
The Laffer curve definitely exists, how it is shaped is - however - a mystery. Sadly, we cannot run multiple regressions on identical economies to see the impact of changing marginal tax rates. However, what we can say is that at both 0% tax, and 100% tax, you would end up with exactly zero tax collected.
HMRC should be able to model the gradient of the curve for income tax in the UK extremely well at around £100K, where Darling's bonkers 60% rate (plus employee's and employer's NI) kicks in. I suspect the bunching of income at just under £100K, especially amongst directors and senior employees in small companies, will be quite dramatic.
I don't yet, but I'm certainly interested in earning £95k in a way I'm not for £105k.
On the other hand earnings between 125-150k come back into a better bracket. I try to keep my earnings at the upper end of that range, via extra duties payments or my modest Private Practice.
What is the point of your private practice? I have had private medical insurance for decades but have never bothered to use it because there seemed to be an awful lot of form-filling -- though on the other hand I've never had an overnight stay in hospital, just umpteen outpatients' clinics.
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?
If you need something done very quickly, use your insurance.
My mother was operated on privately, within 10 days of being diagnosed with cancer.
And yes, the food is much better.
The NHS are pretty quick with cancer - 15 days diagnosis->op in my case. Agree about the food, I haven't seen anything like it since prep school. Incentivises you to get yourself discharged asap, though.
A few day's difference might have made no difference to my mother, but why take a chance?
If one needs aftercare, the NHS is miles better, in my experience.
This is a basic neoliberal article of faith... but I just can't see any evidence for that. That's all.
The Laffer curve definitely exists, how it is shaped is - however - a mystery. Sadly, we cannot run multiple regressions on identical economies to see the impact of changing marginal tax rates. However, what we can say is that at both 0% tax, and 100% tax, you would end up with exactly zero tax collected.
HMRC should be able to model the gradient of the curve for income tax in the UK extremely well at around £100K, where Darling's bonkers 60% rate (plus employee's and employer's NI) kicks in. I suspect the bunching of income at just under £100K, especially amongst directors and senior employees in small companies, will be quite dramatic.
I don't yet, but I'm certainly interested in earning £95k in a way I'm not for £105k.
On the other hand earnings between 125-150k come back into a better bracket. I try to keep my earnings at the upper end of that range, via extra duties payments or my modest Private Practice.
What is the point of your private practice? I have had private medical insurance for decades but have never bothered to use it because there seemed to be an awful lot of form-filling -- though on the other hand I've never had an overnight stay in hospital, just umpteen outpatients' clinics.
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?
If you need something done very quickly, use your insurance.
My mother was operated on privately, within 10 days of being diagnosed with cancer.
And yes, the food is much better.
The NHS are pretty quick with cancer - 15 days diagnosis->op in my case. Agree about the food, I haven't seen anything like it since prep school. Incentivises you to get yourself discharged asap, though.
A few day's difference might have made no difference to my mother, but why take a chance?
The only person I know of who has died in hospital as the result of a hospital cock up, did it in a private hospital. I believe. NHS hospitals also have zillions times as many nice big shiny expensive medical machines as private ones, not to mention ICUs/HDUs which pretty much anyone can end up needing at short notice. It isn't the case that the only edge the NHS has is, it's free.
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.
No doubt true but which Conservative or Labour (or indeed LD) politician is going to have the courage to stand up and say that ? I agree the WFA is a waste of money and needs to be better targeted at those pensioners who actually need it but in political terms what would be the effect of saying that ?
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.
One of the saddest aspects of this election is that two of the Tories' policies that at heart were actually quite sensible (social care and WFA), were so badly handled (mainly through lack of detail) that they have now been blamed for the Tories' poor result, and as a consequence are likely to be taboo topics going forward.
Labour share the blame here too due to some fairly shallow opportunism on these topics during the campaign.
Economically, it would make good sense to tax capital more heavily, and income more lightly.
Politically, it would be an extinction event for the government that did this,
I agree on the economics. But why do you think it would be such bad politics?
Couldn't it be part of some grand new bargain... we will lower income taxes and increase taxes on capital? It would surely have more winners than losers?
Equalising income tax and capital gains for instance seems eminently sensible. But couldn't it be popular too?
It is equally valid to say that lots of other issues were each, on their own, enough to deny the Conservative Party a majority.
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.
Agreed. Everything and anything cost the Conservatives their majority. A swing of 0.5% would have given 327 seats, a swing of 1% would have given 334.
To my mind , it was the lunacy of the winter fuel allowance that stuffed the Tories. It affected 11million people FFS.... just ludicrous.
The lunacy was that they said they would means test it but gave no indication of at what level. So my 80 year old mother, for example, whose pension is not enough to use her tax allowance up, was convinced she'd have no heating this winter. (She is still worrying about it now tbh, not being entirely convinced that the Tories won't implement any changes.)
Yes, the policy should have been thought through better, but it's cheaper to give it to everyone than means test everyone to take from only the top 10%. The plan would have had to have been to remove WFA from over 50% of pensioners.
Rather like the discussion around social care policy in the manifesto, what's clear is that there's lots of issues that need urgently addressing but are politically almost impossible to do. Planning is another area in need of major reform, we need to build houses, railways and airports.
Mr. Jessop, thanks. He's recovering as well as can be. Taking part in a trial involving long MRI scans and was the only one not to have permanent damage.
It is equally valid to say that lots of other issues were each, on their own, enough to deny the Conservative Party a majority.
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.
Agreed. Everything and anything cost the Conservatives their majority. A swing of 0.5% would have given 327 seats, a swing of 1% would have given 334.
To my mind , it was the lunacy of the winter fuel allowance that stuffed the Tories. It affected 11million people FFS.... just ludicrous.
The lunacy was that they said they would means test it but gave no indication of at what level. So my 80 year old mother, for example, whose pension is not enough to use her tax allowance up, was convinced she'd have no heating this winter. (She is still worrying about it now tbh, not being entirely convinced that the Tories won't implement any changes.)
Yes, the policy should have been thought through better, but it's cheaper to give it to everyone than means test everyone to take from only the top 10%. The plan would have had to have been to remove WFA from over 50% of pensioners.
Rather like the discussion around social care policy in the manifesto, what's clear is that there's lots of issues that need urgently addressing but are politically almost impossible to do. Planning is another area in need of major reform, we need to build houses, railways and airports.
Generally agree, although taxing the WFA (and other similar govt 'gifts') might be an easy way to ameliorate it.
"The policy should have been thought through better"... in fairness to the Tories they did rather spring the election upon themselves!
Mr. Jessop, thanks. He's recovering as well as can be. Taking part in a trial involving long MRI scans and was the only one not to have permanent damage.
He probably didn't have a heart attack but was misdiagnosed by a panicky quack.
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.
Agreed. Everything and anything cost the Conservatives their majority. A swing of 0.5% would have given 327 seats, a swing of 1% would have given 334.
To my mind , it was the lunacy of the winter fuel allowance that stuffed the Tories. It affected 11million people FFS.... just ludicrous.
The lunacy was that they said they would means test it but gave no indication of at what level. So my 80 year old mother, for example, whose pension is not enough to use her tax allowance up, was convinced she'd have no heating this winter. (She is still worrying about it now tbh, not being entirely convinced that the Tories won't implement any changes.)
Yes, the policy should have been thought through better, but it's cheaper to give it to everyone than means test everyone to take from only the top 10%. The plan would have had to have been to remove WFA from over 50% of pensioners.
Rather like the discussion around social care policy in the manifesto, what's clear is that there's lots of issues that need urgently addressing but are politically almost impossible to do. Planning is another area in need of major reform, we need to build houses, railways and airports.
Generally agree, although taxing the WFA (and other similar govt 'gifts') might be an easy way to ameliorate it.
"The policy should have been thought through better"... in fairness to the Tories they did rather spring the election upon themselves!
Agree on taxing it, but how would that work in practice? It would need to be done in a way that doesn't end up with Granny having to fill in a tax return and write a cheque at the end of the year.
I make little comment on the Tories' election campaign. Let's just agree it could have been better. As you noted above it may (sic) have the unintended consequence of making certain subjects taboo politically in the future.
Economically, it would make good sense to tax capital more heavily, and income more lightly.
Politically, it would be an extinction event for the government that did this,
I agree on the economics. But why do you think it would be such bad politics?
Couldn't it be part of some grand new bargain... we will lower income taxes and increase taxes on capital? It would surely have more winners than losers?
Equalising income tax and capital gains for instance seems eminently sensible. But couldn't it be popular too?
Entrepreneurs' relief? Capital only taxed at 10% upon sale of a business, BUT, it has to be (broadly) a business that the person has owned a chunk of for at least two years. Tax that at 45% (or worse?) and that's a powerful incentive not to bother risking setting up a business or doing it not in the UK.
Economically, it would make good sense to tax capital more heavily, and income more lightly.
Politically, it would be an extinction event for the government that did this,
I agree on the economics. But why do you think it would be such bad politics?
Couldn't it be part of some grand new bargain... we will lower income taxes and increase taxes on capital? It would surely have more winners than losers?
Equalising income tax and capital gains for instance seems eminently sensible. But couldn't it be popular too?
The losers would potentially lose thousands of pounds, even if it were just a one-off hit, the winners would gain hundreds. The anger of the former would outweigh the gratitude of the latter (and people don't show gratitude to politicians anyway).
Taxation isn't about fairness, it's about raising revenue. The fairness comes in when government has considered the additional impact of spending.
The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to procure the largest quantity of feathers with the least possible amount of hissing. - Colbert
Mr. Jessop, thanks. He's recovering as well as can be. Taking part in a trial involving long MRI scans and was the only one not to have permanent damage.
He probably didn't have a heart attack but was misdiagnosed by a panicky quack.
You might want to look at your "ray of sunshine" settings this morning, and perhaps reboot yourself?
Taxation isn't about fairness, it's about raising revenue. The fairness comes in when government has considered the additional impact of spending.
The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to procure the largest quantity of feathers with the least possible amount of hissing. - Colbert
He was right then and he's right now. That means that the affluent are in for a pasting while the super rich get off lightly.
In due course, more tax is going to have to be raised further down the income brackets. The tax base is getting dangerously narrow.
Mr. Meeks, indeed. What must be considered is how much is raised, not hitting the wealthy as some sort of puritanical punishment (which also drives revenue down). That's why moral crusading wealth taxes are demented.
Mr. Jessop, thanks. He's recovering as well as can be. Taking part in a trial involving long MRI scans and was the only one not to have permanent damage.
He probably didn't have a heart attack but was misdiagnosed by a panicky quack.
You might want to look at your "ray of sunshine" settings this morning, and perhaps reboot yourself?
MRIs have shown no damage to papa Morris Dancer's heart, so he didn't have an infarct. I'm spreading good news.
Taxation isn't about fairness, it's about raising revenue. The fairness comes in when government has considered the additional impact of spending.
The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to procure the largest quantity of feathers with the least possible amount of hissing. - Colbert
Interesting article from Larry Elliot in today's Guardian on Financial Transaction Tax
It makes me think that maybe the way to increase the tax take (to pay for good public services, pay down the defict and continue to protect pensioners) is through new taxes rather than increasing existing ones. E.g. wealth tax, LVT, FTT.
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.
Agreed. Everything and anything cost the Conservatives their majority. A swing of 0.5% would have given 327 seats, a swing of 1% would have given 334.
To my mind , it was the lunacy of the winter fuel allowance that stuffed the Tories. It affected 11million people FFS.... just ludicrous.
The lunacy was that they said they would means test it but gave no indication of at what level. So my 80 year old mother, for example, whose pension is not enough to use her tax allowance up, was convinced she'd have no heating this winter. (She is still worrying about it now tbh, not being entirely convinced that the Tories won't implement any changes.)
Yes, the policy should have been thought through better, but it's cheaper to give it to everyone than means test everyone to take from only the top 10%. The plan would have had to have been to remove WFA from over 50% of pensioners.
Rather like the discussion around social care policy in the manifesto, what's clear is that there's lots of issues that need urgently addressing but are politically almost impossible to do. Planning is another area in need of major reform, we need to build houses, railways and airports.
Generally agree, although taxing the WFA (and other similar govt 'gifts') might be an easy way to ameliorate it.
"The policy should have been thought through better"... in fairness to the Tories they did rather spring the election upon themselves!
Agree on taxing it, but how would that work in practice? It would need to be done in a way that doesn't end up with Granny having to fill in a tax return and write a cheque at the end of the year.
I make little comment on the Tories' election campaign. Let's just agree it could have been better. As you noted above it may (sic) have the unintended consequence of making certain subjects taboo politically in the future.
Taxing WFA is straightforward and doesn't involve granny filling in a tax form. You simply add the WFA to the state pension, continuing to pay it in one lump before Xmas but taxing it as the state pension. Most pensioners won't pay tax on it but rich pensioners will pay at the top rate.
Taxation isn't about fairness, it's about raising revenue. The fairness comes in when government has considered the additional impact of spending.
The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to procure the largest quantity of feathers with the least possible amount of hissing. - Colbert
Completely right. Tax rates should always be set to maximise revenues rather than as a political tool to be seen to 'punish' the well off - a tactic which is increasingly more difficult to adopt as service businesses become more global in nature and can choose where to base themselves.
Taxation isn't about fairness, it's about raising revenue. The fairness comes in when government has considered the additional impact of spending.
The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to procure the largest quantity of feathers with the least possible amount of hissing. - Colbert
He was right then and he's right now. That means that the affluent are in for a pasting while the super rich get off lightly.
In due course, more tax is going to have to be raised further down the income brackets. The tax base is getting dangerously narrow.
Interesting... and I sort of agree, but the tax base is nowhere near as narrow as it has been historically, say 100+ years ago.
Economically, it would make good sense to tax capital more heavily, and income more lightly.
Politically, it would be an extinction event for the government that did this,
I agree on the economics. But why do you think it would be such bad politics?
Couldn't it be part of some grand new bargain... we will lower income taxes and increase taxes on capital? It would surely have more winners than losers?
Equalising income tax and capital gains for instance seems eminently sensible. But couldn't it be popular too?
Entrepreneurs' relief? Capital only taxed at 10% upon sale of a business, BUT, it has to be (broadly) a business that the person has owned a chunk of for at least two years. Tax that at 45% (or worse?) and that's a powerful incentive not to bother risking setting up a business or doing it not in the UK.
It wouldn't necessarily be 45% - I'm just saying equalise it.
You could have some exceptions if you think people setting up businesses is such a big positive to the economy.
Personally I'm a little suspicious of the current obsession with entrepreneurs (why should we privilege people investing in their own business over those investing in other businesses so much?) but I don't feel that strongly about it.
Economically, it would make good sense to tax capital more heavily, and income more lightly.
Politically, it would be an extinction event for the government that did this,
I agree on the economics. But why do you think it would be such bad politics?
Couldn't it be part of some grand new bargain... we will lower income taxes and increase taxes on capital? It would surely have more winners than losers?
Equalising income tax and capital gains for instance seems eminently sensible. But couldn't it be popular too?
The losers would potentially lose thousands of pounds, even if it were just a one-off hit, the winners would gain hundreds. The anger of the former would outweigh the gratitude of the latter (and people don't show gratitude to politicians anyway).
But the votes of the latter would outweigh the votes of the former!
Could we perhaps not have an argument about whether my father had a heart attack or some other coronary event?
He was very ill, got good care, and is recovering.
Glad to hear he is doing better.
My grandmother had a heart attack/coronary event about a year ago and has surprised doctors with how well she has recovered. She's sticking to the diet restrictions very religiously which I suspect is a big factor.
Taxation isn't about fairness, it's about raising revenue. The fairness comes in when government has considered the additional impact of spending.
The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to procure the largest quantity of feathers with the least possible amount of hissing. - Colbert
He was right then and he's right now. That means that the affluent are in for a pasting while the super rich get off lightly.
In due course, more tax is going to have to be raised further down the income brackets. The tax base is getting dangerously narrow.
Interesting... and I sort of agree, but the tax base is nowhere near as narrow as it has been historically, say 100+ years ago.
Government was doing rather less 100+ years ago. I don't get the impression from the rest of your posts that is something you want to return to.
Economically, it would make good sense to tax capital more heavily, and income more lightly.
Politically, it would be an extinction event for the government that did this,
I agree on the economics. But why do you think it would be such bad politics?
Couldn't it be part of some grand new bargain... we will lower income taxes and increase taxes on capital? It would surely have more winners than losers?
Equalising income tax and capital gains for instance seems eminently sensible. But couldn't it be popular too?
Entrepreneurs' relief? Capital only taxed at 10% upon sale of a business, BUT, it has to be (broadly) a business that the person has owned a chunk of for at least two years. Tax that at 45% (or worse?) and that's a powerful incentive not to bother risking setting up a business or doing it not in the UK.
It wouldn't necessarily be 45% - I'm just saying equalise it.
You could have some exceptions if you think people setting up businesses is such a big positive to the economy.
Personally I'm a little suspicious of the current obsession with entrepreneurs (why should we privilege people investing in their own business over those investing in other businesses so much?) but I don't feel that strongly about it.
I also feel that most successful entrepreneurs have been so by having an idea they want to see realised, rather than narrowly wanting to make money for themselves. My point being if they have a dream they will not be put off but the thought they may not make so much money 5, 10, 20 years down the line.
Economically, it would make good sense to tax capital more heavily, and income more lightly.
Politically, it would be an extinction event for the government that did this,
I agree on the economics. But why do you think it would be such bad politics?
Couldn't it be part of some grand new bargain... we will lower income taxes and increase taxes on capital? It would surely have more winners than losers?
Equalising income tax and capital gains for instance seems eminently sensible. But couldn't it be popular too?
Entrepreneurs' relief? Capital only taxed at 10% upon sale of a business, BUT, it has to be (broadly) a business that the person has owned a chunk of for at least two years. Tax that at 45% (or worse?) and that's a powerful incentive not to bother risking setting up a business or doing it not in the UK.
It wouldn't necessarily be 45% - I'm just saying equalise it.
You could have some exceptions if you think people setting up businesses is such a big positive to the economy.
Personally I'm a little suspicious of the current obsession with entrepreneurs (why should we privilege people investing in their own business over those investing in other businesses so much?) but I don't feel that strongly about it.
I also feel that most successful entrepreneurs have been so by having an idea they want to see realised, rather than narrowly wanting to make money for themselves. My point being if they have a dream they will not be put off but the thought they may not make so much money 5, 10, 20 years down the line.
They're not obliged to pursue their dream in Britain.
Council tax is a property tax. It could be updated by treating the council services associated with the ownership of a property as a taxable benefit in kind.
Those on higher tax rates would pay more and those under the personal allowance would pay nothing. Depending how you structured it, this could be a progressive revenue generating based on property values and ability to pay.
Economically, it would make good sense to tax capital more heavily, and income more lightly.
Politically, it would be an extinction event for the government that did this,
I agree on the economics. But why do you think it would be such bad politics?
Couldn't it be part of some grand new bargain... we will lower income taxes and increase taxes on capital? It would surely have more winners than losers?
Equalising income tax and capital gains for instance seems eminently sensible. But couldn't it be popular too?
Entrepreneurs' relief? Capital only taxed at 10% upon sale of a business, BUT, it has to be (broadly) a business that the person has owned a chunk of for at least two years. Tax that at 45% (or worse?) and that's a powerful incentive not to bother risking setting up a business or doing it not in the UK.
It wouldn't necessarily be 45% - I'm just saying equalise it.
You could have some exceptions if you think people setting up businesses is such a big positive to the economy.
Personally I'm a little suspicious of the current obsession with entrepreneurs (why should we privilege people investing in their own business over those investing in other businesses so much?) but I don't feel that strongly about it.
We should privilege (within the tax system) people investing their own money into any new business, over someone earning a salary from an employer. Tax rates should reflect the risks involved.
Mr. Meeks, indeed. What must be considered is how much is raised, not hitting the wealthy as some sort of puritanical punishment (which also drives revenue down). That's why moral crusading wealth taxes are demented.
Interesting - at least we are talking about the possibility of tax rises which was a taboo subject not so long ago.
I don't think anyone is citing "puritanical punishment" but notions of fairness are valid as is the notion we are all part of the same society and must make a fair and reasonable contribution toward its preservation and development.
Getting away from the notion of taxation as a "punishment" would be a good start - what do you expect ? If you're good, you get everything for free ?
I also question the "look much they pay" mantra. Yes, wealthy people pay more tax but they have more to start with and more to finish with and on the other side we all pay the same (roughly) for a pint of milk, a loaf of bread, a gallon of petrol, a holiday or a house by which I mean the differentiation is only what you can afford not what you can get.
If wealthy people were charged £10 for a pint of milk wherever they went, that would be manifestly unfair. The fact is Lidl, Tesco, M&S, Sainsburys and the like sell their milk to anyone who wants it and can afford it. It's egalitarian (Marxists should love it) - no matter how much you earn, if you have the money for a pint of milk, it's the same price (roughly).
Taxation should be egalitarian too and in an ideal world would be but there's a valid recognition that those with more should contribute more and those with less should pay less and there's nothing wrong with that at all.
Everyone should benefit from their hard work. Those that have more should pay more. Income required to survive or live a modest decent life should be taxed more lightly than income received beyond that. Income received from an extracted rent (in the economic sense) should be taxed more highly than genuine wealth creation
This JRM thing is hilarious - the Conservatives need to win over the under 40s and gain seats in London. They need someone who appeals to those demographics not someone who makes the Conservative party base and the over 65s feel good.
Also re the last thread - if the Guardian criticising JRM means that the left 'fear him' then the right must fear Jeremy Corbyn, with all the criticism the right wing press have given him in recent months.
Taxation isn't about fairness, it's about raising revenue. The fairness comes in when government has considered the additional impact of spending.
The government could easily raise a lot of money by declaring a new 100% wealth tax on any Dukes of Westminster.
If fairness isn't a consideration - why wouldn't you do this?
Because that would strongly discourage wealth creation and property investment in Britain more widely, seeing capital flight by other property investors, destabilising the British economy.
Taxation isn't about fairness, it's about raising revenue. The fairness comes in when government has considered the additional impact of spending.
The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to procure the largest quantity of feathers with the least possible amount of hissing. - Colbert
Interesting article from Larry Elliot in today's Guardian on Financial Transaction Tax
It makes me think that maybe the way to increase the tax take (to pay for good public services, pay down the defict and continue to protect pensioners) is through new taxes rather than increasing existing ones. E.g. wealth tax, LVT, FTT.
It's quite probable that the EU will introduce some form of FTT after Brexit. This will give a real world comparison of how these taxes might work in practice.
I suspect that all the bankers in London (and New York, Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai etc.) will be licking their lips at the prospect of the EU doing it!
Mr. Stodge, 'get everything for free' is a funny way of describing getting to keep your own money, which you were taxed on when you earnt it, are taxed on when you spend it, and are taxed on when you save it. And when you die, of course.
The very wealthy are also a lot more mobile. Chase enough of them away and the slice of cake may be higher in percentage terms but the size of the cake has shrunk so much overall revenue is down.
Those with more already contribute more in both relative and absolute terms.
And things like 'wealth' taxes are just a great way of damaging an already low savings rate and harming those who earn little but have saved what they can (and you can be damned sure the very wealthy will be able to just shove their money in a less grasping country for saving purposes).
Ms. Apocalypse, not sure I agree. If the Conservatives hadn't simply scared the elderly with their demented (ahem) policies, they would've won a majority and probably quite a comfortable one.
Taxation isn't about fairness, it's about raising revenue. The fairness comes in when government has considered the additional impact of spending.
The government could easily raise a lot of money by declaring a new 100% wealth tax on any Dukes of Westminster.
If fairness isn't a consideration - why wouldn't you do this?
Because that would strongly discourage wealth creation and property investment in Britain more widely, seeing capital flight by other property investors, destabilising the British economy.
I'm not that convinced it would to be honest but maybe that's not the best example.
Fairness is important in taxation. A special tax on left-handed people or blind people might raise revenue but wouldn't be fair.
I am really struggling to see how the Herald got that from Ruth's excellent piece over the weekend about rebooting capitalism.
Doesn't mean the frustration with a government that seems paralysed is not true mind.
Seems somebody didn't get the recess message from No.10: go away and lie on the beach or walk the hills and stop causing trouble until September.
Theresa does not write to me nearly as often as Dave and George did. Even Boris has been somewhat infrequent of late. The Tory news/propaganda machine has almost been switched off since the election.
This JRM thing is hilarious - the Conservatives need to win over the under 40s and gain seats in London. They need someone who appeals to those demographics not someone who makes the Conservative party base and the over 65s feel good.
Also re the last thread - if the Guardian criticising JRM means that the left 'fear him' then the right must fear Jeremy Corbyn, with all the criticism the right wing press have given him in recent months.
I thought it was the young who were pushing the idea of JRMIPM? They like him and his social media efforts.
Taxation isn't about fairness, it's about raising revenue. The fairness comes in when government has considered the additional impact of spending.
The government could easily raise a lot of money by declaring a new 100% wealth tax on any Dukes of Westminster.
If fairness isn't a consideration - why wouldn't you do this?
Because that would strongly discourage wealth creation and property investment in Britain more widely, seeing capital flight by other property investors, destabilising the British economy.
I'm not that convinced it would to be honest but maybe that's not the best example.
Fairness is important in taxation. A special tax on left-handed people or blind people might raise revenue but wouldn't be fair.
Lack of arbitrariness is important in taxation. But that's not fairness.
Ms. Apocalypse, not sure I agree. If the Conservatives hadn't simply scared the elderly with their demented (ahem) policies, they would've won a majority and probably quite a comfortable one.
IIRC the Conservatives didn't lose much support during the GE - it was Labour gaining on them that messed things up.
Ms. Apocalypse, they lost support amongst the elderly. If it had held up, they'd have a majority.
Labour did gain significantly, but that shouldn't detract from the Conservative decline in support from the start of the campaign to the end (just going by averages, not the silly 25 point lead stuff).
Mr. Stodge, 'get everything for free' is a funny way of describing getting to keep your own money, which you were taxed on when you earnt it, are taxed on when you spend it, and are taxed on when you save it. And when you die, of course.
The very wealthy are also a lot more mobile. Chase enough of them away and the slice of cake may be higher in percentage terms but the size of the cake has shrunk so much overall revenue is down.
Those with more already contribute more in both relative and absolute terms.
And things like 'wealth' taxes are just a great way of damaging an already low savings rate and harming those who earn little but have saved what they can (and you can be damned sure the very wealthy will be able to just shove their money in a less grasping country for saving purposes).
Taxation is the price we pay for the existence and continuation of a reasonably ordered society. Whether it's the Police, nuclear missiles or having your children educated and your rubbish cleared, these "services" have to be paid for and whether you do it through general taxation or an individual contract with a refuse collector or a local warlord to provide you and your family protection, you'd still pay for it somehow.
The balance (actual and philosophical) between the State or the individual/family as provider is an interesting topic. In many societies, the elderly come back to live with and be cared for by their children in a far greater way than happens in the West as a result (I believe) of mobility.
It was fascinating to see a few contributors on here threatening to move their money offshore (and indeed themselves as well) if Corbyn became Prime Minister. As you say, the very wealthy have mobility and it seems their patriotism only extends as far as their wallets.
I still think those with more should contribute more and those with less should pay less.
I also think other factors affect "savings" - low interest rates and an economic culture based on consumption. Those who have property of course don't have to do anything as their asset value increase year on year outstrips inflation and it's a nest egg for the children too.
Everyone should benefit from their hard work. Those that have more should pay more. Income required to survive or live a modest decent life should be taxed more lightly than income received beyond that. Income received from an extracted rent (in the economic sense) should be taxed more highly than genuine wealth creation
I agree with all of those propositions but governments of all stripes have not followed the last one since Lawson abolished the Investment Income Surcharge on dividends in the mid 80s. Osborne's additional taxes on BTL is about as close as any government has come since.
This JRM thing is hilarious - the Conservatives need to win over the under 40s and gain seats in London. They need someone who appeals to those demographics not someone who makes the Conservative party base and the over 65s feel good.
Also re the last thread - if the Guardian criticising JRM means that the left 'fear him' then the right must fear Jeremy Corbyn, with all the criticism the right wing press have given him in recent months.
I thought it was the young who were pushing the idea of JRMIPM? They like him and his social media efforts.
I haven't seen many young people supporting JRM. I know of only two people around my age who like him, and they are quite right Ieaning/Conservative minded anyway - they voted Conservative in June, and also did so two years ago as well. If they want to make a difference re the 18 - 24 age group, I think they are going to need to make a dent in the 66% approx who voted for Corbyn.
The new SNP Westminster crew lack the sure touch of their predecessors:
SNP’s Ian Blackford under fire over donation from Tory donor
Mr Blackford came under fire from opponents who accused him of hypocrisy for taking money from Conservative donors while making comments attacking the Tories’ ‘Dickensian policies.’ Scottish Labour deputy leader Alex Rowley told The Times: “It is disappointing but no surprise to seeIan Blackford taking large donations from a Tory hedge fund manager.
Discussion of IMF's gloomy prediction of Brexit by Maurice Obstfeld followed by discussion with two economists. Professor Woods who is very pessimistic and Dr Gerrard Lyons who is a cheerleader.
This JRM thing is hilarious - the Conservatives need to win over the under 40s and gain seats in London. They need someone who appeals to those demographics not someone who makes the Conservative party base and the over 65s feel good.
Also re the last thread - if the Guardian criticising JRM means that the left 'fear him' then the right must fear Jeremy Corbyn, with all the criticism the right wing press have given him in recent months.
People dismissing Corbyn as Labour leader two years ago made the argument you make in your first paragraph as a warning against him
Everyone should benefit from their hard work. Those that have more should pay more. Income required to survive or live a modest decent life should be taxed more lightly than income received beyond that. Income received from an extracted rent (in the economic sense) should be taxed more highly than genuine wealth creation
I don't agree with a single one of those propositions as a general principle. You should be looking at the effect after spending, not before.
In practice, a workable taxation system will usually satisfy most of them.
This JRM thing is hilarious - the Conservatives need to win over the under 40s and gain seats in London. They need someone who appeals to those demographics not someone who makes the Conservative party base and the over 65s feel good.
Also re the last thread - if the Guardian criticising JRM means that the left 'fear him' then the right must fear Jeremy Corbyn, with all the criticism the right wing press have given him in recent months.
I thought it was the young who were pushing the idea of JRMIPM? They like him and his social media efforts.
I haven't seen many young people supporting JRM. I know of only two people around my age who like him, and they are quite right Ieaning/Conservative minded anyway - they voted Conservative in June, and also did so two years ago as well. If they want to make a difference re the 18 - 24 age group, I think they are going to need to make a dent in the 66% approx who voted for Corbyn.
Then they'll need to come up with startling policy ideas (see the Prospect article I linked earlier). Housing for a start.
Mr. Stodge, clearly, interest rates (and I've said repeatedly Carney was daft to cut them again) being so low adversely affect the saving rate. It's harder to save for a house deposit but easier to service a mortgage, again making things harder for first time buyers.
But the state thrusting its red hand into the bank and grabbing a fistful of savings isn't going to help matters either.
As for 'a few', London was the grateful recipient of many thousands of Frenchmen fleeing Hollande's exciting new taxation policies. They preferred the lower rate of the rosbifs. Of course, the same could happen in reverse if we ended up with Comrade Corbyn in charge.
Ms. Apocalypse, they lost support amongst the elderly. If it had held up, they'd have a majority.
Labour did gain significantly, but that shouldn't detract from the Conservative decline in support from the start of the campaign to the end (just going by averages, not the silly 25 point lead stuff).
Depends where the votes were tbh - if they were concentrated in safe seats, it wouldn't have made much of a difference. Although I recall reading that turnout among the elderly declined somewhat, I can't recall seeing information that suggest that the Conservatives lost such a significant amount of support from 65+s that it would have given them a majority.
IIRC, on here there was hardly any discussion of a Conservative decline - it was all about the Labour surge.
Ms. Apocalypse, they lost support amongst the elderly. If it had held up, they'd have a majority.
Labour did gain significantly, but that shouldn't detract from the Conservative decline in support from the start of the campaign to the end (just going by averages, not the silly 25 point lead stuff).
Depends where the votes were tbh - if they were concentrated in safe seats, it wouldn't have made much of a difference. Although I recall reading that turnout among the elderly declined somewhat, I can't recall seeing information that suggest that the Conservatives lost such a significant amount of support from 65+s that it would have given them a majority.
IIRC, on here there was hardly any discussion of a Conservative decline - it was all about the Labour surge.
With hindsight the real disaster for the Tories was a Lib Dem campaign that made their own look good. It was the concentration of the anti Tory vote with Labour that cost them their majority. May got significantly more votes than Cameron (thanks to the collapse of UKIP) but in a two party system the gap was not enough.
Everyone should benefit from their hard work. Those that have more should pay more. Income required to survive or live a modest decent life should be taxed more lightly than income received beyond that. Income received from an extracted rent (in the economic sense) should be taxed more highly than genuine wealth creation
@AlastairMeeks: I don't agree with a single one of those propositions as a general principle. You should be looking at the effect after spending, not before.
In practice, a workable taxation system will usually satisfy most of them.
I agree with you (if I understand correctly) that we should first decide what needs to be spent and then decide how to raise the money. But given there will always be a requirement for taxation, why shouldn't those principles apply from the first?
There are many workable forms of taxation that aren't progressive. We have quite a few in the UK - Council Tax, unearned income, VAT, National Insurance.
This JRM thing is hilarious - the Conservatives need to win over the under 40s and gain seats in London. They need someone who appeals to those demographics not someone who makes the Conservative party base and the over 65s feel good.
Also re the last thread - if the Guardian criticising JRM means that the left 'fear him' then the right must fear Jeremy Corbyn, with all the criticism the right wing press have given him in recent months.
People dismissing Corbyn as Labour leader two years ago made the argument you make in your first paragraph as a warning against him
I'd disagree. Lots of people thought that Corbyn's voters wouldn't turn out - that's a different argument in regard to winning certain groups over. Instead, Corbyn successfully mobilised young voters and non voters out to the polls. But it should also be said that JRM and Corbyn are coming from two different situations anyway. The expectations for Corbyn were so low that making some ground against the worst GE campaign in recent British political history was seen as a great success. If he were to become Conservative leader JRM's task would be to secure an overall majority - a far greater set of expectations than those faced by Corbyn.
This JRM thing is hilarious - the Conservatives need to win over the under 40s and gain seats in London. They need someone who appeals to those demographics not someone who makes the Conservative party base and the over 65s feel good.
Also re the last thread - if the Guardian criticising JRM means that the left 'fear him' then the right must fear Jeremy Corbyn, with all the criticism the right wing press have given him in recent months.
People dismissing Corbyn as Labour leader two years ago made the argument you make in your first paragraph as a warning against him
JRM would be an interesting choice, whereas many of the others come under the heading of "same old gang". His appeal would be a bit similar to Douglas-Home (who nearly won in difficult circumstances), though Alec was more of a "natural gentleman" while JRM clearly lays on the fogey thing deliberately. People seem keen on distinctive characters of any kind - Corbyn benefits from that, Boris did well for a long time, and even Galloway had his fans for a while.
Mr. Stodge, clearly, interest rates (and I've said repeatedly Carney was daft to cut them again) being so low adversely affect the saving rate. It's harder to save for a house deposit but easier to service a mortgage, again making things harder for first time buyers.
But the state thrusting its red hand into the bank and grabbing a fistful of savings isn't going to help matters either.
As for 'a few', London was the grateful recipient of many thousands of Frenchmen fleeing Hollande's exciting new taxation policies. They preferred the lower rate of the rosbifs. Of course, the same could happen in reverse if we ended up with Comrade Corbyn in charge.
Indeed and one of the benefits of low interest rates should have been people clearing down their mortgage debt. Mrs Stodge and I paid ours off then re-borrowed £50k at 0.75% to renovate the house and paid that off as well. I can but hope others have done the same - I know several Councils who have borrowed at very low rates to fund Investment Property portfolios off whose income they will try to live with some very nice rental yields.
I've never been a fan of QE and regard it as a gross error - the markets are now effectively addicts and the re-instating of normal monetary policy will be painful and rather like re-valuation of Council Tax bands, nobody wants to do it.
I'm not saying the "wallet patriotism" is purely a British thing at all - I merely allude to the hypocrisy of those who excoriate the "left" for being unpatriotic but then threaten to take themselves and "their" money out of the country if a "left" Government is elected.
I am really struggling to see how the Herald got that from Ruth's excellent piece over the weekend about rebooting capitalism.
Doesn't mean the frustration with a government that seems paralysed is not true mind.
Seems somebody didn't get the recess message from No.10: go away and lie on the beach or walk the hills and stop causing trouble until September.
Theresa does not write to me nearly as often as Dave and George did. Even Boris has been somewhat infrequent of late. The Tory news/propaganda machine has almost been switched off since the election.
That's a very good point. They've pretty much forgotten about me even though I renewed last year. Dave's party communication team were very good, although to be fair they did have a decade's experience of it.
Ms. Apocalypse, they lost support amongst the elderly. If it had held up, they'd have a majority.
Labour did gain significantly, but that shouldn't detract from the Conservative decline in support from the start of the campaign to the end (just going by averages, not the silly 25 point lead stuff).
Depends where the votes were tbh - if they were concentrated in safe seats, it wouldn't have made much of a difference. Although I recall reading that turnout among the elderly declined somewhat, I can't recall seeing information that suggest that the Conservatives lost such a significant amount of support from 65+s that it would have given them a majority.
IIRC, on here there was hardly any discussion of a Conservative decline - it was all about the Labour surge.
With hindsight the real disaster for the Tories was a Lib Dem campaign that made their own look good. It was the concentration of the anti Tory vote with Labour that cost them their majority. May got significantly more votes than Cameron (thanks to the collapse of UKIP) but in a two party system the gap was not enough.
+1. I think with a candidate like JRM there's a danger that that happens again. The fox hunting and grammar schools style polices are unlikely to go with him as leader.
Everyone should benefit from their hard work. Those that have more should pay more. Income required to survive or live a modest decent life should be taxed more lightly than income received beyond that. Income received from an extracted rent (in the economic sense) should be taxed more highly than genuine wealth creation
@AlastairMeeks: I don't agree with a single one of those propositions as a general principle. You should be looking at the effect after spending, not before.
In practice, a workable taxation system will usually satisfy most of them.
I agree with you (if I understand correctly) that we should first decide what needs to be spent and then decide how to raise the money. But given there will always be a requirement for taxation, why shouldn't those principles apply from the first?
There are many workable forms of taxation that aren't progressive. We have quite a few in the UK - Council Tax, unearned income, VAT, National Insurance.
And the most regressive of them all, the TV licence fee.
This JRM thing is hilarious - the Conservatives need to win over the under 40s and gain seats in London. They need someone who appeals to those demographics not someone who makes the Conservative party base and the over 65s feel good.
Also re the last thread - if the Guardian criticising JRM means that the left 'fear him' then the right must fear Jeremy Corbyn, with all the criticism the right wing press have given him in recent months.
People dismissing Corbyn as Labour leader two years ago made the argument you make in your first paragraph as a warning against him
I'd disagree. Lots of people thought that Corbyn's voters wouldn't turn out - that's a different argument in regard to winning certain groups over. Instead, Corbyn successfully mobilised young voters and non voters out to the polls. But it should also be said that JRM and Corbyn are coming from two different situations anyway. The expectations for Corbyn were so low that making some ground against the worst GE campaign in recent British political history was seen as a great success. If he were to become Conservative leader JRM's task would be to secure an overall majority - a far greater set of expectations than those faced by Corbyn.
Thought you might! But you're wrong
People were saying Labour could be dead as a party under Corbyn, that he would only appeal to hard left types, & that a centrist was required. It wasn't that they thought his supporters wouldn't turn out, it's that they thought he wouldnt appeal to the mainstream. They tried to out him because of this. They were wrong, & you are... misremembering perhaps
Everyone should benefit from their hard work. Those that have more should pay more. Income required to survive or live a modest decent life should be taxed more lightly than income received beyond that. Income received from an extracted rent (in the economic sense) should be taxed more highly than genuine wealth creation
@AlastairMeeks: I don't agree with a single one of those propositions as a general principle. You should be looking at the effect after spending, not before.
In practice, a workable taxation system will usually satisfy most of them.
I agree with you (if I understand correctly) that we should first decide what needs to be spent and then decide how to raise the money. But given there will always be a requirement for taxation, why shouldn't those principles apply from the first?
There are many workable forms of taxation that aren't progressive. We have quite a few in the UK - Council Tax, unearned income, VAT, National Insurance.
The difference is most stark between pensioners on non employment income, and new graduates around the ~ 50k mark I think (Both very realistic scenarios)
Take home difference between someone of the age of 70 receiving investment income of say ~ £50,000 a year Total tax: £8199.40
And a new graduate on a salary of £45,000 a year (Which costs their employer ~ £50k) Total tax: £18364.52 (The type II student debt will still be going up even after repayment due to the formula, so this is basically a tax !)
The next women's cricket World Cup could be won by a team of current top club players in the men's game who convert to being women? Would undermine yesterday's achievement somewhat
If gender is now a matter of self certification, what's to stop males saying they're female and playing women's sporting competitions?
Can we do away with half of the world record times and just have it as whichever human has ran the quickest rather than dividing it by sex?
It'll still be Usain Bolt!
A good pub quiz question: The fastest (average speed) human running race at the Olympics is run over what distance?
I'm sure if we stopped separating world records by gender there'd soon be a movement to divide them again when the worlds best women were no longer qualifying for sporting events
If gender is now a matter of self certification, what's to stop males saying they're female and playing women's sporting competitions?
Can we do away with half of the world record times and just have it as whichever human has ran the quickest rather than dividing it by sex?
It'll still be Usain Bolt!
A good pub quiz question: The fastest (average speed) human running race at the Olympics is run over what distance?
200m.
Generally Men's competition should be rejigged to "open" whereas female competition is the one that needs restrcitions. I think M -> F transgender needs alot more rules for the individual than say F-> M boxer Pat Manuel (Who to my mind should certainly be only able to compete against men (As is his wish)).
Everyone should benefit from their hard work. Those that have more should pay more. Income required to survive or live a modest decent life should be taxed more lightly than income received beyond that. Income received from an extracted rent (in the economic sense) should be taxed more highly than genuine wealth creation
I don't agree with a single one of those propositions as a general principle. You should be looking at the effect after spending, not before.
In practice, a workable taxation system will usually satisfy most of them.
You don't agree with any of these proporsitions?!? Did you mean "I don't disagree"?
F1: possible the Sauber-Honda deal may be on after all. Also, Kubica's doing another test for Renault.
I'd really love to see Kubica back in F1. He was a potential world champion before he got injured.
After this year's Race of Champions injury for Wherlein, I don't think any F1 boss is going to let their current drivers drive anything else in future. Sad.
Some mentioned Corbyn only appealing to hard left types, but it was acknowledged at the very start he had significant support from young people - it's just that many thought that they wouldn't turn out. Likewise, the non voter strategy was also spoken about well before the GE by Corbyn supporters and many also thought that they couldn't be relied upon because they were a traditionally unreliable voting base. I saw the non voter strategy touched upon by Corbynistas on videos discussing Corbyn's leadership some time ago on YouTube as well. He was trying to by pass the traditional media via social media from the get go, but a lot of people at the time thought that he was only speaking to those who already supported him, or who wouldn't turn out anyway.
There wasn't a clear consensus even at that time that a centrist would solve Labour's problems either. Many were hugely critical of the field of Labour candidates two years ago, and found the centrists utterly uninspiring. A few initially praised Liz Kendall but criticism of her as well as Yvette Cooper popped up as the campaign gradually went on. One of the biggest criticisms aimed at the centrists from all quarters was that none of them appeared to stand for anything. I wanted Yvette to win in the end because she was the best of a very bad bunch though.
Which, much as your Betfair account likes it, is not really the best use of scarce public funds when the government's books have a £50bn hole in them! Likewise, my parents spent theirs on a winter holiday last year.
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.
No doubt true but which Conservative or Labour (or indeed LD) politician is going to have the courage to stand up and say that ? I agree the WFA is a waste of money and needs to be better targeted at those pensioners who actually need it but in political terms what would be the effect of saying that ?
The election really killed off the idea that a party could be honest wbout hard choices.
The next women's cricket World Cup could be won by a team of current top club players in the men's game who convert to being women? Would undermine yesterday's achievement somewhat
Not really because a team of cricketers isn't going to change their gender identity to win a lesser prize.
Nobody is going to transition for sporting success. Would you do it for a woman's US Open tennis title? You only have to see the small minded transphobia on here to see how incredibly difficult it is.
Some mentioned Corbyn only appealing to hard left types, but it was acknowledged at the very start he had significant support from young people - it's just that many thought that they wouldn't turn out. Likewise, the non voter strategy was also spoken about well before the GE by Corbyn supporters and many also thought that they couldn't be relied upon because they were a traditionally unreliable voting base. I saw the non voter strategy touched upon by Corbynistas on videos discussing Corbyn's leadership some time ago on YouTube as well. He was trying to by pass the traditional media via social media from the get go, but a lot of people at the time thought that he was only speaking to those who already supported him, or who wouldn't turn out anyway.
There wasn't a clear consensus even at that time that a centrist would solve Labour's problems either. Many were hugely critical of the field of Labour candidates two years ago, and found the centrists utterly uninspiring. A few initially praised Liz Kendall but criticism of her as well as Yvette Cooper popped up as the campaign gradually went on. One of the biggest criticisms aimed at the centrists from all quarters was that none of them appeared to stand for anything. I wanted Yvette to win because she was the best of a very bad bunch though.
People who cautioned against electing Corbyn leader weren't motivated to do so because they thought his supporters wouldn't turn out, they were motivated by the belief he wouldnt attract, or more likely would repel, moderate voters
With hindsight the real disaster for the Tories was a Lib Dem campaign that made their own look good. It was the concentration of the anti Tory vote with Labour that cost them their majority. May got significantly more votes than Cameron (thanks to the collapse of UKIP) but in a two party system the gap was not enough.
Curiously, at the time everyone was saying how bad the LD campaign was. Nationally, there was some truth in that but there were some very well-run local campaigns which were able to overturn MPs elected in 2015 but who had presumably failed to build the much-needed incumbency bonus and were facing off (in most cases) against either former MPs or established local campaigners.
Of the 8 LD gains, 6 were in seats won in 1997 (the exceptions being Eastbourne which the party only held from 2010-15 and East Dumbartonshire, which was won in the 2006 by-election). Even though the seats had been lost in 2015, it appears the local organisations had survived the Coalition years better than in other seats won in the good times.
Everyone should benefit from their hard work. Those that have more should pay more. Income required to survive or live a modest decent life should be taxed more lightly than income received beyond that. Income received from an extracted rent (in the economic sense) should be taxed more highly than genuine wealth creation
I don't agree with a single one of those propositions as a general principle. You should be looking at the effect after spending, not before.
In practice, a workable taxation system will usually satisfy most of them.
You don't agree with any of these proporsitions?!? Did you mean "I don't disagree"?
No, I don't agree with any of those propositions for judging a taxation system.
The next women's cricket World Cup could be won by a team of current top club players in the men's game who convert to being women? Would undermine yesterday's achievement somewhat
Not really because a team of cricketers isn't going to change their gender identity to win a lesser prize.
Nobody is going to transition for sporting success. Would you do it for a woman's US Open tennis title? You only have to see the small minded transphobia on here to see how incredibly difficult it is.
They don't have to do anything but say they identify as a woman.
A male club first XI would win the women's World Cup if they entered it, so it wouldn't be a lesser prize
Some mentioned Corbyn only appealing to hard left types, but it was acknowledged at the very start he had significant support from young people - it's just that many thought that they wouldn't turn out. Likewise, the non voter strategy was also spoken about well before the GE by Corbyn supporters and many also thought that they couldn't be relied upon because they were a traditionally unreliable voting base. I saw the non voter strategy touched upon by Corbynistas on videos discussing Corbyn's leadership some time ago on YouTube as well. He was trying to by pass the traditional media via social media from the get go, but a lot of people at the time thought that he was only speaking to those who already supported him, or who wouldn't turn out anyway.
There wasn't a clear consensus even at that time that a centrist would solve Labour's problems either. Many were hugely critical of the field of Labour candidates two years ago, and found the centrists utterly uninspiring. A few initially praised Liz Kendall but criticism of her as well as Yvette Cooper popped up as the campaign gradually went on. One of the biggest criticisms aimed at the centrists from all quarters was that none of them appeared to stand for anything. I wanted Yvette to win because she was the best of a very bad bunch though.
People who cautioned against electing Corbyn leader weren't motivated to do so because they thought his supporters wouldn't turn out, they were motivated by the belief he wouldnt attract, or more likely would repel, moderate voters
I've just addressed that point in the post you quote. People were concerned that Corbyn was going for demographics that weren't going to be reliable - Corbynistas were never interested in moderate swing voters, they saw them as Tories and thought they could by pass them and still win a majority. I'd also say that Corbyn in the end didn't really attract many moderate voters either - it was the anti Tory vote plus non voters that he really harnessed very well, more so than winning over moderates if we want to go down that road.
Comments
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/was-8th-june-the-revenge-of-the-millennials
Labour share the blame here too due to some fairly shallow opportunism on these topics during the campaign.
But why do you think it would be such bad politics?
Couldn't it be part of some grand new bargain... we will lower income taxes and increase taxes on capital? It would surely have more winners than losers?
Equalising income tax and capital gains for instance seems eminently sensible.
But couldn't it be popular too?
Rather like the discussion around social care policy in the manifesto, what's clear is that there's lots of issues that need urgently addressing but are politically almost impossible to do. Planning is another area in need of major reform, we need to build houses, railways and airports.
"The policy should have been thought through better"... in fairness to the Tories they did rather spring the election upon themselves!
I make little comment on the Tories' election campaign. Let's just agree it could have been better. As you noted above it may (sic) have the unintended consequence of making certain subjects taboo politically in the future.
In due course, more tax is going to have to be raised further down the income brackets. The tax base is getting dangerously narrow.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/23/while-hammond-looks-for-a-magic-money-tree-labour-has-found-one
It makes me think that maybe the way to increase the tax take (to pay for good public services, pay down the defict and continue to protect pensioners) is through new taxes rather than increasing existing ones. E.g. wealth tax, LVT, FTT.
You could have some exceptions if you think people setting up businesses is such a big positive to the economy.
Personally I'm a little suspicious of the current obsession with entrepreneurs (why should we privilege people investing in their own business over those investing in other businesses so much?) but I don't feel that strongly about it.
He was very ill, got good care, and is recovering.
My grandmother had a heart attack/coronary event about a year ago and has surprised doctors with how well she has recovered. She's sticking to the diet restrictions very religiously which I suspect is a big factor.
https://twitter.com/heraldscotland/status/889364523722911744
Those on higher tax rates would pay more and those under the personal allowance would pay nothing. Depending how you structured it, this could be a progressive revenue generating based on property values and ability to pay.
If fairness isn't a consideration - why wouldn't you do this?
The cause is believed to be genetic. Which is a cheerful thought.
I don't think anyone is citing "puritanical punishment" but notions of fairness are valid as is the notion we are all part of the same society and must make a fair and reasonable contribution toward its preservation and development.
Getting away from the notion of taxation as a "punishment" would be a good start - what do you expect ? If you're good, you get everything for free ?
I also question the "look much they pay" mantra. Yes, wealthy people pay more tax but they have more to start with and more to finish with and on the other side we all pay the same (roughly) for a pint of milk, a loaf of bread, a gallon of petrol, a holiday or a house by which I mean the differentiation is only what you can afford not what you can get.
If wealthy people were charged £10 for a pint of milk wherever they went, that would be manifestly unfair. The fact is Lidl, Tesco, M&S, Sainsburys and the like sell their milk to anyone who wants it and can afford it. It's egalitarian (Marxists should love it) - no matter how much you earn, if you have the money for a pint of milk, it's the same price (roughly).
Taxation should be egalitarian too and in an ideal world would be but there's a valid recognition that those with more should contribute more and those with less should pay less and there's nothing wrong with that at all.
Wings Over Scotland increases defamation claim against Kezia Dugdale to £25,000
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15428282.Wings_Over_Scotland_increases_defamation_claim_against_Kezia_Dugdale_to___25_000/?ref=mrb&lp=3
Everyone should benefit from their hard work.
Those that have more should pay more.
Income required to survive or live a modest decent life should be taxed more lightly than income received beyond that.
Income received from an extracted rent (in the economic sense) should be taxed more highly than genuine wealth creation
Doesn't mean the frustration with a government that seems paralysed is not true mind.
Also re the last thread - if the Guardian criticising JRM means that the left 'fear him' then the right must fear Jeremy Corbyn, with all the criticism the right wing press have given him in recent months.
I suspect that all the bankers in London (and New York, Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai etc.) will be licking their lips at the prospect of the EU doing it!
The very wealthy are also a lot more mobile. Chase enough of them away and the slice of cake may be higher in percentage terms but the size of the cake has shrunk so much overall revenue is down.
Those with more already contribute more in both relative and absolute terms.
And things like 'wealth' taxes are just a great way of damaging an already low savings rate and harming those who earn little but have saved what they can (and you can be damned sure the very wealthy will be able to just shove their money in a less grasping country for saving purposes).
Fairness is important in taxation.
A special tax on left-handed people or blind people might raise revenue but wouldn't be fair.
Labour did gain significantly, but that shouldn't detract from the Conservative decline in support from the start of the campaign to the end (just going by averages, not the silly 25 point lead stuff).
The balance (actual and philosophical) between the State or the individual/family as provider is an interesting topic. In many societies, the elderly come back to live with and be cared for by their children in a far greater way than happens in the West as a result (I believe) of mobility.
It was fascinating to see a few contributors on here threatening to move their money offshore (and indeed themselves as well) if Corbyn became Prime Minister. As you say, the very wealthy have mobility and it seems their patriotism only extends as far as their wallets.
I still think those with more should contribute more and those with less should pay less.
I also think other factors affect "savings" - low interest rates and an economic culture based on consumption. Those who have property of course don't have to do anything as their asset value increase year on year outstrips inflation and it's a nest egg for the children too.
SNP’s Ian Blackford under fire over donation from Tory donor
Mr Blackford came under fire from opponents who accused him of hypocrisy for taking money from Conservative donors while making comments attacking the Tories’ ‘Dickensian policies.’ Scottish Labour deputy leader Alex Rowley told The Times: “It is disappointing but no surprise to seeIan Blackford taking large donations from a Tory hedge fund manager.
Read more at: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-s-ian-blackford-under-fire-over-donation-from-tory-donor-1-4512314
Starting at 2.09
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08ylr7p#play
In practice, a workable taxation system will usually satisfy most of them.
Jean-Baptiste Colbert, one of the more successful French Finance Ministers (1665 to 1683)
Nothing has changed since.
But the state thrusting its red hand into the bank and grabbing a fistful of savings isn't going to help matters either.
As for 'a few', London was the grateful recipient of many thousands of Frenchmen fleeing Hollande's exciting new taxation policies. They preferred the lower rate of the rosbifs. Of course, the same could happen in reverse if we ended up with Comrade Corbyn in charge.
IIRC, on here there was hardly any discussion of a Conservative decline - it was all about the Labour surge.
Can we do away with half of the world record times and just have it as whichever human has ran the quickest rather than dividing it by sex?
There are many workable forms of taxation that aren't progressive. We have quite a few in the UK - Council Tax, unearned income, VAT, National Insurance.
I've never been a fan of QE and regard it as a gross error - the markets are now effectively addicts and the re-instating of normal monetary policy will be painful and rather like re-valuation of Council Tax bands, nobody wants to do it.
I'm not saying the "wallet patriotism" is purely a British thing at all - I merely allude to the hypocrisy of those who excoriate the "left" for being unpatriotic but then threaten to take themselves and "their" money out of the country if a "left" Government is elected.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/22/transgender-cyclist-places-first-among-women-arizo/
People were saying Labour could be dead as a party under Corbyn, that he would only appeal to hard left types, & that a centrist was required. It wasn't that they thought his supporters wouldn't turn out, it's that they thought he wouldnt appeal to the mainstream. They tried to out him because of this. They were wrong, & you are... misremembering perhaps
A good pub quiz question: The fastest (average speed) human running race at the Olympics is run over what distance?
Take home difference between someone of the age of 70 receiving investment income of say ~ £50,000 a year
Total tax: £8199.40
And a new graduate on a salary of £45,000 a year (Which costs their employer ~ £50k)
Total tax: £18364.52 (The type II student debt will still be going up even after repayment due to the formula, so this is basically a tax !)
Generally Men's competition should be rejigged to "open" whereas female competition is the one that needs restrcitions.
I think M -> F transgender needs alot more rules for the individual than say F-> M boxer Pat Manuel (Who to my mind should certainly be only able to compete against men (As is his wish)).
After this year's Race of Champions injury for Wherlein, I don't think any F1 boss is going to let their current drivers drive anything else in future. Sad.
Some mentioned Corbyn only appealing to hard left types, but it was acknowledged at the very start he had significant support from young people - it's just that many thought that they wouldn't turn out. Likewise, the non voter strategy was also spoken about well before the GE by Corbyn supporters and many also thought that they couldn't be relied upon because they were a traditionally unreliable voting base. I saw the non voter strategy touched upon by Corbynistas on videos discussing Corbyn's leadership some time ago on YouTube as well. He was trying to by pass the traditional media via social media from the get go, but a lot of people at the time thought that he was only speaking to those who already supported him, or who wouldn't turn out anyway.
There wasn't a clear consensus even at that time that a centrist would solve Labour's problems either. Many were hugely critical of the field of Labour candidates two years ago, and found the centrists utterly uninspiring. A few initially praised Liz Kendall but criticism of her as well as Yvette Cooper popped up as the campaign gradually went on. One of the biggest criticisms aimed at the centrists from all quarters was that none of them appeared to stand for anything. I wanted Yvette to win in the end because she was the best of a very bad bunch though.
Nobody is going to transition for sporting success. Would you do it for a woman's US Open tennis title? You only have to see the small minded transphobia on here to see how incredibly difficult it is.
For a while the 200m was run faster than the 100m, but the 4x100m relay has always been the fastest race.
9.58, 19.19 (9.595) and 36.84 (9.21) are the Current WR times for the three races. (100m averages in brackets)
Of the 8 LD gains, 6 were in seats won in 1997 (the exceptions being Eastbourne which the party only held from 2010-15 and East Dumbartonshire, which was won in the 2006 by-election). Even though the seats had been lost in 2015, it appears the local organisations had survived the Coalition years better than in other seats won in the good times.
A male club first XI would win the women's World Cup if they entered it, so it wouldn't be a lesser prize