Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Boris Johnson hopes to win Labour seats at the general elec

13

Comments

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    HYUFD said:

    Boris is a Berlusconi style populist, tax cuts and more spending cake for all.

    This is astute.

    Boris is Boris - he's unique - but in politics Berlusconi is the closest precedent. Certainly not Trump or Salvini or Le Pen.

    In non politics, for me, it has to be Eddie Murphy.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    OK PEEBS

    I am rationing my political commentary, from now on. I have male modelling to do. And a gender to swap. And a life to lead

    Night night
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,342
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    kle4 said:

    Byronic said:

    Drutt said:

    TSE, I've looked at the Opinium tables (v006 and v006(2)) and they say Boris is +36/-41 for net -5, and Corbyn is +19/-58 for net -39.

    Your bars are the wrong way round.

    Nope, you're looking at current Labour voters, I'm looking at people who voted Labour in 2017
    Well then that's ludicrous, as Labour's vote in 2017 was stuffed with angry passionate Remainers who will now decamp to Swinson.
    Even in places where doing so will let a no deal Tory through the middle? I don't believe it.
    You've clearly missed the Labour conference pledges in store for us. Abolish all private schools, hike all taxes, destroy the City, expropriate shares, seize white farms, nationalise pillows, make us all cross dress on Thursdays out of solidarity with bi-curious poets.

    It will not be popular in Surrey. I can see lots of Remainers, intending to vote Labour or Lib Dem, looking at that list, and thinking.... ok, that's worse than No Deal.

    Don't forget this week Labour announced it wanted to reverse anti strike laws too
    Piffle. If he reverses them slightly we'd end up in a similar position to where France or Germany have been for many years. Or we'd be where the UK would have been before 1979 if Wilson and Castle had carried on at the top of govt and Callaghan hadn't taken over.
    Germany has few strikes and unions more willing to negotiate, France is always on strike hence Macron's labour reforms
    Workers have places on boards in Germany. The whole attitude is different. A strike would be seen as a failure on all sides.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    edited September 2019
    nico67 said:

    Apparently a key issue that came up in the Scottish Court was the government couldn’t supply a single sworn affidavit in terms of witness statement as to the motivations for the suspension of Parliament .

    One wonders why . How much this impacts the SC next week we’ll find out in due course.



    I wonder if the Governmental reply from the parliamentary petition website against proroguing parliament will make it to the Supreme Court case about suspending parliament. It clearly states in that reply that the proroguing was about ensuring leaving the EU on 31st October 2019. Surely the Boomerang as weapon of choice from BJ and his Government is going to be a knock out this time. :wink:
  • RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,342

    RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
    No surprise she never saw you again then :)
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428

    RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
    That is meaningless as voting patterns would likely be very different under a different system.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,279
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    kle4 said:

    Byronic said:

    Drutt said:

    TSE, I've looked at the Opinium tables (v006 and v006(2)) and they say Boris is +36/-41 for net -5, and Corbyn is +19/-58 for net -39.

    Your bars are the wrong way round.

    Nope, you're looking at current Labour voters, I'm looking at people who voted Labour in 2017
    Well then that's ludicrous, as Labour's vote in 2017 was stuffed with angry passionate Remainers who will now decamp to Swinson.
    Even in places where doing so will let a no deal Tory through the middle? I don't believe it.
    You've clearly missed the Labour conference pledges in store for us. Abolish all private schools, hike all taxes, destroy the City, expropriate shares, seize white farms, nationalise pillows, make us all cross dress on Thursdays out of solidarity with bi-curious poets.

    It will not be popular in Surrey. I can see lots of Remainers, intending to vote Labour or Lib Dem, looking at that list, and thinking.... ok, that's worse than No Deal.

    Don't forget this week Labour announced it wanted to reverse anti strike laws too
    Piffle. If he reverses them slightly we'd end up in a similar position to where France or Germany have been for many years. Or we'd be where the UK would have been before 1979 if Wilson and Castle had carried on at the top of govt and Callaghan hadn't taken over.
    Germany has few strikes and unions more willing to negotiate, France is always on strike hence Macron's labour reforms
    Workers have places on boards in Germany. The whole attitude is different. A strike would be seen as a failure on all sides.
    Something May also wanted here
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Roger said:

    Emily Maitlis is much the most entertaining political interviewer and in my opinion the best

    Can't disagree with that.
  • RH1992RH1992 Posts: 788

    RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
    Dave was wrong about FPTP delivering a decisive decision then, although I do wonder the effect it would have had on 2017.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    Byronic said:

    Satire. Dude. Satire. It's only a two syllable word.

    I was joking, equally, about the threat to "nationalise pillows"

    Read oddly within the satire. To me it did anyway. Probably others won't notice. I'm hyper perceptive. Blessing and a curse.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    I was away with work today in a heavily Leaver part of the country. I stopped in a working class cafe and full of people who voted Leave and they're all in favour of Remain now. As I was about to go all the customers broke into a spontaneous rendition of Ode To Joy, and an EU flag was suddenly produced. I was about to remonstrate with them to point out there was a referendum but then Boris appeared on the tv and the whole place erupted with booing.
  • RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
    That is meaningless as voting patterns would likely be very different under a different system.
    They used a sample of 40,000 and asked them to imagine voting under different voting systems at GE2015

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/publications/the-2015-general-election-report/#sub-section-20
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428
    Noo said:

    I was away with work today in a heavily Leaver part of the country. I stopped in a working class cafe and full of people who voted Leave and they're all in favour of Remain now. As I was about to go all the customers broke into a spontaneous rendition of Ode To Joy, and an EU flag was suddenly produced. I was about to remonstrate with them to point out there was a referendum but then Boris appeared on the tv and the whole place erupted with booing.

    I can relate. 👏
  • dixiedean said:

    RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
    No surprise she never saw you again then :)
    Harsh but fair.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Noo said:

    I was away with work today in a heavily Leaver part of the country. I stopped in a working class cafe and full of people who voted Leave and they're all in favour of Remain now. As I was about to go all the customers broke into a spontaneous rendition of Ode To Joy, and an EU flag was suddenly produced. I was about to remonstrate with them to point out there was a referendum but then Boris appeared on the tv and the whole place erupted with booing.

    LOL
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,121
    This is why the Con strategy surely has to be to seek to take votes off BXP. The centre ground isn't so fertile and it's surely easier to convert a BXP to CON than it is an LD or LAB voter.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,586
    Noo said:

    I was away with work today in a heavily Leaver part of the country. I stopped in a working class cafe and full of people who voted Leave and they're all in favour of Remain now. As I was about to go all the customers broke into a spontaneous rendition of Ode To Joy, and an EU flag was suddenly produced. I was about to remonstrate with them to point out there was a referendum but then Boris appeared on the tv and the whole place erupted with booing.

    Lol - very good!
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428

    RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
    That is meaningless as voting patterns would likely be very different under a different system.
    They used a sample of 40,000 and asked them to imagine voting under different voting systems at GE2015

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/publications/the-2015-general-election-report/#sub-section-20
    Yeah but come on. Its all hypothetical until its not. For example under a party list system you’d certainly see the Labour party split in two. Probably the Tories as well.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Drutt said:

    This is why the Con strategy surely has to be to seek to take votes off BXP. The centre ground isn't so fertile and it's surely easier to convert a BXP to CON than it is an LD or LAB voter.
    The central thrust if undelivered will be 'only we will deliver it'
    If delivered in any form Brexit party will poll a pitifully small %
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    edited September 2019

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Traditional Labour voters are not going to back the Tories in safe seats in great enough numbers for it to work. Why would a poorer than average person back a political party led by people of privileged background who think tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the poor are a priority.



    The Tory strategy is mad as it means sacrificing circa 35 seats to LD & SNP. If the Tories do nothing in those write-offs theoretically the Tories could target 70 Labour seats but targeting a seat does not necessarily mean you are in with a chance of winning it. Sometimes increased activity by a hated political party can be counter productive to their chances. Tory targeting will also be curtailed by their diminishing membership whilst Labour , LD and SNP will have a motivated group of canvasses and leaflet delivery operatives.

    Most of the top 50 Tory target seats held by Labour were won by Thatcher, Major or Cameron they are not safe Labour seats but marginals like Lincoln, Vale of Clwyd, High Peak and Keighley and Canterbury.

    Cummings policy of tax cuts for all and more money for the NHS etc as well as delivering Brexit is the only way the Tories will win a majority, they are going to lose seats to the LDs and SNP regardless, as will Corbyn Labour.

    No such thing as tax cuts for all plus more money for the NHS. The money has to come from somewhere. I thought a Conservative would understand that.
    Never heard of the Laffer curve?

    Boris is a Berlusconi style populist, tax cuts and more spending cake for all.

    He will run a campaign precisely the opposite of May's dour tax rises and spending cuts for all campaign in 2017
    Having heard of the Laffer Curve isn’t quite the same as having any idea where on the curve we might be located. Surely you should know that?
    Laffer would say that marginal rates of tax in the UK are close to the level where they are inefficient and tax takes will start to (or already have) declined.

    Stamp duty is a case in point.
    Is that what Laffer would say? As I understand it he simply conjectured that the relationship between tax rate and tax take would be roughly hump shaped when plotted between no tax and 100% tax. He did this in conversation over dinner and sketched it on a napkin. I think it would be fair to say that most of us would come up with the same answer if asked the question even if we had never heard of Laffer. And it provides absolutely no guidance on the wisdom of tax policy beyond that which is available from common sense.
  • RH1992 said:

    RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
    Dave was wrong about FPTP delivering a decisive decision then, although I do wonder the effect it would have had on 2017.
    Here's what the Electoral Reform Society say



    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-UK-General-Election-Report.pdf
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,342
    Drutt said:

    This is why the Con strategy surely has to be to seek to take votes off BXP. The centre ground isn't so fertile and it's surely easier to convert a BXP to CON than it is an LD or LAB voter.
    Especially when you're doing your best to convert your own voters to LDs.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428
    Drutt said:

    This is why the Con strategy surely has to be to seek to take votes off BXP. The centre ground isn't so fertile and it's surely easier to convert a BXP to CON than it is an LD or LAB voter.
    Even after everything, there is 7% of people who will click through to another screen to vote for Brexit Party. They are that determined.

    They are probably ex Labour, never Tory voters.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,477

    Byronic said:

    Meanwhile the country, including many who voted remain, looks on aghast and with increasing anger at the antics in Parliament and in the courts.

    Do none of you, blathering on about "coups" and proragations and the minutiae of parliamentry convention, understand quite how badly this is playing...? Clearly not.

    Come voting day many of you are in for a rude surprise....

    Some support for this from the callers to LBC who seemed to want the judges strung up.
    Certainly I think many have made their minds up (on either side) and now everything feeds their fears/Hope's etc
    I don't want to get too Rogerdamus-meets-his-limodriver, but I had my builder fixing stuff today. He's Lancashire northern, lives in London, smart, badly educated, doing well for himself (and an excellent builder)

    We got talking politics as one of his Romanian guys did my bathroom. He said, of No Deal, "ah, we'll be OK, we've been through worse. We're gritty. We'll survive. Just do it."

    I was about to remonstrate with him, and give him all the gory possibilities, and the horrible scenarios, but then I thought: what the F do I know? He employs people, day in day out. I don't. He is in a business that is very sensitive to economic trends, I am not (male modelling is timeless, to be honest). So I stayed shtoom.

    Moreover, I wonder if his attitude is widespread. No Deal, Big Deal. If so, Boris has probably chosen the right course.
    I have a side bet* with a pollster that if we do go for a No Deal Brexit that it will be like support for the Iraq war polling within two years.

    Back in 2003 I think 65% supported the war, by 2006 65% remembered opposing the war.

    *Dinner in some decent London restaurant.
    Don't expect decent food though, post No Deal.
    It is ok, we're both members of the metropolitan liberal elite, the good restaurants will look after us and keep the good stuff in reserve for our type.
    I thought you were a working-class northern boy? :wink:
    I used to self identify as a working class northerner on the grounds that I was

    1) Working
    2) Had class
    3) Northerner

    That counts right?
    If you live south of the Tyne then you are a southerner.
    The Angel of the South in Birtley is well worth a visit, even so.
  • RH1992 said:
    Previously Conservative MPs who are now independents and who have not given up on their future political careers are flailing around for least bad options. She's just preparing the ground for a potential jump to the LDs and is hoping to get the nod to stand as a "Remain Alliance" candidate in Hastings. In a 55% leave voting constituency, in which local Labour would be loathe stand down against their long standing constituency foe, I don't think she would win.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,153
    Noo said:

    I was away with work today in a heavily Leaver part of the country. I stopped in a working class cafe and full of people who voted Leave and they're all in favour of Remain now. As I was about to go all the customers broke into a spontaneous rendition of Ode To Joy, and an EU flag was suddenly produced. I was about to remonstrate with them to point out there was a referendum but then Boris appeared on the tv and the whole place erupted with booing.

    Sounds very odd...
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428

    Byronic said:

    Meanwhile the country, including many who voted remain, looks on aghast and with increasing anger at the antics in Parliament and in the courts.

    Do none of you, blathering on about "coups" and proragations and the minutiae of parliamentry convention, understand quite how badly this is playing...? Clearly not.

    Come voting day many of you are in for a rude surprise....

    Some support for this from the callers to LBC who seemed to want the judges strung up.
    Certainly I think many have made their minds up (on either side) and now everything feeds their fears/Hope's etc
    I don't want to get too Rogerdamus-meets-his-limodriver, but I had my builder fixing stuff today. He's Lancashire northern, lives in London, smart, badly educated, doing well for himself (and an excellent builder)

    We got talking politics as one of his Romanian guys did my bathroom. He said, of No Deal, "ah, we'll be OK, we've been through worse. We're gritty. We'll survive. Just do it."

    I was about to remonstrate with him, and give him all the gory possibilities, and the horrible scenarios, but then I thought: what the F do I know? He employs people, day in day out. I don't. He is in a business that is very sensitive to economic trends, I am not (male modelling is timeless, to be honest). So I stayed shtoom.

    Moreover, I wonder if his attitude is widespread. No Deal, Big Deal. If so, Boris has probably chosen the right course.
    I have a side bet* with a pollster that if we do go for a No Deal Brexit that it will be like support for the Iraq war polling within two years.

    Back in 2003 I think 65% supported the war, by 2006 65% remembered opposing the war.

    *Dinner in some decent London restaurant.
    Don't expect decent food though, post No Deal.
    It is ok, we're both members of the metropolitan liberal elite, the good restaurants will look after us and keep the good stuff in reserve for our type.
    I thought you were a working-class northern boy? :wink:
    I used to self identify as a working class northerner on the grounds that I was

    1) Working
    2) Had class
    3) Northerner

    That counts right?
    If you live south of the Tyne then you are a southerner.
    The Angel of the South in Birtley is well worth a visit, even so.
    I drive past it every day to work. It is especially beautiful on winter mornings during sunrise.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    Roger said:

    Emily Maitlis is much the most entertaining political interviewer and in my opinion the best

    Dickie Madelely for me - if only he did more of it.

    That Tarantino film WAS very good, btw - flew by.
  • Byronic said:

    OK PEEBS

    I am rationing my political commentary, from now on. I have male modelling to do. And a gender to swap. And a life to lead

    Night night

    We look forward to your next incarnation.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,342

    RH1992 said:

    RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
    Dave was wrong about FPTP delivering a decisive decision then, although I do wonder the effect it would have had on 2017.
    Here's what the Electoral Reform Society say



    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-UK-General-Election-Report.pdf
    Utter madness that Labour is still anti-PR.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,121

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Traditional Labour voters are not going to back the Tories in safe seats in great enough numbers for it to work. Why would a poorer than average person back a political party led by people of privileged background who think tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the poor are a priority.



    The Tory strategy is mad as it means sacrificing circa 35 seats to LD & SNP. If the Tories do nothing in those write-offs theoretically the Tories could target 70 Labour seats but targeting a seat does not necessarily mean youoperatives.

    Mo

    Cummings policy of tax cuts for all and more money for the NHS etc as well as delivering Brexit is the only way the Tories will win a majority, they are going to lose seats to the LDs and SNP regardless, as will Corbyn Labour.

    No such thing as tax cuts for all plus more money for the NHS. The money has to come from somewhere. I thought a Conservative would understand that.
    Never heard of the Laffer curve?

    Boris is a Berlusconi style populist, tax cuts and more spending cake for all.

    He will run a campaign precisely the opposite of May's dour tax rises and spending cuts for all campaign in 2017
    Having heard of the Laffer Curve isn’t quite the same as having any idea where on the curve we might be located. Surely you should know that?
    Laffer would say that marginal rates of tax in the UK are close to the level where they are inefficient and tax takes will start to (or already have) declined.

    Stamp duty is a case in point.
    Is that what Laffer would say? As I understand it he simply conjectured that the relationship between tax rate and tax take would be roughly hump shaped when plotted between no tax and 100% tax. He did this in conversation over dinner and sketched it on a napkin. I think it would be fair to say that most of us would come up with the same answer if asked the question even if we had never heard of Laffer. And it provides absolutely no guidance on the wisdom of tax policy beyond that which is available from common sense.
    Yes Laffer would only say there are two zero-yield bounds and a single non-zero peak.

    Thornberry on Pesto now. Making a good fist of defending her policy (which isn't any of the policy positions Lab has held recently).
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Byronic said:

    OK PEEBS

    I am rationing my political commentary, from now on. I have male modelling to do. And a gender to swap. And a life to lead

    Night night

    meh
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited September 2019

    Byronic said:

    Meanwhile the country, including many who voted remain, looks on aghast and with increasing anger at the antics in Parliament and in the courts.

    Do none of you, blathering on about "coups" and proragations and the minutiae of parliamentry convention, understand quite how badly this is playing...? Clearly not.

    Come voting day many of you are in for a rude surprise....

    Some support for this from the callers to LBC who seemed to want the judges strung up.
    Certainly I think many have made their minds up (on either side) and now everything feeds their fears/Hope's etc
    I don't want to get too Rogerdamus-meets-his-limodriver, but I had my builder fixing stuff today. He's Lancashire northern, lives in London, smart, badly educated, doing well for himself (and an excellent builder)

    We got talking politics as one of his Romanian guys did my bathroom. He said, of No Deal, "ah, we'll be OK, we've been through worse. We're gritty. We'll survive. Just do it."

    I was about to remonstrate with him, and give him all the gory possibilities, and the horrible scenarios, but then I thought: what the F do I know? He employs people, day in day out. I don't. He is in a business that is very sensitive to economic trends, I am not (male modelling is timeless, to be honest). So I stayed shtoom.

    Moreover, I wonder if his attitude is widespread. No Deal, Big Deal. If so, Boris has probably chosen the right course.
    I have a side bet* with a pollster that if we do go for a No Deal Brexit that it will be like support for the Iraq war polling within two years.

    Back in 2003 I think 65% supported the war, by 2006 65% remembered opposing the war.

    *Dinner in some decent London restaurant.
    Don't expect decent food though, post No Deal.
    It is ok, we're both members of the metropolitan liberal elite, the good restaurants will look after us and keep the good stuff in reserve for our type.
    I thought you were a working-class northern boy? :wink:
    I used to self identify as a working class northerner on the grounds that I was

    1) Working
    2) Had class
    3) Northerner

    That counts right?
    If you live south of the Tyne then you are a southerner.
    Most of the Midlands is in the North according to some southerners.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited September 2019
    Byronic said:

    kle:

    "Because only this poll could possibly be correct?"

    ++++

    It's the one cited! What am I meant to do, reference other polls, with footnotes and pie charts? Give over.

    There is quiet majesty in a good footnote, but pies are for eating, not charting.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,279
    dixiedean said:

    RH1992 said:

    RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
    Dave was wrong about FPTP delivering a decisive decision then, although I do wonder the effect it would have had on 2017.
    Here's what the Electoral Reform Society say



    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-UK-General-Election-Report.pdf
    Utter madness that Labour is still anti-PR.
    The LDs would have held the balance of power that is why, indeed even in 1945 Attlee would have needed Liberal support to form a government under PR
  • Noo said:

    I was away with work today in a heavily Leaver part of the country. I stopped in a working class cafe and full of people who voted Leave and they're all in favour of Remain now. As I was about to go all the customers broke into a spontaneous rendition of Ode To Joy, and an EU flag was suddenly produced. I was about to remonstrate with them to point out there was a referendum but then Boris appeared on the tv and the whole place erupted with booing.

    You try telling even the young people that today, and they won't believe you.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    dixiedean said:

    RH1992 said:

    RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
    Dave was wrong about FPTP delivering a decisive decision then, although I do wonder the effect it would have had on 2017.
    Here's what the Electoral Reform Society say



    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-UK-General-Election-Report.pdf
    Utter madness that Labour is still anti-PR.
    They support FPTP because it gives them a small chance of governing alone once every 15 years or so, which they would never have under PR.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    OK PEEBS

    I am rationing my political commentary, from now on. I have male modelling to do. And a gender to swap. And a life to lead

    Night night

    meh
    A touch ungracious.

    Good night Byro.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    Is that what Laffer would say? As I understand it he simply conjectured that the relationship between tax rate and tax take would be roughly hump shaped when plotted between no tax and 100% tax. He did this in conversation over dinner and sketched it on a napkin. I think it would be fair to say that most of us would come up with the same answer if asked the question even if we had never heard of Laffer. And it provides absolutely no guidance on the wisdom of tax policy beyond that which is available from common sense.

    Harsh but fair. Not for nothing is it known in economically erudite circles as the 'having a laffer' curve.

    But still, it IS a curve, and you CAN look at it, and my one gives me 63 % as the optimum top rate of income tax for the UK in the current climate.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,342
    AndyJS said:

    dixiedean said:

    RH1992 said:

    RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
    Dave was wrong about FPTP delivering a decisive decision then, although I do wonder the effect it would have had on 2017.
    Here's what the Electoral Reform Society say



    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-UK-General-Election-Report.pdf
    Utter madness that Labour is still anti-PR.
    They support FPTP because it gives them a small chance of governing alone once every 15 years or so, which they would never have under PR.
    Oh, I am well aware of that. But every one of those systems shown, the Tory seats goes down and the Labour up. So we lock in 15 years of Tory government, for the off chance of an occasional Labour majority.
    Would Boris be Tory leader under any kind of PR? No, cos he'd be an electoral liability.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    edited September 2019
    I don’t envy the SC judges next week .

    Whereas in the original Gina Miller case their decision was not going to bring down a government or PM this one could .

    How can a PM continue if the court effectively ruled he misled the Queen .

    You can imagine what the opposition could do in an election.

    “If Johnson can lie to the Queen he can lie to you.”

    I think the odds currently favour the SC will over rule the Scottish decision . But if I was Bozo I wouldn’t be sleeping well till the court delivers its ruling .
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    dixiedean said:

    RH1992 said:

    RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
    Dave was wrong about FPTP delivering a decisive decision then, although I do wonder the effect it would have had on 2017.
    Here's what the Electoral Reform Society say



    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-UK-General-Election-Report.pdf
    Utter madness that Labour is still anti-PR.
    They support FPTP because it gives them a small chance of governing alone once every 15 years or so, which they would never have under PR.
    Oh, I am well aware of that. But every one of those systems shown, the Tory seats goes down and the Labour up. So we lock in 15 years of Tory government, for the off chance of an occasional Labour majority.
    Would Boris be Tory leader under any kind of PR? No, cos he'd be an electoral liability.
    Yes, they ought to drop their support for FPTP in order to be able to govern more often, in coalition.

  • If you live south of the Tyne then you are a southerner.

    The Angel of the South in Birtley is well worth a visit, even so.
    I drive past it every day to work. It is especially beautiful on winter mornings during sunrise.
    The Angel of the North and Durham Cathedral are not far apart on the ECML, and the best part of the journey north before reaching the Northumberland coast.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,279
    kinabalu said:

    Is that what Laffer would say? As I understand it he simply conjectured that the relationship between tax rate and tax take would be roughly hump shaped when plotted between no tax and 100% tax. He did this in conversation over dinner and sketched it on a napkin. I think it would be fair to say that most of us would come up with the same answer if asked the question even if we had never heard of Laffer. And it provides absolutely no guidance on the wisdom of tax policy beyond that which is available from common sense.

    Harsh but fair. Not for nothing is it known in economically erudite circles as the 'having a laffer' curve.

    But still, it IS a curve, and you CAN look at it, and my one gives me 63 % as the optimum top rate of income tax for the UK in the current climate.
    A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, even higher than Sweden and Aruba's and would see mass exodus of the wealthy and a brain drain

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    edited September 2019
    kinabalu said:

    Is that what Laffer would say? As I understand it he simply conjectured that the relationship between tax rate and tax take would be roughly hump shaped when plotted between no tax and 100% tax. He did this in conversation over dinner and sketched it on a napkin. I think it would be fair to say that most of us would come up with the same answer if asked the question even if we had never heard of Laffer. And it provides absolutely no guidance on the wisdom of tax policy beyond that which is available from common sense.

    Harsh but fair. Not for nothing is it known in economically erudite circles as the 'having a laffer' curve.

    But still, it IS a curve, and you CAN look at it, and my one gives me 63 % as the optimum top rate of income tax for the UK in the current climate.
    I’m confident the optimum rate is somewhere between 30% and 70%....


    ... but only fairly confident.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    I am guessing nobody is going to talk about the Kantar poll unless prompted to do so.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,279
    edited September 2019
    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    dixiedean said:

    RH1992 said:

    RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
    Dave was wrong about FPTP delivering a decisive decision then, although I do wonder the effect it would have had on 2017.
    Here's what the Electoral Reform Society say



    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-UK-General-Election-Report.pdf
    Utter madness that Labour is still anti-PR.
    They support FPTP because it gives them a small chance of governing alone once every 15 years or so, which they would never have under PR.
    Oh, I am well aware of that. But every one of those systems shown, the Tory seats goes down and the Labour up. So we lock in 15 years of Tory government, for the off chance of an occasional Labour majority.
    Would Boris be Tory leader under any kind of PR? No, cos he'd be an electoral liability.
    Labour would have lost seats from 1997 to 2005 under PR, plus if the Brexit Party and Tory combined vote reached 50% (as the Tory and UKIP combined voted did in 2015) Boris could even be PM under PR with Farage his Deputy.

    PR would benefit the LDs, Brexit Party and Greens, Plaid, the UUP, Alliance and SDLP it would not benefit the Tories, Labour and SNP and DUP (especially when they win a majority of seats under FPTP)
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,342
    @Gallowgate is a typical bloody Northerner. Coming down here stealing our jobs. :)
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited September 2019
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    dixiedean said:

    RH1992 said:

    RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
    Dave was wrong about FPTP delivering a decisive decision then, although I do wonder the effect it would have had on 2017.
    Here's what the Electoral Reform Society say



    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-UK-General-Election-Report.pdf
    Utter madness that Labour is still anti-PR.
    They support FPTP because it gives them a small chance of governing alone once every 15 years or so, which they would never have under PR.
    Oh, I am well aware of that. But every one of those systems shown, the Tory seats goes down and the Labour up. So we lock in 15 years of Tory government, for the off chance of an occasional Labour majority.
    Would Boris be Tory leader under any kind of PR? No, cos he'd be an electoral liability.
    Labour would have lost seats from 1997 to 2005 under PR, plus if the Brexit Party and Tory combined vote reached 50% Boris could even be PM under PR with Farage his Deputy.

    PR would benefit the LDs, Brexit Party and Greens, Plaid, the UUP, Alliance and SDLP it would not benefit the Tories, Labour and SNP and DUP (especially when they win a majority of seats under FPTP)
    AV wouldn't be a good idea, because it would have delivered 250 seat majorities for Blair in 1997 and Thatcher in 1983. AV in conjunction with a proportional system would be a slightly better idea than AV on its own IMO. Roy Jenkins recommended it in about 1998 if I remember correctly.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Nigelb said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    OK PEEBS

    I am rationing my political commentary, from now on. I have male modelling to do. And a gender to swap. And a life to lead

    Night night

    meh
    A touch ungracious.

    Good night Byro.
    It was meant to be a little more hostile than that, but ungracious will do.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,342
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    dixiedean said:

    RH1992 said:

    RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
    Dave was wrong about FPTP delivering a decisive decision then, although I do wonder the effect it would have had on 2017.
    Here's what the Electoral Reform Society say



    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-UK-General-Election-Report.pdf
    Utter madness that Labour is still anti-PR.
    They support FPTP because it gives them a small chance of governing alone once every 15 years or so, which they would never have under PR.
    Oh, I am well aware of that. But every one of those systems shown, the Tory seats goes down and the Labour up. So we lock in 15 years of Tory government, for the off chance of an occasional Labour majority.
    Would Boris be Tory leader under any kind of PR? No, cos he'd be an electoral liability.
    Labour would have lost seats from 1997 to 2005 under PR, plus if the Brexit Party and Tory combined vote reached 50% Boris could even be PM under PR with Farage his Deputy.

    PR would benefit the LDs, Brexit Party and Greens, Plaid, the UUP, Alliance and SDLP it would not benefit the Tories, Labour and SNP and DUP (especially when they win a majority of seats under FPTP)
    Still think it is madness. If we had PR we would have roughly even Tory/Labour led coalitions. As it is, we get c 2/3rds Tory government. And we get 35% strategies which excludes most of the voters, leading to disillusioned electorates.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,153

    I am guessing nobody is going to talk about the Kantar poll unless prompted to do so.

    Was discussed a lot this morning but events moved on around two minutes later... ;)
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is that what Laffer would say? As I understand it he simply conjectured that the relationship between tax rate and tax take would be roughly hump shaped when plotted between no tax and 100% tax. He did this in conversation over dinner and sketched it on a napkin. I think it would be fair to say that most of us would come up with the same answer if asked the question even if we had never heard of Laffer. And it provides absolutely no guidance on the wisdom of tax policy beyond that which is available from common sense.

    Harsh but fair. Not for nothing is it known in economically erudite circles as the 'having a laffer' curve.

    But still, it IS a curve, and you CAN look at it, and my one gives me 63 % as the optimum top rate of income tax for the UK in the current climate.
    A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, even higher than Sweden and Aruba's and would see mass exodus of the wealthy and a brain drain

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
    Brain drain? The smartest people in this country are not the ones who earn the most. In fact, top incomes tend to come from capital accumulation, not the ~£33k earned by researchers.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Byronic said:

    OK PEEBS

    I am rationing my political commentary, from now on. I have male modelling to do. And a gender to swap. And a life to lead

    Night night

    We look forward to your next incarnation.
    I'm only saying Goodnght! Goodnight. See you all tomozza
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    OK PEEBS

    I am rationing my political commentary, from now on. I have male modelling to do. And a gender to swap. And a life to lead

    Night night

    We look forward to your next incarnation.
    I'm only saying Goodnght! Goodnight. See you all tomozza
    :(
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    dixiedean said:

    RH1992 said:

    RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
    Dave was wrong about FPTP delivering a decisive decision then, although I do wonder the effect it would have had on 2017.
    Here's what the Electoral Reform Society say



    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-UK-General-Election-Report.pdf
    Utter madness that Labour is still anti-PR.
    They support FPTP because it gives them a small chance of governing alone once every 15 years or so, which they would never have under PR.
    Oh, I am well aware of that. But every one of those systems shown, the Tory seats goes down and the Labour up. So we lock in 15 years of Tory government, for the off chance of an occasional Labour majority.
    Would Boris be Tory leader under any kind of PR? No, cos he'd be an electoral liability.
    Labour would have lost seats from 1997 to 2005 under PR, plus if the Brexit Party and Tory combined vote reached 50% Boris could even be PM under PR with Farage his Deputy.

    PR would benefit the LDs, Brexit Party and Greens, Plaid, the UUP, Alliance and SDLP it would not benefit the Tories, Labour and SNP and DUP (especially when they win a majority of seats under FPTP)
    Still think it is madness. If we had PR we would have roughly even Tory/Labour led coalitions. As it is, we get c 2/3rds Tory government. And we get 35% strategies which excludes most of the voters, leading to disillusioned electorates.
    Plus the idea that you can extrapolate FPTP results onto putative PR ones is an obvious non-starter. It' uncontroversial to say that FPTP artificially inflates bigger parties' vote share (Con, Lab and SNP would receive fewer votes under PR)
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    Nigelb said:

    I’m confident the optimum rate is somewhere between 30% and 70%....

    ... but only fairly confident.

    :smile:

    Well so long as the top rate is higher than the bottom rate.

    I hear of a paper circulating in 'No Deal' circles which argues that the opposite should be the case - something about incentives for wealth creators.

    Not sure I'm buying that. Can't they create wealth AND cough up a bit?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480
    edited September 2019
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is that what Laffer would say? As I understand it he simply conjectured that the relationship between tax rate and tax take would be roughly hump shaped when plotted between no tax and 100% tax. He did this in conversation over dinner and sketched it on a napkin. I think it would be fair to say that most of us would come up with the same answer if asked the question even if we had never heard of Laffer. And it provides absolutely no guidance on the wisdom of tax policy beyond that which is available from common sense.

    Harsh but fair. Not for nothing is it known in economically erudite circles as the 'having a laffer' curve.

    But still, it IS a curve, and you CAN look at it, and my one gives me 63 % as the optimum top rate of income tax for the UK in the current climate.
    A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, even higher than Sweden and Aruba's and would see mass exodus of the wealthy and a brain drain

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
    The current UK marginal rate hits that between £100k and 120k, due to removal of personal allowances.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,896
    Landslide territory for Biden in the general

    Sep 2-5, 2019

    A+
    ABC News/Washington Post
    877 RV Biden
    55%

    40%
    Trump Biden +15
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Fireman Sam axed as brigade mascot for not being inclusive"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-49661970
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    nico67 said:

    I don’t envy the SC judges next week .

    Whereas in the original Gina Miller case their decision was not going to bring down a government or PM this one could .

    How can a PM continue if the court effectively ruled he misled the Queen .

    You can imagine what the opposition could do in an election.

    “If Johnson can lie to the Queen he can lie to you.”

    I think the odds currently favour the SC will over rule the Scottish decision . But if I was Bozo I wouldn’t be sleeping well till the court delivers its ruling .

    He cannot seem to do anything anyway, other than embarrassment little will change.

    It will be fascinating to see which tories dare break ranks and be critical of BoJo if the court rules against him.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    edited September 2019
    HYUFD said:

    A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, even higher than Sweden and Aruba's and would see mass exodus of the wealthy and a brain drain

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

    Well we don't want a brain drain and a mass exodus of the wealthy.

    61% ?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    I’m confident the optimum rate is somewhere between 30% and 70%....

    ... but only fairly confident.

    :smile:

    Well so long as the top rate is higher than the bottom rate.

    I hear of a paper circulating in 'No Deal' circles which argues that the opposite should be the case - something about incentives for wealth creators.

    Not sure I'm buying that. Can't they create wealth AND cough up a bit?
    In Wigan and Hartlepool working class Leavers are gagging for abolition of inheritance tax. Apparently.

    https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1170746360041263104?s=19
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,279
    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    I’m confident the optimum rate is somewhere between 30% and 70%....

    ... but only fairly confident.

    :smile:

    Well so long as the top rate is higher than the bottom rate.

    I hear of a paper circulating in 'No Deal' circles which argues that the opposite should be the case - something about incentives for wealth creators.

    Not sure I'm buying that. Can't they create wealth AND cough up a bit?
    In Wigan and Hartlepool working class Leavers are gagging for abolition of inheritance tax. Apparently.

    https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1170746360041263104?s=19
    It was the Tories who raised the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million so only estates of millionaires pay it
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,279
    edited September 2019
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, even higher than Sweden and Aruba's and would see mass exodus of the wealthy and a brain drain

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

    Well we don't want a brain drain and a mass exodus of the wealthy.

    61% ?
    Still the highest in the world, in Aruba it is 58.9%, in Sweden 57%
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,279
    Noo said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is that what Laffer would say? As I understand it he simply conjectured that the relationship between tax rate and tax take would be roughly hump shaped when plotted between no tax and 100% tax. He did this in conversation over dinner and sketched it on a napkin. I think it would be fair to say that most of us would come up with the same answer if asked the question even if we had never heard of Laffer. And it provides absolutely no guidance on the wisdom of tax policy beyond that which is available from common sense.

    Harsh but fair. Not for nothing is it known in economically erudite circles as the 'having a laffer' curve.

    But still, it IS a curve, and you CAN look at it, and my one gives me 63 % as the optimum top rate of income tax for the UK in the current climate.
    A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, even higher than Sweden and Aruba's and would see mass exodus of the wealthy and a brain drain

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
    Brain drain? The smartest people in this country are not the ones who earn the most. In fact, top incomes tend to come from capital accumulation, not the ~£33k earned by researchers.
    I would suggest Google workers, corporate lawyers and commercial barristers, top surgeons, top bankers and accountants etc are all pretty smart and all comprise much of the top 1% of earners
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,794
    HYUFD said:

    ...Never heard of the Laffer curve?

    I have frequently heard of the Laffer curve. I am also aware that those who cite it to favour tax cuts never specify what the curve looks like nor specify where we are on the curve.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,279
    edited September 2019
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    dixiedean said:

    RH1992 said:

    RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
    Dave was wrong about FPTP delivering a decisive decision then, although I do wonder the effect it would have had on 2017.
    Here's what the Electoral Reform Society say



    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-UK-General-Election-Report.pdf
    Utter madness that Labour is still anti-PR.
    They support FPTP because it gives them a small chance of governing alone once every 15 years or so, which they would never have under PR.
    Oh, I am well aware of that. But every one of those systems shown, the Tory seats goes down and the Labour up. So we lock in 15 years of Tory government, for the off chance of an occasional Labour majority.
    Would Boris be Tory leader under any kind of PR? No, cos he'd be an electoral liability.
    Labour would have lost seats from 1997 to 2005 under PR, plus if the Brexit Party and Tory combined vote reached 50% Boris could even be PM under PR with Farage his Deputy.

    PR would benefit the LDs, Brexit Party and Greens, Plaid, the UUP, Alliance and SDLP it would not benefit the Tories, Labour and SNP and DUP (especially when they win a majority of seats under FPTP)
    Still think it is madness. If we had PR we would have roughly even Tory/Labour led coalitions. As it is, we get c 2/3rds Tory government. And we get 35% strategies which excludes most of the voters, leading to disillusioned electorates.
    That is not really true, since WW2 Labour have won 8 general elections, the Tories have won 9 and we have had 3 hung parliaments
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    Foxy said:


    In Wigan and Hartlepool working class Leavers are gagging for abolition of inheritance tax. Apparently.

    This is something I sense - but obviously cannot prove or anything - about this country. Privilege, rather than seeing it as plain wrong and wanting to get rid of it, those who do not have it are relaxed about its existence because either (1) they know their place and feel deference to their betters or (2) they DON'T know their place and are determined to get a piece of all that. And in (2) when they do, they come over all "I did it so anyone can if they get off their butt" type thing. So, you know, what to do? An assault on privilege is just not British.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    HYUFD said:

    Still the highest in the world, in Aruba it is 58.9%, in Sweden 57%

    Global Britain - Leading the world in top rate tax.

    Beating even Aruba and Sweden.

    Wonder if they would respond or just accept it?
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    HYUFD said:

    Noo said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is that what Laffer would say? As I understand it he simply conjectured that the relationship between tax rate and tax take would be roughly hump shaped when plotted between no tax and 100% tax. He did this in conversation over dinner and sketched it on a napkin. I think it would be fair to say that most of us would come up with the same answer if asked the question even if we had never heard of Laffer. And it provides absolutely no guidance on the wisdom of tax policy beyond that which is available from common sense.

    Harsh but fair. Not for nothing is it known in economically erudite circles as the 'having a laffer' curve.

    But still, it IS a curve, and you CAN look at it, and my one gives me 63 % as the optimum top rate of income tax for the UK in the current climate.
    A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, even higher than Sweden and Aruba's and would see mass exodus of the wealthy and a brain drain

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
    Brain drain? The smartest people in this country are not the ones who earn the most. In fact, top incomes tend to come from capital accumulation, not the ~£33k earned by researchers.
    I would suggest Google workers, corporate lawyers and commercial barristers, top surgeons, top bankers and accountants etc are all pretty smart and all comprise much of the top 1% of earners
    You suggestion would be somewhat wide of the mark, then.
    Top 1% = £165,000 pa
    Can't see any Google jobs at that pay rate in the UK
    corporate lawyers average ~£60k
    commercial barrister ~£78k
    surgeon ~£75k
    bankers depends what you mean, some salaries will be higher, but almost all workers at retail banks will be far lower.
    accountants ~£37k

    I think the word "top" in your post is doing a /lot/ of work.
    Most people in the top 1% income bracket are earning the bulk of their income through capital, not wages.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    I’m confident the optimum rate is somewhere between 30% and 70%....

    ... but only fairly confident.

    :smile:

    Well so long as the top rate is higher than the bottom rate.

    I hear of a paper circulating in 'No Deal' circles which argues that the opposite should be the case - something about incentives for wealth creators.

    Not sure I'm buying that. Can't they create wealth AND cough up a bit?
    In Wigan and Hartlepool working class Leavers are gagging for abolition of inheritance tax. Apparently.

    https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1170746360041263104?s=19
    It was the Tories who raised the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million so only estates of millionaires pay it
    I don't think you are right on that. IHT tax threshold is not £1 million. There was an attempts by Labour to make the tax less hard hitting and none by the Tories. The Labour attempt allowed a deed of variation, so basically you got two peoples permisable allowance on a higher value house. The Tories have not been in a position to raise IHT to £1M.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,279
    edited September 2019
    Noo said:

    HYUFD said:

    Noo said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is that what Laffer would say? As I understand it he simply conjectured that the relationship between tax rate and tax take would be roughly hump shaped when plotted between no tax and 100% tax. He did this in conversation over dinner and sketched it on a napkin. I think it would be fair to say that most of us would come up with the same answer if asked the question even if we had never heard of Laffer. And it provides absolutely no guidance on the wisdom of tax policy beyond that which is available from common sense.

    Harsh but fair. Not for nothing is it known in economically erudite circles as the 'having a laffer' curve.

    But still, it IS a curve, and you CAN look at it, and my one gives me 63 % as the optimum top rate of income tax for the UK in the current climate.
    A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, even higher than Sweden and Aruba's and would see mass exodus of the wealthy and a brain drain

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
    Brain drain? The smartest people in this country are not the ones who earn the most. In fact, top incomes tend to come from capital accumulation, not the ~£33k earned by researchers.
    I would suggest Google workers, corporate lawyers and commercial barristers, top surgeons, top bankers and accountants etc are all pretty smart and all comprise much of the top 1% of earners
    You suggestion would be somewhat wide of the mark, then.
    Top 1% = £165,000 pa
    Can't see any Google jobs at that pay rate in the UK
    corporate lawyers average ~£60k
    commercial barrister ~£78k
    surgeon ~£75k
    bankers depends what you mean, some salaries will be higher, but almost all workers at retail banks will be far lower.
    accountants ~£37k

    I think the word "top" in your post is doing a /lot/ of work.
    Most people in the top 1% income bracket are earning the bulk of their income through capital, not wages.
    My suggestion is actually spot on.

    Google workers average pay £160 000

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/28/google-uk-staff-salary-earned-2015

    Lawyers earn £181 000 on average after 15 years practice



    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/11554820/How-much-are-lawyers-really-paid.html

    The most common occupation of the top 1% of earners in the US is physician

    https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrP4naqhHldUXQANJNB4iA5;_ylu=X3oDMTEzdXBpM3FyBGNvbG8DaXIyBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDTU9VSzAxXzEEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1568273707/RO=10/RU=https://www.mdmag.com/physicians-money-digest/columns/the-doctor-report/04-2015/americas-doctors-the-unhappy-richest-1/RK=2/RS=0HPo_fNwPiQkfYIzq1kO7hTnh84-
  • The voter psychology of inheritance taxes is explored and explained in a classic West Wing episode. After a pantomime setting out of the left/right positions on the " Death Tax " the script writers then get a Republican Congressman to explain the conservative case for inheritance taxes and Democratic President Bartlet to explain why poor voters often favour cutting them.

    In thise terms I think The Brexit Party pledge is quite astute looking at the demographics of their target vote.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,928
    Noo said:

    HYUFD said:

    Noo said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is that what Laffer would say? As I understand it he simply conjectured that the relationship between tax rate and tax take would be roughly hump shaped when plotted between no tax and 100% tax. He did this in conversation over dinner and sketched it on a napkin. I think it would be fair to say that most of us would come up with the same answer if asked the question even if we had never heard of Laffer. And it provides absolutely no guidance on the wisdom of tax policy beyond that which is available from common sense.

    Harsh but fair. Not for nothing is it known in economically erudite circles as the 'having a laffer' curve.

    But still, it IS a curve, and you CAN look at it, and my one gives me 63 % as the optimum top rate of income tax for the UK in the current climate.
    A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, even higher than Sweden and Aruba's and would see mass exodus of the wealthy and a brain drain

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
    Brain drain? The smartest people in this country are not the ones who earn the most. In fact, top incomes tend to come from capital accumulation, not the ~£33k earned by researchers.
    I would suggest Google workers, corporate lawyers and commercial barristers, top surgeons, top bankers and accountants etc are all pretty smart and all comprise much of the top 1% of earners
    You suggestion would be somewhat wide of the mark, then.
    Top 1% = £165,000 pa
    Can't see any Google jobs at that pay rate in the UK
    corporate lawyers average ~£60k
    commercial barrister ~£78k
    surgeon ~£75k
    bankers depends what you mean, some salaries will be higher, but almost all workers at retail banks will be far lower.
    accountants ~£37k

    I think the word "top" in your post is doing a /lot/ of work.
    Most people in the top 1% income bracket are earning the bulk of their income through capital, not wages.
    I doubt that's true (re capital). Corporate bond yields are, what, a couple of percent. Dividend yields aren't much more.

    To get to £165,000 of earnings from capital, you probably need more than £10m of assets, excluding your primary residence. I'm reckoning that's top 0.05% of people (by capital), not 1%.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,828
    HYUFD said:

    Noo said:

    HYUFD said:

    Noo said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is that what Laffer would say? As I understand it he simply conjectured that the relationship between tax rate and tax take would be roughly hump shaped when plotted between no tax and 100% tax. He did this in conversation over dinner and sketched it on a napkin. I think it would be fair to say that most of us would come up with the same answer if asked the question even if we had never heard of Laffer. And it provides absolutely no guidance on the wisdom of tax policy beyond that which is available from common sense.

    Harsh but fair. Not for nothing is it known in economically erudite circles as the 'having a laffer' curve.

    But still, it IS a curve, and you CAN look at it, and my one gives me 63 % as the optimum top rate of income tax for the UK in the current climate.
    A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, even higher than Sweden and Aruba's and would see mass exodus of the wealthy and a brain drain

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
    Brain drain? The smartest people in this country are not the ones who earn the most. In fact, top incomes tend to come from capital accumulation, not the ~£33k earned by researchers.
    I would suggest Google workers, corporate lawyers and commercial barristers, top surgeons, top bankers and accountants etc are all pretty smart and all comprise much of the top 1% of earners
    You suggestion would be somewhat wide of the mark, then.
    Top 1% = £165,000 pa
    Can't see any Google jobs at that pay rate in the UK
    corporate lawyers average ~£60k
    commercial barrister ~£78k
    surgeon ~£75k
    bankers depends what you mean, some salaries will be higher, but almost all workers at retail banks will be far lower.
    accountants ~£37k

    I think the word "top" in your post is doing a /lot/ of work.
    Most people in the top 1% income bracket are earning the bulk of their income through capital, not wages.
    My suggestion is actually spot on.

    Google workers average pay £160 000

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/28/google-uk-staff-salary-earned-2015

    Lawyers earn £181 000 on average after 15 years practice



    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/11554820/How-much-are-lawyers-really-paid.html
    Average or median? That could be a few super high earners dragging everyone up.
  • RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
    AV isn't proportional.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited September 2019

    The voter psychology of inheritance taxes is explored and explained in a classic West Wing episode. After a pantomime setting out of the left/right positions on the " Death Tax " the script writers then get a Republican Congressman to explain the conservative case for inheritance taxes and Democratic President Bartlet to explain why poor voters often favour cutting them.

    In thise terms I think The Brexit Party pledge is quite astute looking at the demographics of their target vote.

    Voters believe inheritance tax should always be set slightly above the level at which they would have to pay it themselves.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    dixiedean said:

    RH1992 said:

    RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
    Dave was wrong about FPTP delivering a decisive decision then, although I do wonder the effect it would have had on 2017.
    Here's what the Electoral Reform Society say



    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-UK-General-Election-Report.pdf
    Utter madness that Labour is still anti-PR.
    They support FPTP because it gives them a small chance of governing alone once every 15 years or so, which they would never have under PR.
    Oh, I am well aware of that. But every one of those systems shown, the Tory seats goes down and the Labour up. So we lock in 15 years of Tory government, for the off chance of an occasional Labour majority.
    Would Boris be Tory leader under any kind of PR? No, cos he'd be an electoral liability.
    Labour would have lost seats from 1997 to 2005 under PR, plus if the Brexit Party and Tory combined vote reached 50% Boris could even be PM under PR with Farage his Deputy.

    PR would benefit the LDs, Brexit Party and Greens, Plaid, the UUP, Alliance and SDLP it would not benefit the Tories, Labour and SNP and DUP (especially when they win a majority of seats under FPTP)
    Still think it is madness. If we had PR we would have roughly even Tory/Labour led coalitions. As it is, we get c 2/3rds Tory government. And we get 35% strategies which excludes most of the voters, leading to disillusioned electorates.
    That is not really true, since WW2 Labour have won 8 general elections, the Tories have won 9 and we have had 3 hung parliaments
    If you split it into pre-1975 and post-1975 it doesn't look so good for Labour. In fact Blair is the only winner for the party since then.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979

    The voter psychology of inheritance taxes is explored and explained in a classic West Wing episode. After a pantomime setting out of the left/right positions on the " Death Tax " the script writers then get a Republican Congressman to explain the conservative case for inheritance taxes and Democratic President Bartlet to explain why poor voters often favour cutting them.

    In thise terms I think The Brexit Party pledge is quite astute looking at the demographics of their target vote.

    Its the same trick the Tories used in 2007. Basically running daily mail policies. Less likley to work second time around for TBP. I cannot see the brexit supporting media in a GE giving support to Farage and TBP instead of the Tories even with an extension to a50. :wink:
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    HYUFD said:

    Noo said:

    HYUFD said:

    Noo said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is that what Laffer would say? As I understand it he simply conjectured that the relationship between tax rate and tax take would be roughly hump shaped when plotted between no tax and 100% tax. He did this in conversation over dinner and sketched it on a napkin. I think it would be fair to say that most of us would come up with the same answer if asked the question even if we had never heard of Laffer. And it provides absolutely no guidance on the wisdom of tax policy beyond that which is available from common sense.

    Harsh but fair. Not for nothing is it known in economically erudite circles as the 'having a laffer' curve.

    But still, it IS a curve, and you CAN look at it, and my one gives me 63 % as the optimum top rate of income tax for the UK in the current climate.
    A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, even higher than Sweden and Aruba's and would see mass exodus of the wealthy and a brain drain

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
    Brain drain? The smartest people in this country are not the ones who earn the most. In fact, top incomes tend to come from capital accumulation, not the ~£33k earned by researchers.
    I would suggest Google workers, corporate lawyers and commercial barristers, top surgeons, top bankers and accountants etc are all pretty smart and all comprise much of the top 1% of earners
    You suggestion would be somewhat wide of the mark, then.
    Top 1% = £165,000 pa
    Can't see any Google jobs at that pay rate in the UK
    corporate lawyers average ~£60k
    commercial barrister ~£78k
    surgeon ~£75k
    bankers depends what you mean, some salaries will be higher, but almost all workers at retail banks will be far lower.
    accountants ~£37k

    I think the word "top" in your post is doing a /lot/ of work.
    Most people in the top 1% income bracket are earning the bulk of their income through capital, not wages.
    My suggestion is actually spot on.

    Google workers average pay £160 000

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/28/google-uk-staff-salary-earned-2015

    Lawyers earn £181 000 on average after 15 years practice



    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/11554820/How-much-are-lawyers-really-paid.html
    Looks about right for Google, then. Like I said, I didn't see any jobs advertised in a quick search but I'm happy to concede the point.
    The others though? No, not really.
    And my point remains. The top 65,000 incomes in the UK aren't Google employees. Perhaps Google contributes ~1,000 to that number?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    The voter psychology of inheritance taxes is explored and explained in a classic West Wing episode. After a pantomime setting out of the left/right positions on the " Death Tax " the script writers then get a Republican Congressman to explain the conservative case for inheritance taxes and Democratic President Bartlet to explain why poor voters often favour cutting them.

    In thise terms I think The Brexit Party pledge is quite astute looking at the demographics of their target vote.

    We've worked hard all our lives and already paid tax on it?
  • Byronic said:

    OK PEEBS

    I am rationing my political commentary, from now on. I have male modelling to do. And a gender to swap. And a life to lead

    Night night

    Male modelling?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbKBWtoH93Q
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,279
    AndyJS said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    dixiedean said:

    RH1992 said:

    RH1992 said:
    I once had a brief conversation with Amber Rudd at the 2014 Tory conference about how the Tories would regret opposing AV.

    I was proven right the very next year.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840
    Dave was wrong about FPTP delivering a decisive decision then, although I do wonder the effect it would have had on 2017.
    Here's what the Electoral Reform Society say



    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-UK-General-Election-Report.pdf
    Utter madness that Labour is still anti-PR.
    They support FPTP because it gives them a small chance of governing alone once every 15 years or so, which they would never have under PR.
    Oh, I am well aware of that. But every one of those systems shown, the Tory seats goes down and the Labour up. So we lock in 15 years of Tory government, for the off chance of an occasional Labour majority.
    Would Boris be Tory leader under any kind of PR? No, cos he'd be an electoral liability.
    Labour would have lost seats from 1997 to 2005 under PR, plus if the Brexit Party and Tory combined vote reached 50% Boris could even be PM under PR with Farage his Deputy.

    PR would benefit the LDs, Brexit Party and Greens, Plaid, the UUP, Alliance and SDLP it would not benefit the Tories, Labour and SNP and DUP (especially when they win a majority of seats under FPTP)
    Still think it is madness. If we had PR we would have roughly even Tory/Labour led coalitions. As it is, we get c 2/3rds Tory government. And we get 35% strategies which excludes most of the voters, leading to disillusioned electorates.
    That is not really true, since WW2 Labour have won 8 general elections, the Tories have won 9 and we have had 3 hung parliaments
    If you split it into pre-1975 and post-1975 it doesn't look so good for Labour. In fact Blair is the only winner for the party since then.
    Yet twice by the biggest landslides in postwar history and of course the Tories have only won a majority once in the last 27 years
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Noo said:



    Looks about right for Google, then. Like I said, I didn't see any jobs advertised in a quick search but I'm happy to concede the point.
    The others though? No, not really.
    And my point remains. The top 65,000 incomes in the UK aren't Google employees. Perhaps Google contributes ~1,000 to that number?

    Actually, no, I think I was rash in my top 1% estimate. That £166,000 is the top 1% is counted by /income tax/. There will be a significant number of people above that level accumulating wealth that does not attract income tax at all. So that £166,000 will be firmly in the 99%. The real 1% including non-income-taxable wealth accumulation will be a lot higher than that.

    The trick to getting wealthy is to start wealthy.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:


    In Wigan and Hartlepool working class Leavers are gagging for abolition of inheritance tax. Apparently.

    This is something I sense - but obviously cannot prove or anything - about this country. Privilege, rather than seeing it as plain wrong and wanting to get rid of it, those who do not have it are relaxed about its existence because either (1) they know their place and feel deference to their betters or (2) they DON'T know their place and are determined to get a piece of all that. And in (2) when they do, they come over all "I did it so anyone can if they get off their butt" type thing. So, you know, what to do? An assault on privilege is just not British.
    I think you’re right. Working class people, in my experience, do not resent the Uber rich born into money, landed gentry types. In my own experience, public school boy types have been jealous of a working class background.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    I’m confident the optimum rate is somewhere between 30% and 70%....

    ... but only fairly confident.

    :smile:

    Well so long as the top rate is higher than the bottom rate.

    I hear of a paper circulating in 'No Deal' circles which argues that the opposite should be the case - something about incentives for wealth creators.

    Not sure I'm buying that. Can't they create wealth AND cough up a bit?
    In Wigan and Hartlepool working class Leavers are gagging for abolition of inheritance tax. Apparently.

    https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1170746360041263104?s=19
    It was the Tories who raised the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million so only estates of millionaires pay it
    Yes you are wrong HYUFD. IHT starts at £325k or double if the first spouse leaves the entire estate to the second spouse, that person dies it goes to the beneficiary. The Tories have never increased the threshold to £1 million and the deed of variation move was under Labour as i just checked it. The Tories are doing worse on IHT than Labour...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,279
    edited September 2019
    Noo said:

    HYUFD said:

    Noo said:

    HYUFD said:

    Noo said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is that what Laffer would say? As I understand it he simply conjectured that the relationship between tax rate and tax take would be roughly hump shaped when plotted between no tax and 100% tax. He did this in conversation over dinner and sketched it on a napkin. I think it would be fair to say that most of us would come up with the same answer if asked the question even if we had never heard of Laffer. And it provides absolutely no guidance on the wisdom of tax policy beyond that which is available from common sense.

    Harsh but fair. Not for nothing is it known in economically erudite circles as the 'having a laffer' curve.

    But still, it IS a curve, and you CAN look at it, and my one gives me 63 % as the optimum top rate of income tax for the UK in the current climate.
    A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, even higher than Sweden and Aruba's and would see mass exodus of the wealthy and a brain drain

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
    Brain drain? The smartest people in this country are not the ones who earn the most. In fact, top incomes tend to come from capital accumulation, not the ~£33k earned by researchers.
    I would suggest Google workers, corporate lawyers and commercial barristers, top surgeons, top bankers and accountants etc are all pretty smart and all comprise much of the top 1% of earners
    You suggestion would be somewhat wide of the mark, then.
    Top 1% =
    I think the word "top" in your post is doing a /lot/ of work.
    Most people in the top 1% income bracket are earning the bulk of their income through capital, not wages.
    My suggestion is actually spot on.

    Google workers average pay £160 000

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/28/google-uk-staff-salary-earned-2015

    Lawyers earn £181 000 on average after 15 years practice



    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/11554820/How-much-are-lawyers-really-paid.html
    Looks about right for Google, then. Like I said, I didn't see any jobs advertised in a quick search but I'm happy to concede the point.
    The others though? No, not really.
    And my point remains. The top 65,000 incomes in the UK aren't Google employees. Perhaps Google contributes ~1,000 to that number?
    Of the top 1% of earners in the US (and likely here too), 31% are executives, 16% are medics, 14% work in finance, 8% are lawyers and 5% work in tech.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Percentage_of_the_top_1%_wage_earners_in_the_United_States_by_occupation_(pie_chart).svg
  • New figures on this scheme which has it's roots in the Inheritance Tax debate. https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/sep/12/rubens-and-hirst-artworks-go-to-british-museums-in-tax-deals and the West Wing episode I was refering to.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ways_and_Means_(The_West_Wing)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,279

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    I’m confident the optimum rate is somewhere between 30% and 70%....

    ... but only fairly confident.

    :smile:

    Well so long as the top rate is higher than the bottom rate.

    I hear of a paper circulating in 'No Deal' circles which argues that the opposite should be the case - something about incentives for wealth creators.

    Not sure I'm buying that. Can't they create wealth AND cough up a bit?
    In Wigan and Hartlepool working class Leavers are gagging for abolition of inheritance tax. Apparently.

    https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1170746360041263104?s=19
    It was the Tories who raised the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million so only estates of millionaires pay it
    Yes you are wrong HYUFD. IHT starts at £325k or double if the first spouse leaves the entire estate to the second spouse, that person dies it goes to the beneficiary. The Tories have never increased the threshold to £1 million and the deed of variation move was under Labour as i just checked it. The Tories are doing worse on IHT than Labour...
    No, I was absolutely correct.

    For a married couple Osborne added £175 000 exemption on their home per person to their £325 000 allowance making £1 million exempt for a married couple
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,279
    Noo said:

    Noo said:



    Looks about right for Google, then. Like I said, I didn't see any jobs advertised in a quick search but I'm happy to concede the point.
    The others though? No, not really.
    And my point remains. The top 65,000 incomes in the UK aren't Google employees. Perhaps Google contributes ~1,000 to that number?

    Actually, no, I think I was rash in my top 1% estimate. That £166,000 is the top 1% is counted by /income tax/. There will be a significant number of people above that level accumulating wealth that does not attract income tax at all. So that £166,000 will be firmly in the 99%. The real 1% including non-income-taxable wealth accumulation will be a lot higher than that.

    The trick to getting wealthy is to start wealthy.
    What utter crap, if you do not earn income per year how are you going to afford to maintain, heat an expensive property etc and pay council tax on it? Yet more rubbish from the hard left
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,928
    kinabalu said:

    The voter psychology of inheritance taxes is explored and explained in a classic West Wing episode. After a pantomime setting out of the left/right positions on the " Death Tax " the script writers then get a Republican Congressman to explain the conservative case for inheritance taxes and Democratic President Bartlet to explain why poor voters often favour cutting them.

    In thise terms I think The Brexit Party pledge is quite astute looking at the demographics of their target vote.

    We've worked hard all our lives and already paid tax on it?
    Inheritance is income, and should be taxed accordingly.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    I’m confident the optimum rate is somewhere between 30% and 70%....

    ... but only fairly confident.

    :smile:

    Well so long as the top rate is higher than the bottom rate.

    I hear of a paper circulating in 'No Deal' circles which argues that the opposite should be the case - something about incentives for wealth creators.

    Not sure I'm buying that. Can't they create wealth AND cough up a bit?
    In Wigan and Hartlepool working class Leavers are gagging for abolition of inheritance tax. Apparently.

    https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1170746360041263104?s=19
    It was the Tories who raised the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million so only estates of millionaires pay it
    Yes you are wrong HYUFD. IHT starts at £325k or double if the first spouse leaves the entire estate to the second spouse, that person dies it goes to the beneficiary. The Tories have never increased the threshold to £1 million and the deed of variation move was under Labour as i just checked it. The Tories are doing worse on IHT than Labour...
    No, I was absolutely correct.

    For a married couple Osborne added £175 000 exemption on their home per person to their £325 000 allowance making £1 million exempt for a married couple
    You did not mention homes but "estates". Some people have more than a home as an asset.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,279
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Still the highest in the world, in Aruba it is 58.9%, in Sweden 57%

    Global Britain - Leading the world in top rate tax.

    Beating even Aruba and Sweden.

    Wonder if they would respond or just accept it?
    Global Britain, soon heading to socialist poverty stricken Britain and plunging down the rankings of global economies while the City of London collapses you mean
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    It's just occurred to me that a delay to Brexit on 31st October may be in the interests of almost all the political parties, since they can each spin it in their favour.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,279
    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    The voter psychology of inheritance taxes is explored and explained in a classic West Wing episode. After a pantomime setting out of the left/right positions on the " Death Tax " the script writers then get a Republican Congressman to explain the conservative case for inheritance taxes and Democratic President Bartlet to explain why poor voters often favour cutting them.

    In thise terms I think The Brexit Party pledge is quite astute looking at the demographics of their target vote.

    We've worked hard all our lives and already paid tax on it?
    Inheritance is income, and should be taxed accordingly.
    No it isn't, it is an inheritance and transfer of part of the family estate
This discussion has been closed.