politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Seduced and abandoned. The DUP’s chances in the general electi

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Seduced and abandoned. The DUP’s chances in the general election

 

Read the full story here

Beibheirli_C

1st

Beibheirli_C

2nd

Beibheirli_C

and a full podium

Beibheirli_C

It looks like I get 4th place too....

Beibheirli_C

Alistair posted a thread, but nobody came.....

Anorak

6th?

Serious wooden spoon territory.

RobD

Ease up, Bev!

contrarian

Just seen on twitter yougov has some polling on the British Indian vote.

Quite interesting.

Beibheirli_C

Anorak said:

6th?

Serious wooden spoon territory.

Absolutely!!!

TudorRose

Beibheirli_C said:

It looks like I get 4th place too....

Vote early, vote often.....

Beibheirli_C

RobD said:

Ease up, Bev!

Well I had to do something. I was beginning to worry that this thread was going to be as empty as a politician's promises

RobD

TudorRose said:

Beibheirli_C said:

It looks like I get 4th place too....

Vote early, vote often.....

CCHQ levels of ballot box stuffing!

Beibheirli_C

TudorRose said:

Beibheirli_C said:

It looks like I get 4th place too....

Vote early, vote often.....

Works for me.

Remain: 302% of the electorate

kinabalu

Absolute scandal. Everything.

Beibheirli_C

RobD said:

TudorRose said:

Beibheirli_C said:

It looks like I get 4th place too....

Vote early, vote often.....

CCHQ levels of ballot box stuffing!

They are amateurs compared to me

Beibheirli_C

kinabalu said:

Absolute scandal. Everything.

Who? Me?

TrèsDifficile

Just noticed that #CurseDominicRaab is trending on Twitter. Nice folks these FBPE and JC4PM lot.

Beibheirli_C

Well, although I am in Northern Ireland at the moment, I cannot give any local feedback on politics. Old habits die hard, and around here talking openly about politics was a way to die early. Nobody is talking politics.

OTOH my mother, a DUP voter will probably vote DUP again but she would rather not. According to her, the Alliance Party are traitors who should know better and SF should be locked up or deported.

Tribalism is alive and well in the 80+ voting demographic

IanB2

RobD said:

TudorRose said:

Beibheirli_C said:

It looks like I get 4th place too....

Vote early, vote often.....

CCHQ levels of ballot box stuffing!

If only we could remember who it was that started such dodgy goings on.

CarlottaVance

contrarian said:

Just seen on twitter yougov has some polling on the British Indian vote.

Quite interesting.

https://twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/1197174180678115329?s=20

https://twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/1197173781451726848?s=20

TudorRose

Beibheirli_C said:

Well, although I am in Northern Ireland at the moment, I cannot give any local feedback on politics. Old habits die hard, and around here talking openly about politics was a way to die early. Nobody is talking politics.

OTOH my mother, a DUP voter will probably vote DUP again but she would rather not. According to her, the Alliance Party are traitors who should know better and SF should be locked up or deported.

Tribalism is alive and well in the 80+ voting demographic

I wouldn't worry re; your first paragraph, as far as I can tell no-one on this side of the Irish Sea is talking about politics either. Except for on here of course.....

TrèsDifficile

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

Artist

I'm visiting South Antrim at the moment and yes it's not clear who is the main challenger to the DUP, Alliance or UUP. So they should hold comfortably.

Benpointer

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

RobD

Benpointer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

I assume they’ll cost it. Whether anyone believes it is another matter. Same for Labour’s.

Beibheirli_C

Artist said:

I'm visiting South Antrim at the moment and yes it's not clear who is the main challenger to the DUP, Alliance or UUP. So they should hold comfortably.

The UUP is the current challenger. The Alliance are so far behind that SF beat them last time.

[Edit: From a personal perspective, when I was growing up here, South Antrim was a perpetual UUP seat. After I moved to England, it changed hands a few times between DUP and UUP. The Alliance have never even been a footnote in this place]

NorthernPowerhouse

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

They'll be lots of tricks in regards to nationalising everything that moves, ie, you are purchasing an asset that has a value.

Benpointer

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

I assume they’ll cost it. Whether anyone believes it is another matter. Same for Labour’s.

We will get the IFS costings of course. Speaking of which:



https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN251_Boris_Johnson's_tax_policies.pdf

Beibheirli_C

TudorRose said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Well, although I am in Northern Ireland at the moment, I cannot give any local feedback on politics. Old habits die hard, and around here talking openly about politics was a way to die early. Nobody is talking politics.

OTOH my mother, a DUP voter will probably vote DUP again but she would rather not. According to her, the Alliance Party are traitors who should know better and SF should be locked up or deported.

Tribalism is alive and well in the 80+ voting demographic

I wouldn't worry re; your first paragraph, as far as I can tell no-one on this side of the Irish Sea is talking about politics either. Except for on here of course.....

I know. We are all so sad....

RobD

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

I assume they’ll cost it. Whether anyone believes it is another matter. Same for Labour’s.

We will get the IFS costings of course. Speaking of which:



https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN251_Boris_Johnson's_tax_policies.pdf

Somewhat unsurprising as the lowest deciles pay so little tax in the first place thanks to various allowances.

rkrkrk

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

I assume they’ll cost it. Whether anyone believes it is another matter. Same for Labour’s.

We will get the IFS costings of course. Speaking of which:



https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN251_Boris_Johnson's_tax_policies.pdf

The landing zone for tax cuts predominantly for the rich, increased public spending and providing a full costing must be pretty narrow.

TheScreamingEagles

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

I assume they’ll cost it. Whether anyone believes it is another matter. Same for Labour’s.

We will get the IFS costings of course. Speaking of which:



https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN251_Boris_Johnson's_tax_policies.pdf

Somewhat unsurprising as the lowest deciles pay so little tax in the first place thanks to various allowances.

Hurrah for George Osborne and David Cameron, the champions of lower earners.

Big_G_NorthWales

Sky and BBC are obsessed with Trump

And they wonder why ordinary folk look on them as an out of touch London media circus

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

I assume they’ll cost it. Whether anyone believes it is another matter. Same for Labour’s.

We will get the IFS costings of course. Speaking of which:



https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN251_Boris_Johnson's_tax_policies.pdf

Somewhat unsurprising as the lowest deciles pay so little tax in the first place thanks to various allowances.

Hurrah for George Osborne and David Cameron, the champions of lower earners.

What a pair of guys!

TrèsDifficile

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

I assume they’ll cost it. Whether anyone believes it is another matter. Same for Labour’s.

We will get the IFS costings of course. Speaking of which:



https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN251_Boris_Johnson's_tax_policies.pdf

Somewhat unsurprising as the lowest deciles pay so little tax in the first place thanks to various allowances.

It's rather like that 10 drinkers of different means pooling their resources then getting a refund analogy..

NickPalmer

CarlottaVance said:

contrarian said:

Just seen on twitter yougov has some polling on the British Indian vote.

The figures look plausible but not especially British Indian-related - LibDems up 10, Tories down 4, Labour down 12 - all very similar to national shifts when the poll was taken (Nov 13-18). A subsequent LD-Lab shift has probably happened here too.

By the way, does anyone have any idea what is happening in Aberdeen North, an SNP seat with Lab second since the Tory was suspended by the party? Do we expect Labour, LibDems or BXP to benefit?

One could ask the same about Hodge Hill, but as the sensible voters there vote Labour in nearly North Korean proportions (81% last time), the misfortunes of the LibDem candidate aren't too interesting.

Chris

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

I assume they’ll cost it. Whether anyone believes it is another matter. Same for Labour’s.

We will get the IFS costings of course. Speaking of which:



https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN251_Boris_Johnson's_tax_policies.pdf

Somewhat unsurprising as the lowest deciles pay so little tax in the first place thanks to various allowances.

None of the figures in that chart depends on how much tax is paid currently!

Andy_JS

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sky and BBC are obsessed with Trump

And they wonder why ordinary folk look on them as an out of touch London media circus

I'm sick of hearing about Trump as well. Holding an impeachment less than 12 months before the election is a bit silly IMO.

TrèsDifficile

Benpointer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

But back on the original hand.. It does rather look from the wording that they do plan to increase employers' NICs - otherwise why is it excluded from the wording? And wouldn't that be really stupid? They might be able to call it a tax on corporations, as it's the employers paying the increased tax, but it would just be an incredibly idiotic tax on jobs.

Andy_JS

FPT:

Benpointer — if you type the phone number into a search engine it'll probably come up with information about scam calls that other people have been discussing. That's what I do when they happen.

bigjohnowls

Britain Elects 33,000 votes
Corbyn 57% Johnson 28%

Paul Brand ITV 30,000 votes
Corbyn 78% Johnson 22%

Martin Lewis 23,000 votes
Corbyn 47% Johnson 25%

The Times 8,000 votes
Corbyn 63% Johnson 37%

YouGov 1,646 polled
Corbyn 49% Johnson 51%

RobD

Chris said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

I assume they’ll cost it. Whether anyone believes it is another matter. Same for Labour’s.

We will get the IFS costings of course. Speaking of which:



https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN251_Boris_Johnson's_tax_policies.pdf

Somewhat unsurprising as the lowest deciles pay so little tax in the first place thanks to various allowances.

None of the figures in that chart depends on how much tax is paid currently!

If you don't pay any tax, how can a tax cut net you any more money (both absolute and as a fraction)?

TrèsDifficile

Chris said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

I assume they’ll cost it. Whether anyone believes it is another matter. Same for Labour’s.

We will get the IFS costings of course. Speaking of which:



https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN251_Boris_Johnson's_tax_policies.pdf

Somewhat unsurprising as the lowest deciles pay so little tax in the first place thanks to various allowances.

None of the figures in that chart depends on how much tax is paid currently!

The horizontal axis is "income decile". Those with the lowest incomes, surprise surprise, already pay the lowest taxes.

Beibheirli_C

Andy_JS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sky and BBC are obsessed with Trump

And they wonder why ordinary folk look on them as an out of touch London media circus

I'm sick of hearing about Trump as well. Holding an impeachment less than 12 months before the election is a bit silly IMO.

Surely not? I suspect that what they want is for the Republicans to be tarnished so that their vote share declines.

Guilt by association.

squareroot2

bigjohnowls said:

Britain Elects 33,000 votes
Corbyn 57% Johnson 28%

Paul Brand ITV 30,000 votes
Corbyn 78% Johnson 22%

Martin Lewis 23,000 votes
Corbyn 47% Johnson 25%

The Times 8,000 votes
Corbyn 63% Johnson 37%

YouGov 1,646 polled
Corbyn 49% Johnson 51%

You like voodoo polls ???

RobD

bigjohnowls said:

Britain Elects 33,000 votes
Corbyn 57% Johnson 28%

Paul Brand ITV 30,000 votes
Corbyn 78% Johnson 22%

Martin Lewis 23,000 votes
Corbyn 47% Johnson 25%

The Times 8,000 votes
Corbyn 63% Johnson 37%

YouGov 1,646 polled
Corbyn 49% Johnson 51%

Voodoo poll alert. Come on BJO, you know better than this.

Andy_JS

bigjohnowls said:

Britain Elects 33,000 votes
Corbyn 57% Johnson 28%

Paul Brand ITV 30,000 votes
Corbyn 78% Johnson 22%

Martin Lewis 23,000 votes
Corbyn 47% Johnson 25%

The Times 8,000 votes
Corbyn 63% Johnson 37%

YouGov 1,646 polled
Corbyn 49% Johnson 51%

Which polling companies were doing the other polls (apart from the YouGov one)?

RobD

Andy_JS said:

bigjohnowls said:

Britain Elects 33,000 votes
Corbyn 57% Johnson 28%

Paul Brand ITV 30,000 votes
Corbyn 78% Johnson 22%

Martin Lewis 23,000 votes
Corbyn 47% Johnson 25%

The Times 8,000 votes
Corbyn 63% Johnson 37%

YouGov 1,646 polled
Corbyn 49% Johnson 51%

Which polling companies were doing the other polls (apart from the YouGov one)?

Twitter polls, I assume.

Fenster

bigjohnowls said:

Britain Elects 33,000 votes
Corbyn 57% Johnson 28%

Paul Brand ITV 30,000 votes
Corbyn 78% Johnson 22%

Martin Lewis 23,000 votes
Corbyn 47% Johnson 25%

The Times 8,000 votes
Corbyn 63% Johnson 37%

YouGov 1,646 polled
Corbyn 49% Johnson 51%

The YouGov one wasn't conducted on Twitter.

Twitter is far more lefty than real life.

ozymandias

Andy_JS said:

bigjohnowls said:

Britain Elects 33,000 votes
Corbyn 57% Johnson 28%

Paul Brand ITV 30,000 votes
Corbyn 78% Johnson 22%

Martin Lewis 23,000 votes
Corbyn 47% Johnson 25%

The Times 8,000 votes
Corbyn 63% Johnson 37%

YouGov 1,646 polled
Corbyn 49% Johnson 51%

Which polling companies were doing the other polls (apart from the YouGov one)?

Are they as accurate as the Daily Mail up/down arrows?

Chris

RobD said:

Chris said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

I assume they’ll cost it. Whether anyone believes it is another matter. Same for Labour’s.

We will get the IFS costings of course. Speaking of which:



https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN251_Boris_Johnson's_tax_policies.pdf

Somewhat unsurprising as the lowest deciles pay so little tax in the first place thanks to various allowances.

None of the figures in that chart depends on how much tax is paid currently!

If you don't pay any tax, how can a tax cut net you any more money (both absolute and as a fraction)?

Well, of course if you don't pay the tax that is being cut you won't benefit!

But if you don't think the poor pay indirect taxes, you must be a bit crazy.

TrèsDifficile

Just read to the end of the article linked to on the last thread about the illiterate, racist Lib Dem candidate who's been suspended. He stood for UKIP in the 2010 election. How on earth did he get selected by the Lib Dems in the first place?!

RobD

Chris said:

RobD said:

Chris said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

I assume they’ll cost it. Whether anyone believes it is another matter. Same for Labour’s.

We will get the IFS costings of course. Speaking of which:



https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN251_Boris_Johnson's_tax_policies.pdf

Somewhat unsurprising as the lowest deciles pay so little tax in the first place thanks to various allowances.

None of the figures in that chart depends on how much tax is paid currently!

If you don't pay any tax, how can a tax cut net you any more money (both absolute and as a fraction)?

Well, of course if you don't pay the tax that is being cut you won't benefit!

But if you don't think the poor pay indirect taxes, you must be a bit crazy.

But this isn't looking at indirect taxes, it's the change in income due to the two proposed changes. If you aren't already paying those taxes, you won't benefit from them.

dr_spyn

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1197187467235020801 LD remove candidate in Birmingham Hodge Hill.

ClippP

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hurrah for George Osborne and David Cameron, the champions of lower earners.

You mean the Lib Dems, of course. The Tory leaders said it was impossible, and opposed it every step of the way. Until the Lib Dems insisted that it was make or break for the Coalition. The the Tories fell into line. And afterwards claimed all the credit.

That`s what Conservatives are like.

Chris

TrèsDifficile said:

Chris said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

I assume they’ll cost it. Whether anyone believes it is another matter. Same for Labour’s.

We will get the IFS costings of course. Speaking of which:



https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN251_Boris_Johnson's_tax_policies.pdf

Somewhat unsurprising as the lowest deciles pay so little tax in the first place thanks to various allowances.

None of the figures in that chart depends on how much tax is paid currently!

The horizontal axis is "income decile". Those with the lowest incomes, surprise surprise, already pay the lowest taxes.

The chart doesn't tell you anything whatsoever about how much tax is "already paid." It tells you how much the change would be in tax paid - absolutely and as a proportion of income.

bigjohnowls

https://twitter.com/Emz4Corbyn/status/1196943337401602053/photo/1

RobD

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1197187467235020801 LD remove candidate in Birmingham Hodge Hill.

How can you oust a candidate after the nomination papers have been filed?

RobD

bigjohnowls said:

https://twitter.com/Emz4Corbyn/status/1196943337401602053/photo/1

Oh for god's sake. If they had done that, don't you think we'd have noticed on here?

dr_spyn

RobD said:

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1197187467235020801 LD remove candidate in Birmingham Hodge Hill.

How can you oust a candidate after the nomination papers have been filed?

Must be the old stop canvassing to elect him or her routine.

Pulpstar

ozymandias said:

Andy_JS said:

bigjohnowls said:

Britain Elects 33,000 votes
Corbyn 57% Johnson 28%

Paul Brand ITV 30,000 votes
Corbyn 78% Johnson 22%

Martin Lewis 23,000 votes
Corbyn 47% Johnson 25%

The Times 8,000 votes
Corbyn 63% Johnson 37%

YouGov 1,646 polled
Corbyn 49% Johnson 51%

Which polling companies were doing the other polls (apart from the YouGov one)?

Are they as accurate as the Daily Mail up/down arrows?

The Mail up/down arrows are a good place to work out whereabouts the centre of gravity for Tory/Brexit party votes currently is at.

ozymandias

RobD said:

bigjohnowls said:

https://twitter.com/Emz4Corbyn/status/1196943337401602053/photo/1

Oh for god's sake. If they had done that, don't you think we'd have noticed on here?

False rumours circulating about YouGov poll on debate

BBC Trending

We’ve seen false rumours floating around about YouGov's snap poll after last night's leaders debate on ITV.

Some people spotted that its web page was created at 6:50pm – before the debate started.

But that was a holding page, allowing the pollsters to get the results online quickly.

All data was actually collected after the debate.

Chris

RobD said:

Chris said:

RobD said:

Chris said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

I assume they’ll cost it. Whether anyone believes it is another matter. Same for Labour’s.

We will get the IFS costings of course. Speaking of which:



https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN251_Boris_Johnson's_tax_policies.pdf

Somewhat unsurprising as the lowest deciles pay so little tax in the first place thanks to various allowances.

None of the figures in that chart depends on how much tax is paid currently!

If you don't pay any tax, how can a tax cut net you any more money (both absolute and as a fraction)?

Well, of course if you don't pay the tax that is being cut you won't benefit!

But if you don't think the poor pay indirect taxes, you must be a bit crazy.

But this isn't looking at indirect taxes, it's the change in income due to the two proposed changes. If you aren't already paying those taxes, you won't benefit from them.

My point exactly. The Tories are proposing to reduce the kind of taxes the poor pay less of. Not exactly a surprise.

Perhaps what you meant to say earlier was "If you don't pay the kind of tax that only richer people pay, how can a Tory tax cut net you any more money?"

glw

Andy_JS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sky and BBC are obsessed with Trump

And they wonder why ordinary folk look on them as an out of touch London media circus

I'm sick of hearing about Trump as well. Holding an impeachment less than 12 months before the election is a bit silly IMO.

Not really. Trump is a crook, and it is the duty of Congress to hold him to account.

Banterman

bigjohnowls said:

https://twitter.com/Emz4Corbyn/status/1196943337401602053/photo/1

Anthony Wells has explained to the ignorant Labour folk that the time stamp relates to the publishing of the holding page, not the time of putting out the poll.

Labour protests too much. Must be very worried.

Scrapheap_as_was

bigjohnowls said:

https://twitter.com/Emz4Corbyn/status/1196943337401602053/photo/1

Idiotic - was it the big bad 'dark powers' behind this too?

glw

Fenster said:

bigjohnowls said:

Britain Elects 33,000 votes
Corbyn 57% Johnson 28%

Paul Brand ITV 30,000 votes
Corbyn 78% Johnson 22%

Martin Lewis 23,000 votes
Corbyn 47% Johnson 25%

The Times 8,000 votes
Corbyn 63% Johnson 37%

YouGov 1,646 polled
Corbyn 49% Johnson 51%

The YouGov one wasn't conducted on Twitter.

Twitter is far more lefty than real life.

That said we should do all we can to encourage Labour supporters to take such voodoo polls seriously.

Pulpstar

dr_spyn said:

RobD said:

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1197187467235020801 LD remove candidate in Birmingham Hodge Hill.

How can you oust a candidate after the nomination papers have been filed?

Must be the old stop canvassing to elect him or her routine.

Doubt anyone will be bothering in Hodge Hill, probably in the top 10 of Labour safe seats for the next 50 years at least.

Beibheirli_C

RobD said:

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1197187467235020801 LD remove candidate in Birmingham Hodge Hill.

How can you oust a candidate after the nomination papers have been filed?

Does it matter? It is Liam Byrne's seat and it is one of the safest Labour seats in the country. The LD candidate never had a chance in hell....

glw

RobD said:

bigjohnowls said:

https://twitter.com/Emz4Corbyn/status/1196943337401602053/photo/1

Oh for god's sake. If they had done that, don't you think we'd have noticed on here?

Is it not just an article that was updated after publishing?

rcs1000

Tonight's Democratic debate is going to be fascinating. Buttigieg is going to be getting attacked for the first time, and it will be interesting to see if he can handle it.

Philip_Thompson

bigjohnowls said:

Britain Elects 33,000 votes
Corbyn 57% Johnson 28%

Paul Brand ITV 30,000 votes
Corbyn 78% Johnson 22%

Martin Lewis 23,000 votes
Corbyn 47% Johnson 25%

The Times 8,000 votes
Corbyn 63% Johnson 37%

YouGov 1,646 polled
Corbyn 49% Johnson 51%

'votes'?

You're not quoting voodoo polls are you?

Andy_JS

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1197187467235020801 LD remove candidate in Birmingham Hodge Hill.

That means Labour will probably get 80% in the constituency.

glw

ozymandias said:

RobD said:

bigjohnowls said:

https://twitter.com/Emz4Corbyn/status/1196943337401602053/photo/1

Oh for god's sake. If they had done that, don't you think we'd have noticed on here?

False rumours circulating about YouGov poll on debate

BBC Trending

We’ve seen false rumours floating around about YouGov's snap poll after last night's leaders debate on ITV.

Some people spotted that its web page was created at 6:50pm – before the debate started.

But that was a holding page, allowing the pollsters to get the results online quickly.

All data was actually collected after the debate.

Ah, so my hunch was correct.

ozymandias

glw said:

ozymandias said:

RobD said:

bigjohnowls said:

https://twitter.com/Emz4Corbyn/status/1196943337401602053/photo/1

Oh for god's sake. If they had done that, don't you think we'd have noticed on here?

False rumours circulating about YouGov poll on debate

BBC Trending

We’ve seen false rumours floating around about YouGov's snap poll after last night's leaders debate on ITV.

Some people spotted that its web page was created at 6:50pm – before the debate started.

But that was a holding page, allowing the pollsters to get the results online quickly.

All data was actually collected after the debate.

Ah, so my hunch was correct.

Twitter should just be switched off during elections. It brings no good to anyone.

Or just switched off.

Big_G_NorthWales

glw said:

Andy_JS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sky and BBC are obsessed with Trump

And they wonder why ordinary folk look on them as an out of touch London media circus

I'm sick of hearing about Trump as well. Holding an impeachment less than 12 months before the election is a bit silly IMO.

Not really. Trump is a crook, and it is the duty of Congress to hold him to account.

Absolutely. But Sky and BBC are obsessed with constant live coverage

RobD

ozymandias said:

glw said:

ozymandias said:

RobD said:

bigjohnowls said:

https://twitter.com/Emz4Corbyn/status/1196943337401602053/photo/1

Oh for god's sake. If they had done that, don't you think we'd have noticed on here?

False rumours circulating about YouGov poll on debate

BBC Trending

We’ve seen false rumours floating around about YouGov's snap poll after last night's leaders debate on ITV.

Some people spotted that its web page was created at 6:50pm – before the debate started.

But that was a holding page, allowing the pollsters to get the results online quickly.

All data was actually collected after the debate.

Ah, so my hunch was correct.

Twitter should just be switched off during elections. It brings no good to anyone.

Wouldn't it be a shame if it was never turned on again?

Anorak

Scrapheap_as_was said:

bigjohnowls said:

https://twitter.com/Emz4Corbyn/status/1196943337401602053/photo/1

Idiotic - was it the big bad 'dark powers' behind this too?

Big red alarm bells ringing when the "sleuth" in this case was called Emz4Corbyn.

I mean, what sort of half-witted, credulous moron falls for this, outside of a Twitter echo chamber.

eristdoof

Fenster said:

bigjohnowls said:

Britain Elects 33,000 votes
Corbyn 57% Johnson 28%

Paul Brand ITV 30,000 votes
Corbyn 78% Johnson 22%

Martin Lewis 23,000 votes
Corbyn 47% Johnson 25%

The Times 8,000 votes
Corbyn 63% Johnson 37%

YouGov 1,646 polled
Corbyn 49% Johnson 51%

The YouGov one wasn't conducted on Twitter.

Twitter is far more lefty than real life.

Twitter is far more lefty than your real life.

TrèsDifficile

Chris said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Chris said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

I assume they’ll cost it. Whether anyone believes it is another matter. Same for Labour’s.

We will get the IFS costings of course. Speaking of which:



https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN251_Boris_Johnson's_tax_policies.pdf

Somewhat unsurprising as the lowest deciles pay so little tax in the first place thanks to various allowances.

None of the figures in that chart depends on how much tax is paid currently!

The horizontal axis is "income decile". Those with the lowest incomes, surprise surprise, already pay the lowest taxes.

The chart doesn't tell you anything whatsoever about how much tax is "already paid." It tells you how much the change would be in tax paid - absolutely and as a proportion of income.

Do you want the lowest paid to get NI credits before they hit the current £8.5k threshold?!

Philip_Thompson

eristdoof said:

Fenster said:

bigjohnowls said:

Britain Elects 33,000 votes
Corbyn 57% Johnson 28%

Paul Brand ITV 30,000 votes
Corbyn 78% Johnson 22%

Martin Lewis 23,000 votes
Corbyn 47% Johnson 25%

The Times 8,000 votes
Corbyn 63% Johnson 37%

YouGov 1,646 polled
Corbyn 49% Johnson 51%

The YouGov one wasn't conducted on Twitter.

Twitter is far more lefty than real life.

Twitter is far more lefty than your real life.

Twitter is far more lefty than everyone's real life.

If Twitter was representative EICIPM would have been real.

Anorak

Anorak said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

bigjohnowls said:

https://twitter.com/Emz4Corbyn/status/1196943337401602053/photo/1

Idiotic - was it the big bad 'dark powers' behind this too?

Big red alarm bells ringing when the "sleuth" in this case was called Emz4Corbyn.

I mean, what sort of half-witted, credulous moron falls for this, outside of a Twitter echo chamber.

https://twitter.com/Emz4Corbyn/status/1144698963867688960

RobD

Beibheirli_C said:

RobD said:

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1197187467235020801 LD remove candidate in Birmingham Hodge Hill.

How can you oust a candidate after the nomination papers have been filed?

Does it matter? It is Liam Byrne's seat and it is one of the safest Labour seats in the country. The LD candidate never had a chance in hell....

No, and perhaps I was being too pedantic. The candidate hasn't been withdrawn, they will just no longer campaign (or be supported).

RobD

Anorak said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

bigjohnowls said:

https://twitter.com/Emz4Corbyn/status/1196943337401602053/photo/1

Idiotic - was it the big bad 'dark powers' behind this too?

Big red alarm bells ringing when the "sleuth" in this case was called Emz4Corbyn.

I mean, what sort of half-witted, credulous moron falls for this, outside of a Twitter echo chamber.

That's no way to talk about BJO.

Chris

Anorak said:

Anorak said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

bigjohnowls said:

https://twitter.com/Emz4Corbyn/status/1196943337401602053/photo/1

Idiotic - was it the big bad 'dark powers' behind this too?

Big red alarm bells ringing when the "sleuth" in this case was called Emz4Corbyn.

I mean, what sort of half-witted, credulous moron falls for this, outside of a Twitter echo chamber.

https://twitter.com/Emz4Corbyn/status/1144698963867688960

After slumber. In unvanquishable number. Oh yeah.

TrèsDifficile

Anorak said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

bigjohnowls said:

https://twitter.com/Emz4Corbyn/status/1196943337401602053/photo/1

Idiotic - was it the big bad 'dark powers' behind this too?

Big red alarm bells ringing when the "sleuth" in this case was called Emz4Corbyn.

I mean, what sort of half-witted, credulous moron falls for this, outside of a Twitter echo chamber.

They should probably run their tweets by FactCheckUK before embarrassing themselves!

Chris

TrèsDifficile said:

Chris said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Chris said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

I assume they’ll cost it. Whether anyone believes it is another matter. Same for Labour’s.

We will get the IFS costings of course. Speaking of which:



https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN251_Boris_Johnson's_tax_policies.pdf

Somewhat unsurprising as the lowest deciles pay so little tax in the first place thanks to various allowances.

None of the figures in that chart depends on how much tax is paid currently!

The horizontal axis is "income decile". Those with the lowest incomes, surprise surprise, already pay the lowest taxes.

The chart doesn't tell you anything whatsoever about how much tax is "already paid." It tells you how much the change would be in tax paid - absolutely and as a proportion of income.

Do you want the lowest paid to get NI credits before they hit the current £8.5k threshold?!

Please see my replies to the other guy.

TheScreamingEagles

I'll let you in to a little secret, I'm editing PB on election night for the third general election in a row.

I do placeholder threads a few hours beforehand.

If I accidentally publish one of them I've not stuffed the ballot boxes beforehand.

TheScreamingEagles

Blimey. Ken Starr!

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1197192997835808769

glw

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'll let you in to a little secret, I'm editing PB on election night for the third general election in a row.

I do placeholder threads a few hours beforehand.

If I accidentally publish one of them I've not stuffed the ballot boxes beforehand.

It would be more fun to pretend you had.

Charles

bigjohnowls said:

Britain Elects 33,000 votes
Corbyn 57% Johnson 28%

Paul Brand ITV 30,000 votes
Corbyn 78% Johnson 22%

Martin Lewis 23,000 votes
Corbyn 47% Johnson 25%

The Times 8,000 votes
Corbyn 63% Johnson 37%

YouGov 1,646 polled
Corbyn 49% Johnson 51%

Which were controlled vs voodoo pills?

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'll let you in to a little secret, I'm editing PB on election night for the third general election in a row.

I do placeholder threads a few hours beforehand.

If I accidentally publish one of them I've not stuffed the ballot boxes beforehand.

I'm guessing this is a euphemism that I'm currently not aware of.

Andrew

TheScreamingEagles said:

If I accidentally publish one of them I've not stuffed the ballot boxes beforehand.

I wouldn't even joke, Momentum are likely already putting you on a list.

Andy_JS

bigjohnowls said:

Britain Elects 33,000 votes
Corbyn 57% Johnson 28%

Paul Brand ITV 30,000 votes
Corbyn 78% Johnson 22%

Martin Lewis 23,000 votes
Corbyn 47% Johnson 25%

The Times 8,000 votes
Corbyn 63% Johnson 37%

YouGov 1,646 polled
Corbyn 49% Johnson 51%

It doesn't matter how many people vote on Twitter, it's worthless in terms of polling accuracy.

From UKPR:

"In the 1930s in the USA the Literary Digest used to do mail-in polls that really did survey millions of people, literally millions. In 1936 they sent surveys to a quarter of the entire electorate and received 2 million replies. They confidently predicted that Alf Landon would win the imminent US Presidential election with 57% of the popular vote and 370 electoral votes. George Gallup meanwhile used quota sampling to interview just a few thousand people and predicted that Landon would lose miserably to Roosevelt. In reality, Roosevelt beat Landon in a landslide, winning 61% of the vote and 523 electoral votes. Gallup was right, the Digest was wrong."

https://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/4874

TheScreamingEagles

glw said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'll let you in to a little secret, I'm editing PB on election night for the third general election in a row.

I do placeholder threads a few hours beforehand.

If I accidentally publish one of them I've not stuffed the ballot boxes beforehand.

It would be more fun to pretend you had.

So at 7pm on election night I'll 'accidentally' publish a thread entitled

'Exclusive: SNP set to gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip'

RobD

Chris said:

RobD said:

Chris said:

RobD said:

Chris said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

I assume they’ll cost it. Whether anyone believes it is another matter. Same for Labour’s.

We will get the IFS costings of course. Speaking of which:



https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN251_Boris_Johnson's_tax_policies.pdf

Somewhat unsurprising as the lowest deciles pay so little tax in the first place thanks to various allowances.

None of the figures in that chart depends on how much tax is paid currently!

If you don't pay any tax, how can a tax cut net you any more money (both absolute and as a fraction)?

Well, of course if you don't pay the tax that is being cut you won't benefit!

But if you don't think the poor pay indirect taxes, you must be a bit crazy.

But this isn't looking at indirect taxes, it's the change in income due to the two proposed changes. If you aren't already paying those taxes, you won't benefit from them.

My point exactly. The Tories are proposing to reduce the kind of taxes the poor pay less of. Not exactly a surprise.

Perhaps what you meant to say earlier was "If you don't pay the kind of tax that only richer people pay, how can a Tory tax cut net you any more money?"

I fear we are on the same side of the argument. My original point was that it wasn't a surprised the lowest decile had no gain because they didn't pay these taxes. Why are we arguing again?

RobD

Andy_JS said:

bigjohnowls said:

Britain Elects 33,000 votes
Corbyn 57% Johnson 28%

Paul Brand ITV 30,000 votes
Corbyn 78% Johnson 22%

Martin Lewis 23,000 votes
Corbyn 47% Johnson 25%

The Times 8,000 votes
Corbyn 63% Johnson 37%

YouGov 1,646 polled
Corbyn 49% Johnson 51%

It doesn't matter how many people vote on Twitter, it's worthless in terms of polling accuracy.

From UKPR:

"In the 1930s in the USA the Literary Digest used to do mail-in polls that really did survey millions of people, literally millions. In 1936 they sent surveys to a quarter of the entire electorate and received 2 million replies. They confidently predicted that Alf Landon would win the imminent US Presidential election with 57% of the popular vote and 370 electoral votes. George Gallup meanwhile used quota sampling to interview just a few thousand people and predicted that Landon would lose miserably to Roosevelt. In reality, Roosevelt beat Landon in a landslide, winning 61% of the vote and 523 electoral votes. Gallup was right, the Digest was wrong."

https://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/4874

But the unweighted figures show Corbyn doing much better!!

TheScreamingEagles

Andrew said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

If I accidentally publish one of them I've not stuffed the ballot boxes beforehand.

I wouldn't even joke, Momentum are likely already putting you on a list.

I'm already on Momentum's list.

On Twitter a Momentum supporter added me to the list called 'Tory Pollsters'

TrèsDifficile

Chris said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Chris said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Chris said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

I assume they’ll cost it. Whether anyone believes it is another matter. Same for Labour’s.

We will get the IFS costings of course. Speaking of which:



https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN251_Boris_Johnson's_tax_policies.pdf

Somewhat unsurprising as the lowest deciles pay so little tax in the first place thanks to various allowances.

None of the figures in that chart depends on how much tax is paid currently!

The horizontal axis is "income decile". Those with the lowest incomes, surprise surprise, already pay the lowest taxes.

The chart doesn't tell you anything whatsoever about how much tax is "already paid." It tells you how much the change would be in tax paid - absolutely and as a proportion of income.

Do you want the lowest paid to get NI credits before they hit the current £8.5k threshold?!

Please see my replies to the other guy.

I wrote that post after seeing your reply. Giving National Insurance credits is the only way to change NI that will benefit people that people that don't pay it. The vast majority of people will benefit from the proposed NI changes, and lower and middle income earners to a bigger percentage degree than higher earners. Obviously the higher rate threshold change will only affect those currently paying the current higher rate, so not me. But I don't begrudge those who will benefit from it, because I don't support politics of envy.

Chris

RobD said:

Chris said:

RobD said:

Chris said:

RobD said:

Chris said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Just seen from the Beeb's live election coverage feed that in Labour's 2017 manifesto they said “A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance contributions or the rate of VAT.”

They're not going to say the same again and try to raise the bulk of the half a trillion spending they've promised by adding loads of it to employers' NICs, are they?

On the other hand (and given they are most likely to form the government) it will be interesting to see how the Tories' tax cuts + higher spending stacks up once their costed manifesto is published (assuming they bother to cost it this time).

I assume they’ll cost it. Whether anyone believes it is another matter. Same for Labour’s.

We will get the IFS costings of course. Speaking of which:



https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN251_Boris_Johnson's_tax_policies.pdf

Somewhat unsurprising as the lowest deciles pay so little tax in the first place thanks to various allowances.

None of the figures in that chart depends on how much tax is paid currently!

If you don't pay any tax, how can a tax cut net you any more money (both absolute and as a fraction)?

Well, of course if you don't pay the tax that is being cut you won't benefit!

But if you don't think the poor pay indirect taxes, you must be a bit crazy.

But this isn't looking at indirect taxes, it's the change in income due to the two proposed changes. If you aren't already paying those taxes, you won't benefit from them.

My point exactly. The Tories are proposing to reduce the kind of taxes the poor pay less of. Not exactly a surprise.

Perhaps what you meant to say earlier was "If you don't pay the kind of tax that only richer people pay, how can a Tory tax cut net you any more money?"

I fear we are on the same side of the argument. My original point was that it wasn't a surprised the lowest decile had no gain because they didn't pay these taxes. Why are we arguing again?

Because you said "If you don't pay any tax." Of course, if you'd said "If you don't pay the tax that's being cut," there would have been no argument.

The poor pay a lot of tax, particularly as a percentage of income.