Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
Absolutely correct as usual Big G.
People like @MaxPB and Philip Thompson live in a fantasy world and don't understand that wealthy people such as they need to contribute to Society rather than just being focused on their own pockets.
I who am noted for being moderate and centre on here am proud to confirm that in my last 10 years of working I paid (approx) £1m tax and NI. It showed that I paid my way as well as being massively successful. 👍
My net rate of tax was 42% last year. Get off your high horse, you're not the only person with an annual six figure tax bill and I'll be paying it for many more years than you did.
My own situation isn't relevant, my issue is working people on modest incomes being forced to pay when there's rich pensioners who can easily be taxed at source for significantly more than they pay now and have their state pension tapered down to zero from £50k+
Well done you managed a post without swearing at me.
If you are in the 42% tax band you are no where near paying £100,000 tax a year.
I was a regular visitor to the AR band even in the good old days when it was 50%. So 52% technically on your basis.
If you ever get to earning more than £100k a year you will enjoy the 60%/effective 62% band. Probably 63% by then
My net rate of tax, as in the tax paid on all of my income. Not the tax band. I just looked it up it was actually a 44% net rate of tax. My current tax band is the additional rate plus the 2% NI. It's just easier to talk about the net or effective tax rate.
I enjoy swearing at you because you're an entitled old fool and you seem to believe that you're the only one who ever worked hard for a living and now you want a life with your hand in everyone else's pocket.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
Its worth noting that research is from when Theresa May was in charge and matches the 2017 election, which is why the Tories lost their majority.
In the 2019 election the Tory/Labour crossover age dropped down to 39, which accounted for the Tory landslide majority.
Taking a dump on working voters will take us back to the dark days of Theresa May.
Indeed, although I doubt that the pattern of party support changed that radically at the last GE. The point holds: the Tories are in hock to the old and have little incentive to do anything to favour the young.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
Low taxes and grow the economy. We should be set for an economic boom now which will transform the budget for the better anyway. Strangling that at birth with taxes is idiotic.
EDIT: Same answer applies to Benpointer just above.
"Low taxes and grow the economy" sounds great but how exactly do you think low taxes (and presumably the consequent public spending cuts) will grow the economy?
You are begging the question by adding "consequent spending cuts". It is possible lower tax rates will allow higher spending if the economy grows (or if the Laffer curve people are right). They might grow the economy by permitting higher productive investment or just higher private spending.
You say "if the economy grows", I am asking how do lower taxes grow the economy?
Tax isn't lost to the economy, it's spent and recycled.
Actually it is lost. Its called Deadweight loss.
Drop the tax, there's less Deadweight loss and more money can be spent and recycled in the economy.
So younger people who have been shafted by pensioners over Brexit and then shafted over covid to protect the same pensioners are now expected to stump up an NI rise to allow the same group to pay fuck all towards the increased social care costs .
They should means test pensioners and stick a tax rise on those who can afford it .
Actually they are still going to have to pay between £60 - £100 thousand depending on the final figure agreed in the legislation
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
Low taxes and grow the economy. We should be set for an economic boom now which will transform the budget for the better anyway. Strangling that at birth with taxes is idiotic.
EDIT: Same answer applies to Benpointer just above.
"Low taxes and grow the economy" sounds great but how exactly do you think low taxes (and presumably the consequent public spending cuts) will grow the economy?
And of course even if we cut taxes and the economy did grow faster, the deficit would still be wider overall and they would use the situation as a reason to cut taxes again. Soon you end up like the clusterfuck in Kansas. It is zealotry, uninformed by real world evidence. They talk about the Laffer curve, but pretend there isn't a left hand side of it.
Ah the fabled Laffer curve - a curve with no formula, no coordinates, no data - about as real as a rainbow with a pot of gold at the end.
It does have 2 data points. If tax is zero, revenue will be zero. If tax is 100%, revenue will also be zero. Debatable, but we'll let that go. So there must be a sweet spot in between where revenue is maximised. For which insight he is lauded by some as a kind of visionary seer. Rather than the reaction being "Isn't that banal observation somewhat self-evident to anyone at all with even a few weeks of economics?" Nobody thought to write it down before 'cos it is stating the bleeding obvious.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
Low taxes and grow the economy. We should be set for an economic boom now which will transform the budget for the better anyway. Strangling that at birth with taxes is idiotic.
EDIT: Same answer applies to Benpointer just above.
"Low taxes and grow the economy" sounds great but how exactly do you think low taxes (and presumably the consequent public spending cuts) will grow the economy?
And of course even if we cut taxes and the economy did grow faster, the deficit would still be wider overall and they would use the situation as a reason to cut taxes again. Soon you end up like the clusterfuck in Kansas. It is zealotry, uninformed by real world evidence. They talk about the Laffer curve, but pretend there isn't a left hand side of it.
Ah the fabled Laffer curve - a curve with no formula, no coordinates, no data - about as real as a rainbow with a pot of gold at the end.
I think once tax rates hit 50% there is a major disincentive. Certainly, I stopped flogging myself at that point.
(Note that while nominal rates were higher in the decades before, there were many more in the way of deductions, so the effective rates were lower in many cases).
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
Its worth noting that research is from when Theresa May was in charge and matches the 2017 election, which is why the Tories lost their majority.
In the 2019 election the Tory/Labour crossover age dropped down to 39, which accounted for the Tory landslide majority.
Taking a dump on working voters will take us back to the dark days of Theresa May.
Indeed, although I doubt that the pattern of party support changed that radically at the last GE. The point holds: the Tories are in hock to the old and have little incentive to do anything to favour the young.
The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.
I am a fiscal conservative but I am also a realist. The demands on the state have increased out of all recognition and traditional balance. We need another £10bn for health care to start dealing with the backlog and long Covid. We need to increase the social care budget substantially. We have children who have missed the best part of 2 years education and need concentrated and focused help to catch up. We have a huge new debt mountain to service, not all of it printed.
The argument that the State can address all of these immediate and very pressing issues by keeping taxes low and growth is frankly fantasy. Hundred of thousands of businesses will not be paying taxes for a year or two given the losses they have accrued over the last 2 years. Many will not survive. Those that replace them will not be generating much tax revenue for some time.
There are massive hits to both sides of the P&L account at the same time: expenditure massively increased and income falling. The issue is not whether taxes have to increase. The issue is which taxes payable by whom. My problem with NI is that it taxes the working part of the population who have already borne the brunt of this. That 8% reflects how much income people lost last year. The burden needs to be shared and protecting our better off pensioners should not be a priority, indeed they are an obvious target. But taxes need to increase. No question.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
Absolutely correct as usual Big G.
People like @MaxPB and Philip Thompson live in a fantasy world and don't understand that wealthy people such as they need to contribute to Society rather than just being focused on their own pockets.
I who am noted for being moderate and centre on here am proud to confirm that in my last 10 years of working I paid (approx) £1m tax and NI. It showed that I paid my way as well as being massively successful. 👍
My net rate of tax was 42% last year. Get off your high horse, you're not the only person with an annual six figure tax bill and I'll be paying it for many more years than you did.
My own situation isn't relevant, my issue is working people on modest incomes being forced to pay when there's rich pensioners who can easily be taxed at source for significantly more than they pay now and have their state pension tapered down to zero from £50k+
Well done you managed a post without swearing at me.
If you are in the 42% tax band you are no where near paying £100,000 tax a year.
I was a regular visitor to the AR band even in the good old days when it was 50%. So 52% technically on your basis.
If you ever get to earning more than £100k a year you will enjoy the 60%/effective 62% band. Probably 63% by then
My net rate of tax, as in the tax paid on all of my income. Not the tax band. I just looked it up it was actually a 44% net rate of tax. My current tax band is the additional rate plus the 2% NI. It's just easier to talk about the net or effective tax rate.
I enjoy swearing at you because you're an entitled old fool and you seem to believe that you're the only one who ever worked hard for a living and now you want a life with your hand in everyone else's pocket.
LOL - and Philip is embarrassing himself too by liking this post - you still fail to grasp the basic point.
I don't need or want my hand in any one's pocket. I am self made and successful. I am happy to pay my way. I have said on here that the tax loading for social care should be on income tax not NI. You seem scared to pay a little more tax.
PS if you are on the AR its 47% (45% + 2% NI). You seem ignorant of this just as your group of supposedly sophisticated WhatsApp friends didn't know that NI is not paid on pensions, something that anyone with a basic understanding of tax would know.
I would call you a twat. But that could be deemed to be swearing so I won't.
Enjoy your money. And your family's money. That's you that is!
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
Its worth noting that research is from when Theresa May was in charge and matches the 2017 election, which is why the Tories lost their majority.
In the 2019 election the Tory/Labour crossover age dropped down to 39, which accounted for the Tory landslide majority.
Taking a dump on working voters will take us back to the dark days of Theresa May.
Indeed, although I doubt that the pattern of party support changed that radically at the last GE. The point holds: the Tories are in hock to the old and have little incentive to do anything to favour the young.
The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.
I think this tax will shift the voting age for Tories to well above 55, maybe approaching 60. I could easily see Labour get to 300+ seats if they oppose this and do it with some level of cunning.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
That's all well and good, but one strongly suspects that you are in the minority.
I'm very cynical about these sorts of questions. I think that most people believe that they are special sunflowers and that other, less deserving targets should be made to pay for stuff. In the case of the grey vote, one suspects that most of them are stickbangers (to clarify: that's my stereotype of the older person who, when asked to pay extra for anything, bangs their stick on the floor whilst angrily wailing "But I paid my taxes!")
If the Tory vote wasn't full of stickbangers then they'd propose freezing the state pension next year or, at most, uprating it in line with inflation, to ease the burden on the workers. Indeed, to a dispassionate observer, that line of thinking strikes one as a complete no-brainer. The fact that the Treasury hasn't done that already speaks volumes.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
Absolutely correct as usual Big G.
People like @MaxPB and Philip Thompson live in a fantasy world and don't understand that wealthy people such as they need to contribute to Society rather than just being focused on their own pockets.
I who am noted for being moderate and centre on here am proud to confirm that in my last 10 years of working I paid (approx) £1m tax and NI. It showed that I paid my way as well as being massively successful. 👍
My net rate of tax was 42% last year. Get off your high horse, you're not the only person with an annual six figure tax bill and I'll be paying it for many more years than you did.
My own situation isn't relevant, my issue is working people on modest incomes being forced to pay when there's rich pensioners who can easily be taxed at source for significantly more than they pay now and have their state pension tapered down to zero from £50k+
I have no idea how a pensioners receives a state pension of £50,000
Max is demonstrating his sophisticated mastery of economics again!
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
Low taxes and grow the economy. We should be set for an economic boom now which will transform the budget for the better anyway. Strangling that at birth with taxes is idiotic.
EDIT: Same answer applies to Benpointer just above.
"Low taxes and grow the economy" sounds great but how exactly do you think low taxes (and presumably the consequent public spending cuts) will grow the economy?
And of course even if we cut taxes and the economy did grow faster, the deficit would still be wider overall and they would use the situation as a reason to cut taxes again. Soon you end up like the clusterfuck in Kansas. It is zealotry, uninformed by real world evidence. They talk about the Laffer curve, but pretend there isn't a left hand side of it.
Ah the fabled Laffer curve - a curve with no formula, no coordinates, no data - about as real as a rainbow with a pot of gold at the end.
That's like saying the Bell curve isn't real because there's no formula etc
Of course the curve is real, and of course you can be on the left hand side of it. There's no inevitability of being on the right hand side.
I just happen to believe that a 75% real marginal tax rate on income is on the left hand side of it.
Don't be silly, a 'bell curve' is a style of curve reflecting normal distribution; it is not seeking to describe any specific data relationship although there are plenty of documented real-life situations that produce a bell-curve. With actual data.
A Laffer curve is a conjectured relationship between taxation levels and tax-take that has no actual data to support it but is nevertheless treated with sacred awe by neoliberals.
Two very different beasts: one real, one fantastic.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
Absolutely correct as usual Big G.
People like @MaxPB and Philip Thompson live in a fantasy world and don't understand that wealthy people such as they need to contribute to Society rather than just being focused on their own pockets.
I who am noted for being moderate and centre on here am proud to confirm that in my last 10 years of working I paid (approx) £1m tax and NI. It showed that I paid my way as well as being massively successful. 👍
My net rate of tax was 42% last year. Get off your high horse, you're not the only person with an annual six figure tax bill and I'll be paying it for many more years than you did.
My own situation isn't relevant, my issue is working people on modest incomes being forced to pay when there's rich pensioners who can easily be taxed at source for significantly more than they pay now and have their state pension tapered down to zero from £50k+
Well done you managed a post without swearing at me.
If you are in the 42% tax band you are no where near paying £100,000 tax a year.
I was a regular visitor to the AR band even in the good old days when it was 50%. So 52% technically on your basis.
If you ever get to earning more than £100k a year you will enjoy the 60%/effective 62% band. Probably 63% by then
My net rate of tax, as in the tax paid on all of my income. Not the tax band. I just looked it up it was actually a 44% net rate of tax. My current tax band is the additional rate plus the 2% NI. It's just easier to talk about the net or effective tax rate.
I enjoy swearing at you because you're an entitled old fool and you seem to believe that you're the only one who ever worked hard for a living and now you want a life with your hand in everyone else's pocket.
LOL - and Philip is embarrassing himself too by liking this post - you still fail to grasp the basic point.
I don't need or want my hand in any one's pocket. I am self made and successful. I am happy to pay my way. I have said on here that the tax loading for social care should be on income tax not NI. You seem scared to pay a little more tax.
PS if you are on the AR its 47% (45% + 2% NI). You seem ignorant of this just as your group of supposedly sophisticated WhatsApp friends didn't know that NI is not paid on pensions, something that anyone with a basic understanding of tax would know.
I would call you a twat. But that could be deemed to be swearing so I won't.
Enjoy your money. And your family's money. That's you that is!
If you're self-made, successful and happy to pay your own way then you'd have no objection to paying for your own social care instead of burdening taxpayers with it.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
Stop dodging the question. I opposed tuition fees.
I am a fiscal conservative but I am also a realist. The demands on the state have increased out of all recognition and traditional balance. We need another £10bn for health care to start dealing with the backlog and long Covid. We need to increase the social care budget substantially. We have children who have missed the best part of 2 years education and need concentrated and focused help to catch up. We have a huge new debt mountain to service, not all of it printed.
The argument that the State can address all of these immediate and very pressing issues by keeping taxes low and growth is frankly fantasy. Hundred of thousands of businesses will not be paying taxes for a year or two given the losses they have accrued over the last 2 years. Many will not survive. Those that replace them will not be generating much tax revenue for some time.
There are massive hits to both sides of the P&L account at the same time: expenditure massively increased and income falling. The issue is not whether taxes have to increase. The issue is which taxes payable by whom. My problem with NI is that it taxes the working part of the population who have already borne the brunt of this. That 8% reflects how much income people lost last year. The burden needs to be shared and protecting our better off pensioners should not be a priority, indeed they are an obvious target. But taxes need to increase. No question.
Correct.
This is why (have I mentioned this before?) that state pension should go up by CPI only and that the social care loading should be 2% income tax not NI.
But some people think I am trying to fleece working age persons. I don't think that's what I am saying. VERY STRANGE.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
People continue to look at this in total wrong way. Very few people will ever pay those fees, in reality for most people it is a capped graduate tax, which is basically what would happen if there weren't any fees.
All that has happened is a migration from all of us paying for a small number of people to go to uni, to those that go to uni paying an additional tax for doing so.
The fees are that the universities are charging basically what the average cost of education, rather than the state paying or in the early 2000s a combination of the state and the individual.
Now if some unis or courses cost or are worth £9k a year, obviously not, they are subsidising courses like Chemistry that cost £15k a year to run.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
Low taxes and grow the economy. We should be set for an economic boom now which will transform the budget for the better anyway. Strangling that at birth with taxes is idiotic.
EDIT: Same answer applies to Benpointer just above.
"Low taxes and grow the economy" sounds great but how exactly do you think low taxes (and presumably the consequent public spending cuts) will grow the economy?
And of course even if we cut taxes and the economy did grow faster, the deficit would still be wider overall and they would use the situation as a reason to cut taxes again. Soon you end up like the clusterfuck in Kansas. It is zealotry, uninformed by real world evidence. They talk about the Laffer curve, but pretend there isn't a left hand side of it.
Ah the fabled Laffer curve - a curve with no formula, no coordinates, no data - about as real as a rainbow with a pot of gold at the end.
That's like saying the Bell curve isn't real because there's no formula etc
Of course the curve is real, and of course you can be on the left hand side of it. There's no inevitability of being on the right hand side.
I just happen to believe that a 75% real marginal tax rate on income is on the left hand side of it.
Don't be silly, a 'bell curve' is a style of curve reflecting normal distribution; it is not seeking to describe any specific data relationship although there are plenty of documented real-life situations that produce a bell-curve.
A Laffer curve is a conjectured relationship between taxation levels and tax-take that has no actual data to support it but is nevertheless treated with sacred awe by neoliberals.
You're the one being silly. The Laffer curve is a style of curve, just like Bell curve.
It isn't putting specific data of set curves on it, that will depend upon other factors.
There is plenty of evidence for the principle of the BellLaffer curve. On this site we've had many people (including Dr Foxy just above) say how very high marginal tax rates (in excess of 60 or 70% in some cases) discourages them from working - which depresses the economy and leads to smaller tax takes.
I am a fiscal conservative but I am also a realist. The demands on the state have increased out of all recognition and traditional balance. We need another £10bn for health care to start dealing with the backlog and long Covid. We need to increase the social care budget substantially. We have children who have missed the best part of 2 years education and need concentrated and focused help to catch up. We have a huge new debt mountain to service, not all of it printed.
The argument that the State can address all of these immediate and very pressing issues by keeping taxes low and growth is frankly fantasy. Hundred of thousands of businesses will not be paying taxes for a year or two given the losses they have accrued over the last 2 years. Many will not survive. Those that replace them will not be generating much tax revenue for some time.
There are massive hits to both sides of the P&L account at the same time: expenditure massively increased and income falling. The issue is not whether taxes have to increase. The issue is which taxes payable by whom. My problem with NI is that it taxes the working part of the population who have already borne the brunt of this. That 8% reflects how much income people lost last year. The burden needs to be shared and protecting our better off pensioners should not be a priority, indeed they are an obvious target. But taxes need to increase. No question.
Tax rises at this stage in the cycle are pure stupidity. It’s not a left/right issue - it’s basic economics that you don’t check a recovery by imposing tax increases.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
That's all well and good, but one strongly suspects that you are in the minority.
I'm very cynical about these sorts of questions. I think that most people believe that they are special sunflowers and that other, less deserving targets should be made to pay for stuff. In the case of the grey vote, one suspects that most of them are stickbangers (to clarify: that's my stereotype of the older person who, when asked to pay extra for anything, bangs their stick on the floor whilst angrily wailing "But I paid my taxes!")
If the Tory vote wasn't full of stickbangers then they'd propose freezing the state pension next year or, at most, uprating it in line with inflation, to ease the burden on the workers. Indeed, to a dispassionate observer, that line of thinking strikes one as a complete no-brainer. The fact that the Treasury hasn't done that already speaks volumes.
Re your last sentence that is really the point of the discussion and an announcement is due shortly on the decision
I have long said I cannot agree the triple lock and at the same time see the £20UC uplift go
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
Absolutely correct as usual Big G.
People like @MaxPB and Philip Thompson live in a fantasy world and don't understand that wealthy people such as they need to contribute to Society rather than just being focused on their own pockets.
I who am noted for being moderate and centre on here am proud to confirm that in my last 10 years of working I paid (approx) £1m tax and NI. It showed that I paid my way as well as being massively successful. 👍
My net rate of tax was 42% last year. Get off your high horse, you're not the only person with an annual six figure tax bill and I'll be paying it for many more years than you did.
My own situation isn't relevant, my issue is working people on modest incomes being forced to pay when there's rich pensioners who can easily be taxed at source for significantly more than they pay now and have their state pension tapered down to zero from £50k+
Well done you managed a post without swearing at me.
If you are in the 42% tax band you are no where near paying £100,000 tax a year.
I was a regular visitor to the AR band even in the good old days when it was 50%. So 52% technically on your basis.
If you ever get to earning more than £100k a year you will enjoy the 60%/effective 62% band. Probably 63% by then
My net rate of tax, as in the tax paid on all of my income. Not the tax band. I just looked it up it was actually a 44% net rate of tax. My current tax band is the additional rate plus the 2% NI. It's just easier to talk about the net or effective tax rate.
I enjoy swearing at you because you're an entitled old fool and you seem to believe that you're the only one who ever worked hard for a living and now you want a life with your hand in everyone else's pocket.
LOL - and Philip is embarrassing himself too by liking this post - you still fail to grasp the basic point.
I don't need or want my hand in any one's pocket. I am self made and successful. I am happy to pay my way. I have said on here that the tax loading for social care should be on income tax not NI. You seem scared to pay a little more tax.
PS if you are on the AR its 47% (45% + 2% NI). You seem ignorant of this just as your group of supposedly sophisticated WhatsApp friends didn't know that NI is not paid on pensions, something that anyone with a basic understanding of tax would know.
I would call you a twat. But that could be deemed to be swearing so I won't.
Enjoy your money. And your family's money. That's you that is!
If you're self-made, successful and happy to pay your own way then you'd have no objection to paying for your own social care instead of burdening taxpayers with it.
Hopefully I won't need to. I've always paid my way.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
Absolutely correct as usual Big G.
People like @MaxPB and Philip Thompson live in a fantasy world and don't understand that wealthy people such as they need to contribute to Society rather than just being focused on their own pockets.
I who am noted for being moderate and centre on here am proud to confirm that in my last 10 years of working I paid (approx) £1m tax and NI. It showed that I paid my way as well as being massively successful. 👍
My net rate of tax was 42% last year. Get off your high horse, you're not the only person with an annual six figure tax bill and I'll be paying it for many more years than you did.
My own situation isn't relevant, my issue is working people on modest incomes being forced to pay when there's rich pensioners who can easily be taxed at source for significantly more than they pay now and have their state pension tapered down to zero from £50k+
Well done you managed a post without swearing at me.
If you are in the 42% tax band you are no where near paying £100,000 tax a year.
I was a regular visitor to the AR band even in the good old days when it was 50%. So 52% technically on your basis.
If you ever get to earning more than £100k a year you will enjoy the 60%/effective 62% band. Probably 63% by then
My net rate of tax, as in the tax paid on all of my income. Not the tax band. I just looked it up it was actually a 44% net rate of tax. My current tax band is the additional rate plus the 2% NI. It's just easier to talk about the net or effective tax rate.
I enjoy swearing at you because you're an entitled old fool and you seem to believe that you're the only one who ever worked hard for a living and now you want a life with your hand in everyone else's pocket.
LOL - and Philip is embarrassing himself too by liking this post - you still fail to grasp the basic point.
I don't need or want my hand in any one's pocket. I am self made and successful. I am happy to pay my way. I have said on here that the tax loading for social care should be on income tax not NI. You seem scared to pay a little more tax.
PS if you are on the AR its 47% (45% + 2% NI). You seem ignorant of this just as your group of supposedly sophisticated WhatsApp friends didn't know that NI is not paid on pensions, something that anyone with a basic understanding of tax would know.
I would call you a twat. But that could be deemed to be swearing so I won't.
Enjoy your money. And your family's money. That's you that is!
You do understand how a net/effective rate is calculated right? I'm not talking about the tax band, I'm talking about the net rate of tax. They aren't the same thing.
Once again, and hopefully you'll read it this time, it's not about my situation, it's the millions of working people who are about to get shat on who are already struggling. You're the epitome of the selfish old baby boomer who believes that only he worked hard for a living and everyone else is stupid and lazy if they aren't as successful.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
People continue to look at this in total wrong way. Very few people will ever pay those fees, in reality for most people it is a capped graduate tax, which is basically what would happen if there weren't any fees.
Why should there be a capped graduate tax?
Why should eg a successful electrician earning six figure salaries have a lifetime lower tax rate than eg a teacher or other graduate with a lower income who happens to have a degree?
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
Its worth noting that research is from when Theresa May was in charge and matches the 2017 election, which is why the Tories lost their majority.
In the 2019 election the Tory/Labour crossover age dropped down to 39, which accounted for the Tory landslide majority.
Taking a dump on working voters will take us back to the dark days of Theresa May.
Not entirely true.
According to Mori at the 2019 election Labour won 18-24s 62% to 19%, 25-34s 51% to 27% and 35-44s 39% to 36%.
Therefore post Brexit the Tory vote is heavily dependent on Leave voting pensioners and middle aged owner occupiers looking for an inheritance, Remain voters under 45 left them in 2017 and even in 2019 did not return
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
Stop dodging the question. I opposed tuition fees.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
Stop dodging the question. I opposed tuition fees.
Should I pay my own tuition fees or not?
I cannot speak for you but my granddaughter will
Not will she, should she, as in, should she have to pay fees or should uni be free?
I just want to understand if you believe in fairness or not
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
Its worth noting that research is from when Theresa May was in charge and matches the 2017 election, which is why the Tories lost their majority.
In the 2019 election the Tory/Labour crossover age dropped down to 39, which accounted for the Tory landslide majority.
Taking a dump on working voters will take us back to the dark days of Theresa May.
Indeed, although I doubt that the pattern of party support changed that radically at the last GE. The point holds: the Tories are in hock to the old and have little incentive to do anything to favour the young.
The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.
I think this tax will shift the voting age for Tories to well above 55, maybe approaching 60. I could easily see Labour get to 300+ seats if they oppose this and do it with some level of cunning.
Labour should oppose it on fairness grounds, just as they should oppose any extension of covid powers on civil liberties grounds.
I am a fiscal conservative but I am also a realist. The demands on the state have increased out of all recognition and traditional balance. We need another £10bn for health care to start dealing with the backlog and long Covid. We need to increase the social care budget substantially. We have children who have missed the best part of 2 years education and need concentrated and focused help to catch up. We have a huge new debt mountain to service, not all of it printed.
The argument that the State can address all of these immediate and very pressing issues by keeping taxes low and growth is frankly fantasy. Hundred of thousands of businesses will not be paying taxes for a year or two given the losses they have accrued over the last 2 years. Many will not survive. Those that replace them will not be generating much tax revenue for some time.
There are massive hits to both sides of the P&L account at the same time: expenditure massively increased and income falling. The issue is not whether taxes have to increase. The issue is which taxes payable by whom. My problem with NI is that it taxes the working part of the population who have already borne the brunt of this. That 8% reflects how much income people lost last year. The burden needs to be shared and protecting our better off pensioners should not be a priority, indeed they are an obvious target. But taxes need to increase. No question.
Well put. But people like a fantasy. Even if we agree about the need for taxes to increase we'll naturally still complain if it is proposed, with a hit to whoever proposed it.
That's why politicians need some backbone, as you can do it and people will recognise the need, but if you kite fly it of course we know they'll back down if we moan enough.
FWIW 10 years ago my Dad told me it was very easy to get an invitation to the Palace if I was willing to pay (it was when he handed over the chairmanship of his foundation to me)
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
Its worth noting that research is from when Theresa May was in charge and matches the 2017 election, which is why the Tories lost their majority.
In the 2019 election the Tory/Labour crossover age dropped down to 39, which accounted for the Tory landslide majority.
Taking a dump on working voters will take us back to the dark days of Theresa May.
Not entirely true.
According to Mori at the 2019 election Labour won 18-24s 62% to 19%, 25-34s 51% to 27% and 35-44s 39% to 36%.
Therefore post Brexit the Tory vote is heavily dependent on Leave voting pensioners and middle aged owner occupiers looking for an inheritance, Remain voters under 45 left them in 2017 and even in 2019 did not return
Labour winning 35-44 year olds marginally is entirely compatible with a crossover age of 39.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
People continue to look at this in total wrong way. Very few people will ever pay those fees, in reality for most people it is a capped graduate tax, which is basically what would happen if there weren't any fees.
Why should there be a capped graduate tax?
Why should eg a successful electrician earning six figure salaries have a lifetime lower tax rate than eg a teacher or other graduate with a lower income who happens to have a degree?
That's what I meant, the only difference would be a specific graduate tax, that wouldn't be capped. One downside of that is if an individual leaves the country, they won't owe anything. That might be motivation for some successful people to move.
I observed before how EKOS and Mainstreet, who do daily polling, were picking up the large Tory leads of 4 to 8%. Enough for a Tory minority. Whereas all the others, including Nanos daily, were showing a statistical tie. Plenty good enough for Justin to carry on. Now Mainstreet seem to be herding towards the others, while EKOS isn't. As before. Someone is wrong. So EKOS can be lauded or lambasted. Take your pick.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
People continue to look at this in total wrong way. Very few people will ever pay those fees, in reality for most people it is a capped graduate tax, which is basically what would happen if there weren't any fees.
All that has happened is a migration from all of us paying for a small number of people to go to uni, to those that go to uni paying an additional tax for doing so.
The fees are that the universities are charging basically what the average cost of education, rather than the state paying or in the early 2000s a combination of the state and the individual.
Actually my son in law has explained the fees and charges and it seems clear most of these fees will never be repaid
One of Prince Charles’s closest aides quit last night after claims that he had fixed an honour for a Saudi tycoon who donated more than £1.5 million to royal charities.
Michael Fawcett, the prince’s former valet, stepped down temporarily as chief executive of the Prince’s Foundation after The Sunday Times provided evidence of Charles’s dealings with the businessman.
Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz paid tens of thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the prince who had told him they could secure the honour.
Charles, 72, personally awarded Mahfouz, 51, his CBE at a private ceremony at Buckingham Palace in November 2016. The event was not announced in the Court Circular, the official list of royal engagements.
Aides close to the prince and senior staff in his charities had helped the paid fixers to secure the CBE after Mahfouz donated large sums to restoration projects of particular interest to Charles, including Dumfries House and the Castle of Mey.
FWIW 10 years ago my Dad told me it was very easy to get an invitation to the Palace if I was willing to pay (it was when he handed over the chairmanship of his foundation to me)
A practice as old as monarchy I suspect. Naughty Charles though (not you).
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
Low taxes and grow the economy. We should be set for an economic boom now which will transform the budget for the better anyway. Strangling that at birth with taxes is idiotic.
EDIT: Same answer applies to Benpointer just above.
"Low taxes and grow the economy" sounds great but how exactly do you think low taxes (and presumably the consequent public spending cuts) will grow the economy?
And of course even if we cut taxes and the economy did grow faster, the deficit would still be wider overall and they would use the situation as a reason to cut taxes again. Soon you end up like the clusterfuck in Kansas. It is zealotry, uninformed by real world evidence. They talk about the Laffer curve, but pretend there isn't a left hand side of it.
Ah the fabled Laffer curve - a curve with no formula, no coordinates, no data - about as real as a rainbow with a pot of gold at the end.
I think once tax rates hit 50% there is a major disincentive. Certainly, I stopped flogging myself at that point.
(Note that while nominal rates were higher in the decades before, there were many more in the way of deductions, so the effective rates were lower in many cases).
Innovators and entrepreneurs are always going to innovate and start new businesses regardless of the tax rates. Because what's their alternative? It's not in their nature to sit back and drift.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
People continue to look at this in total wrong way. Very few people will ever pay those fees, in reality for most people it is a capped graduate tax, which is basically what would happen if there weren't any fees.
All that has happened is a migration from all of us paying for a small number of people to go to uni, to those that go to uni paying an additional tax for doing so.
The fees are that the universities are charging basically what the average cost of education, rather than the state paying or in the early 2000s a combination of the state and the individual.
Actually my son in law has explained the fees and charges and it seems clear most of these fees will never be repaid
The percentage of people who do (or are projected to do so on average wage curve) now there is basically no government subsidy to the university is very small.
I stupidly paid off all my student fees and debt in one lump sum.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
People continue to look at this in total wrong way. Very few people will ever pay those fees, in reality for most people it is a capped graduate tax, which is basically what would happen if there weren't any fees.
All that has happened is a migration from all of us paying for a small number of people to go to uni, to those that go to uni paying an additional tax for doing so.
The fees are that the universities are charging basically what the average cost of education, rather than the state paying or in the early 2000s a combination of the state and the individual.
Actually my son in law has explained the fees and charges and it seems clear most of these fees will never be repaid
The government gets back 35p in the pound that it lends.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
Low taxes and grow the economy. We should be set for an economic boom now which will transform the budget for the better anyway. Strangling that at birth with taxes is idiotic.
EDIT: Same answer applies to Benpointer just above.
"Low taxes and grow the economy" sounds great but how exactly do you think low taxes (and presumably the consequent public spending cuts) will grow the economy?
And of course even if we cut taxes and the economy did grow faster, the deficit would still be wider overall and they would use the situation as a reason to cut taxes again. Soon you end up like the clusterfuck in Kansas. It is zealotry, uninformed by real world evidence. They talk about the Laffer curve, but pretend there isn't a left hand side of it.
Ah the fabled Laffer curve - a curve with no formula, no coordinates, no data - about as real as a rainbow with a pot of gold at the end.
I think once tax rates hit 50% there is a major disincentive. Certainly, I stopped flogging myself at that point.
(Note that while nominal rates were higher in the decades before, there were many more in the way of deductions, so the effective rates were lower in many cases).
Innovators and entrepreneurs are always going to innovate and start new businesses regardless of the tax rates. Because what's their alternative? It's not in their nature to sit back and drift.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
Stop dodging the question. I opposed tuition fees.
Should I pay my own tuition fees or not?
Almost no-one pays their own tuition fees. They're paid upfront by the government and you then pay a graduate tax for 30 years after you graduate. Almost no-one will ever actually pay off the debt.
One of Prince Charles’s closest aides quit last night after claims that he had fixed an honour for a Saudi tycoon who donated more than £1.5 million to royal charities.
Michael Fawcett, the prince’s former valet, stepped down temporarily as chief executive of the Prince’s Foundation after The Sunday Times provided evidence of Charles’s dealings with the businessman.
Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz paid tens of thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the prince who had told him they could secure the honour.
Charles, 72, personally awarded Mahfouz, 51, his CBE at a private ceremony at Buckingham Palace in November 2016. The event was not announced in the Court Circular, the official list of royal engagements.
Aides close to the prince and senior staff in his charities had helped the paid fixers to secure the CBE after Mahfouz donated large sums to restoration projects of particular interest to Charles, including Dumfries House and the Castle of Mey.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
People continue to look at this in total wrong way. Very few people will ever pay those fees, in reality for most people it is a capped graduate tax, which is basically what would happen if there weren't any fees.
Why should there be a capped graduate tax?
Why should eg a successful electrician earning six figure salaries have a lifetime lower tax rate than eg a teacher or other graduate with a lower income who happens to have a degree?
That's what I meant, the only difference would be a specific graduate tax, that wouldn't be capped. One downside of that is if an individual leaves the country, they won't owe anything. That might be motivation for some successful people to move.
I'm saying why would there have to be a graduate tax?
If you're going to do Education via taxation, then why should only graduates pay the tax? Taxation should be applicable to all.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
Stop dodging the question. I opposed tuition fees.
Should I pay my own tuition fees or not?
I cannot speak for you but my granddaughter will
Not will she, should she, as in, should she have to pay fees or should uni be free?
I just want to understand if you believe in fairness or not
I think my comments on £20UC uplift and the abolition of the triple lock demonstrate that I do seek fairness
And of course as has been said the way tuition fees are repaid the vast majority of the fees will not be repaid
And yes universities should be able to charge fees
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
Stop dodging the question. I opposed tuition fees.
Should I pay my own tuition fees or not?
Almost no-one pays their own tuition fees. They're paid upfront by the government and you then pay a graduate tax for 30 years after you graduate. Almost no-one will ever actually pay off the debt.
Alright then, should there be a graduate tax if you go to uni, in other words should you have to pay in some form because you chose to go to uni?
If pensioners believe that young people should "pay their way" as I often here, why don't they have to pay their way?
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
Absolutely correct as usual Big G.
People like @MaxPB and Philip Thompson live in a fantasy world and don't understand that wealthy people such as they need to contribute to Society rather than just being focused on their own pockets.
I who am noted for being moderate and centre on here am proud to confirm that in my last 10 years of working I paid (approx) £1m tax and NI. It showed that I paid my way as well as being massively successful. 👍
My net rate of tax was 42% last year. Get off your high horse, you're not the only person with an annual six figure tax bill and I'll be paying it for many more years than you did.
My own situation isn't relevant, my issue is working people on modest incomes being forced to pay when there's rich pensioners who can easily be taxed at source for significantly more than they pay now and have their state pension tapered down to zero from £50k+
Well done you managed a post without swearing at me.
If you are in the 42% tax band you are no where near paying £100,000 tax a year.
I was a regular visitor to the AR band even in the good old days when it was 50%. So 52% technically on your basis.
If you ever get to earning more than £100k a year you will enjoy the 60%/effective 62% band. Probably 63% by then
My net rate of tax, as in the tax paid on all of my income. Not the tax band. I just looked it up it was actually a 44% net rate of tax. My current tax band is the additional rate plus the 2% NI. It's just easier to talk about the net or effective tax rate.
I enjoy swearing at you because you're an entitled old fool and you seem to believe that you're the only one who ever worked hard for a living and now you want a life with your hand in everyone else's pocket.
LOL - and Philip is embarrassing himself too by liking this post - you still fail to grasp the basic point.
I don't need or want my hand in any one's pocket. I am self made and successful. I am happy to pay my way. I have said on here that the tax loading for social care should be on income tax not NI. You seem scared to pay a little more tax.
PS if you are on the AR its 47% (45% + 2% NI). You seem ignorant of this just as your group of supposedly sophisticated WhatsApp friends didn't know that NI is not paid on pensions, something that anyone with a basic understanding of tax would know.
I would call you a twat. But that could be deemed to be swearing so I won't.
Enjoy your money. And your family's money. That's you that is!
You do understand how a net/effective rate is calculated right? I'm not talking about the tax band, I'm talking about the net rate of tax. They aren't the same thing.
Once again, and hopefully you'll read it this time, it's not about my situation, it's the millions of working people who are about to get shat on who are already struggling. You're the epitome of the selfish old baby boomer who believes that only he worked hard for a living and everyone else is stupid and lazy if they aren't as successful.
It clearly is about your situation. That much is obvious from your posts and your whole tone.
You clearly haven't read my post as I said the burden should be on IT rather than NI so that 'old' people like me 'pay their share'.
You clearly have a problem with 'older' people, hopefully one day you gain the maturity to get past that.
No need for me to engage with you any further on this 👍
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
Stop dodging the question. I opposed tuition fees.
Should I pay my own tuition fees or not?
I cannot speak for you but my granddaughter will
Not will she, should she, as in, should she have to pay fees or should uni be free?
I just want to understand if you believe in fairness or not
I think my comments on £20UC uplift and the abolition of the triple lock demonstrate that I do seek fairness
And of course as has been said the way tuition fees are repaid the vast majority of the fees will not be repaid
And yes universities should be able to charge fees
Then you are a hypocrite. You should pay for your own social care, not the taxpayer.
One of Prince Charles’s closest aides quit last night after claims that he had fixed an honour for a Saudi tycoon who donated more than £1.5 million to royal charities.
Michael Fawcett, the prince’s former valet, stepped down temporarily as chief executive of the Prince’s Foundation after The Sunday Times provided evidence of Charles’s dealings with the businessman.
Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz paid tens of thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the prince who had told him they could secure the honour.
Charles, 72, personally awarded Mahfouz, 51, his CBE at a private ceremony at Buckingham Palace in November 2016. The event was not announced in the Court Circular, the official list of royal engagements.
Aides close to the prince and senior staff in his charities had helped the paid fixers to secure the CBE after Mahfouz donated large sums to restoration projects of particular interest to Charles, including Dumfries House and the Castle of Mey.
I think I will have to ask the police to investigate this.
Why? Some old houses got restored and some fat bloke gets to wear a bit of ribbon on his chest. Net net it’s good
You do tend to have a view that these matters are of no concern, see also being seemingly more concerned about the Sacklerss not funding arts if they got fined for flagrant criminality by their company.
The Charles story is not on that level of course, but these things really are a slippery slope. Start selling gongs or access for a 'good' reason and then you start selling them for a bad one. For the same reason apparent bias is as much a problem as actual bias these things need to at least appear on the level, not dodgy.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
People continue to look at this in total wrong way. Very few people will ever pay those fees, in reality for most people it is a capped graduate tax, which is basically what would happen if there weren't any fees.
Why should there be a capped graduate tax?
Why should eg a successful electrician earning six figure salaries have a lifetime lower tax rate than eg a teacher or other graduate with a lower income who happens to have a degree?
That's what I meant, the only difference would be a specific graduate tax, that wouldn't be capped. One downside of that is if an individual leaves the country, they won't owe anything. That might be motivation for some successful people to move.
I'm saying why would there have to be a graduate tax?
If you're going to do Education via taxation, then why should only graduates pay the tax? Taxation should be applicable to all.
Well that's what we used to have, and then there is no need for fee structure at all. But I am not sure the 50% who don't benefit from university would be very happy to subsidize the 50% who do, or those that paid off their loans already, asked to pay again.
It quite different situation from when 15% went to uni.
Obviously Jezza free uni for all was going to be this....very popular with the yuff, who saw words free, but not sure they quite realised it still meant higher taxes when they were working. There was no free lunch.
Ed Miliband if I remember correctly wanted to move to an explicit graduate tax.
I think the current system was badly explained / sold. It would have been much easier to brand it as a capped graduate tax. And I personally would have had things like incentives for are a doctor, nurse, dentist, you stay in NHS, every year you bring down the cap.
Tax rises at this stage in the cycle are pure stupidity. It’s not a left/right issue - it’s basic economics that you don’t check a recovery by imposing tax increases.
Tax rises at this stage in the cycle are pure stupidity. It’s not a left/right issue - it’s basic economics that you don’t check a recovery by imposing tax increases.
Wealth tax would not check a recovery. Not would a big hike in IHT.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
Stop dodging the question. I opposed tuition fees.
Should I pay my own tuition fees or not?
I cannot speak for you but my granddaughter will
Not will she, should she, as in, should she have to pay fees or should uni be free?
I just want to understand if you believe in fairness or not
I think my comments on £20UC uplift and the abolition of the triple lock demonstrate that I do seek fairness
And of course as has been said the way tuition fees are repaid the vast majority of the fees will not be repaid
And yes universities should be able to charge fees
Then you are a hypocrite. You should pay for your own social care, not the taxpayer.
And I will unless the Welsh government changes the present social care system
One of Prince Charles’s closest aides quit last night after claims that he had fixed an honour for a Saudi tycoon who donated more than £1.5 million to royal charities.
Michael Fawcett, the prince’s former valet, stepped down temporarily as chief executive of the Prince’s Foundation after The Sunday Times provided evidence of Charles’s dealings with the businessman.
Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz paid tens of thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the prince who had told him they could secure the honour.
Charles, 72, personally awarded Mahfouz, 51, his CBE at a private ceremony at Buckingham Palace in November 2016. The event was not announced in the Court Circular, the official list of royal engagements.
Aides close to the prince and senior staff in his charities had helped the paid fixers to secure the CBE after Mahfouz donated large sums to restoration projects of particular interest to Charles, including Dumfries House and the Castle of Mey.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
Stop dodging the question. I opposed tuition fees.
Should I pay my own tuition fees or not?
I cannot speak for you but my granddaughter will
Not will she, should she, as in, should she have to pay fees or should uni be free?
I just want to understand if you believe in fairness or not
I think my comments on £20UC uplift and the abolition of the triple lock demonstrate that I do seek fairness
And of course as has been said the way tuition fees are repaid the vast majority of the fees will not be repaid
And yes universities should be able to charge fees
Then you are a hypocrite. You should pay for your own social care, not the taxpayer.
And I will unless the Welsh government changes the present social care system
They shouldn't be changing the system to anything other than a system which makes you lot pay.
Hurts when the boot is on the other foot doesn't it? Now you know what it's like to be young
Elderly: the young should pay their way and pay their tuition fees
Also elderly: we will not pay for our bus passes, TfL travel or social care!
Also elderly: we all had our own houses at your age by working hard! But give us all your money for rent.
Actually many of the elderly help their grandchildren with deposits for houses now and also leave them and their children a hefty inheritance
The elderly don't leave their children an inheritance. They leave it to their elderly offspring.
Indeed. My dad inherited at 64 years old. His older brother was 67 and his older sister was 69. I don't expect to inherit anything until I'm in my mid to late 60s. My sister and I have spoken at length about it to my dad that we think he should leave his estate to better causes than the two of us. We just have no use for it.
The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.
I think this tax will shift the voting age for Tories to well above 55, maybe approaching 60. I could easily see Labour get to 300+ seats if they oppose this and do it with some level of cunning.
Worth remembering that the incredibly steep age profile is a very recent phenomenon. These graphs are from the Mori post-election analyses;
Tax rises at this stage in the cycle are pure stupidity. It’s not a left/right issue - it’s basic economics that you don’t check a recovery by imposing tax increases.
Wealth tax would not check a recovery. Not would a big hike in IHT.
I have some sympathy with a hike in IHT and also several more council tax bands
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
Its worth noting that research is from when Theresa May was in charge and matches the 2017 election, which is why the Tories lost their majority.
In the 2019 election the Tory/Labour crossover age dropped down to 39, which accounted for the Tory landslide majority.
Taking a dump on working voters will take us back to the dark days of Theresa May.
Not entirely true.
According to Mori at the 2019 election Labour won 18-24s 62% to 19%, 25-34s 51% to 27% and 35-44s 39% to 36%.
Therefore post Brexit the Tory vote is heavily dependent on Leave voting pensioners and middle aged owner occupiers looking for an inheritance, Remain voters under 45 left them in 2017 and even in 2019 did not return
Labour winning 35-44 year olds marginally is entirely compatible with a crossover age of 39.
In 2010 the crossover age was 25, in 2015 the crossover age was 35 in 2017 47, in 2019 39.
The under 40 Tory vote was lost with Brexit, however Brexit massively increased the over 55 Tory vote, it is preserving the over 45 vote that will re elect Boris
Much as it can lead to some nasty personal intergenerational stuff I do appreciate these debates on tax, as it breaks across party lines and leads to some unusual bedfellows and opponents.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
Low taxes and grow the economy. We should be set for an economic boom now which will transform the budget for the better anyway. Strangling that at birth with taxes is idiotic.
EDIT: Same answer applies to Benpointer just above.
"Low taxes and grow the economy" sounds great but how exactly do you think low taxes (and presumably the consequent public spending cuts) will grow the economy?
And of course even if we cut taxes and the economy did grow faster, the deficit would still be wider overall and they would use the situation as a reason to cut taxes again. Soon you end up like the clusterfuck in Kansas. It is zealotry, uninformed by real world evidence. They talk about the Laffer curve, but pretend there isn't a left hand side of it.
Ah the fabled Laffer curve - a curve with no formula, no coordinates, no data - about as real as a rainbow with a pot of gold at the end.
I think once tax rates hit 50% there is a major disincentive. Certainly, I stopped flogging myself at that point.
(Note that while nominal rates were higher in the decades before, there were many more in the way of deductions, so the effective rates were lower in many cases).
Innovators and entrepreneurs are always going to innovate and start new businesses regardless of the tax rates. Because what's their alternative? It's not in their nature to sit back and drift.
Interest rates may be more relevant to some than tax rates, and at both ends – currently the cost of capital is low, whereas at high rates it may be that our putative entrepreneur can earn more at the building society than by building a factory.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
Its worth noting that research is from when Theresa May was in charge and matches the 2017 election, which is why the Tories lost their majority.
In the 2019 election the Tory/Labour crossover age dropped down to 39, which accounted for the Tory landslide majority.
Taking a dump on working voters will take us back to the dark days of Theresa May.
Not entirely true.
According to Mori at the 2019 election Labour won 18-24s 62% to 19%, 25-34s 51% to 27% and 35-44s 39% to 36%.
Therefore post Brexit the Tory vote is heavily dependent on Leave voting pensioners and middle aged owner occupiers looking for an inheritance, Remain voters under 45 left them in 2017 and even in 2019 did not return
Labour winning 35-44 year olds marginally is entirely compatible with a crossover age of 39.
In 2010 the crossover age was 25, in 2015 the crossover age was 35 in 2017 47, in 2019 39.
The under 40 Tory vote was lost with Brexit, however Brexit massively increased the over 55 Tory vote, it is preserving the over 45 vote that will re elect Boris
Its overly-simplistic to assume its all about Brexit.
If it was, the crossover age would have risen between 2017 and 2019, rather than dramatically falling.
Much as it can lead to some nasty personal intergenerational stuff I do appreciate these debates on tax, as it breaks across party lines and leads to some unusual bedfellows and opponents.
I have fallen out with 'young' Max and CHB so it proves after all that I am the centre moderate that I am always claiming on here.
One of Prince Charles’s closest aides quit last night after claims that he had fixed an honour for a Saudi tycoon who donated more than £1.5 million to royal charities.
Michael Fawcett, the prince’s former valet, stepped down temporarily as chief executive of the Prince’s Foundation after The Sunday Times provided evidence of Charles’s dealings with the businessman.
Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz paid tens of thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the prince who had told him they could secure the honour.
Charles, 72, personally awarded Mahfouz, 51, his CBE at a private ceremony at Buckingham Palace in November 2016. The event was not announced in the Court Circular, the official list of royal engagements.
Aides close to the prince and senior staff in his charities had helped the paid fixers to secure the CBE after Mahfouz donated large sums to restoration projects of particular interest to Charles, including Dumfries House and the Castle of Mey.
I think I will have to ask the police to investigate this.
Why? Some old houses got restored and some fat bloke gets to wear a bit of ribbon on his chest. Net net it’s good
I assume you are being tongue in cheek here @Charles.
If not, can you not see how corrupt this kind of thing looks to normal people?
It may well be corrupt but as someone who cares not a jot for the honours system, I cannot get too worked up over this. It is an old idea that companies' charitable works were paid from the "chairman's knighthood fund" and this is not, at first glance, radically different. Perhaps the stimulation of charitable works is the only good thing that can be said for the honours system.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
Stop dodging the question. I opposed tuition fees.
Should I pay my own tuition fees or not?
Almost no-one pays their own tuition fees. They're paid upfront by the government and you then pay a graduate tax for 30 years after you graduate. Almost no-one will ever actually pay off the debt.
Alright then, should there be a graduate tax if you go to uni, in other words should you have to pay in some form because you chose to go to uni?
If pensioners believe that young people should "pay their way" as I often here, why don't they have to pay their way?
I agree in principle. If I was playing devil's advocate, I'd say that they already have paid their way, throughout their working careers, and the same will one day be true for our generation.
However, I just don't think that you can compare University fees directly with... whatever it is you think pensioners aren't paying for - fuel subsidies? Bus passes?
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
Its worth noting that research is from when Theresa May was in charge and matches the 2017 election, which is why the Tories lost their majority.
In the 2019 election the Tory/Labour crossover age dropped down to 39, which accounted for the Tory landslide majority.
Taking a dump on working voters will take us back to the dark days of Theresa May.
Not entirely true.
According to Mori at the 2019 election Labour won 18-24s 62% to 19%, 25-34s 51% to 27% and 35-44s 39% to 36%.
Therefore post Brexit the Tory vote is heavily dependent on Leave voting pensioners and middle aged owner occupiers looking for an inheritance, Remain voters under 45 left them in 2017 and even in 2019 did not return
Labour winning 35-44 year olds marginally is entirely compatible with a crossover age of 39.
In 2010 the crossover age was 25, in 2015 the crossover age was 35 in 2017 47, in 2019 39.
The under 40 Tory vote was lost with Brexit, however Brexit massively increased the over 55 Tory vote, it is preserving the over 45 vote that will re elect Boris
Its overly-simplistic to assume its all about Brexit.
If it was, the crossover age would have risen between 2017 and 2019, rather than dramatically falling.
It didn't dramatically fall, Boris lost 35-44s just as May had, Cameron won 35-44s in 2010 and tied them in 2015 and in 2010 Cameron even won over 25s.
Boris won in 2019 because he won over 45s by even more than May had in 2017, both lost under 45s.
Elderly: the young should pay their way and pay their tuition fees
Also elderly: we will not pay for our bus passes, TfL travel or social care!
Also elderly: we all had our own houses at your age by working hard! But give us all your money for rent.
Actually many of the elderly help their grandchildren with deposits for houses now and also leave them and their children a hefty inheritance
The elderly don't leave their children an inheritance. They leave it to their elderly offspring.
Indeed. My dad inherited at 64 years old. His older brother was 67 and his older sister was 69. I don't expect to inherit anything until I'm in my mid to late 60s. My sister and I have spoken at length about it to my dad that we think he should leave his estate to better causes than the two of us. We just have no use for it.
Some in his position might think "If I leave it to you then I leave it to you, and at that time you can do whatever you want with it, e.g. you can give it to whoever you feel deserves it more. Up until then, stop doing a number on me."
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
Stop dodging the question. I opposed tuition fees.
Should I pay my own tuition fees or not?
I cannot speak for you but my granddaughter will
Not will she, should she, as in, should she have to pay fees or should uni be free?
I just want to understand if you believe in fairness or not
I think my comments on £20UC uplift and the abolition of the triple lock demonstrate that I do seek fairness
And of course as has been said the way tuition fees are repaid the vast majority of the fees will not be repaid
And yes universities should be able to charge fees
Then you are a hypocrite. You should pay for your own social care, not the taxpayer.
And I will unless the Welsh government changes the present social care system
They shouldn't be changing the system to anything other than a system which makes you lot pay.
Hurts when the boot is on the other foot doesn't it? Now you know what it's like to be young
I have no influence over these matters and no hurt is involved
I have had near 60 happy years married, a wonderful family, have paid a shedfield of tax over the years, and will pay for our social care in accordance with the law at the time should my wife and I need it
Mind you, you claim to be a top 5% earners and say your inheritance is going to enable you to buy a property in London
Strange you want to take inheritance away from others
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
Absolutely correct as usual Big G.
People like @MaxPB and Philip Thompson live in a fantasy world and don't understand that wealthy people such as they need to contribute to Society rather than just being focused on their own pockets.
I who am noted for being moderate and centre on here am proud to confirm that in my last 10 years of working I paid (approx) £1m tax and NI. It showed that I paid my way as well as being massively successful. 👍
My net rate of tax was 42% last year. Get off your high horse, you're not the only person with an annual six figure tax bill and I'll be paying it for many more years than you did.
My own situation isn't relevant, my issue is working people on modest incomes being forced to pay when there's rich pensioners who can easily be taxed at source for significantly more than they pay now and have their state pension tapered down to zero from £50k+
Well done you managed a post without swearing at me.
If you are in the 42% tax band you are no where near paying £100,000 tax a year.
I was a regular visitor to the AR band even in the good old days when it was 50%. So 52% technically on your basis.
If you ever get to earning more than £100k a year you will enjoy the 60%/effective 62% band. Probably 63% by then
My net rate of tax, as in the tax paid on all of my income. Not the tax band. I just looked it up it was actually a 44% net rate of tax. My current tax band is the additional rate plus the 2% NI. It's just easier to talk about the net or effective tax rate.
I enjoy swearing at you because you're an entitled old fool and you seem to believe that you're the only one who ever worked hard for a living and now you want a life with your hand in everyone else's pocket.
LOL - and Philip is embarrassing himself too by liking this post - you still fail to grasp the basic point.
I don't need or want my hand in any one's pocket. I am self made and successful. I am happy to pay my way. I have said on here that the tax loading for social care should be on income tax not NI. You seem scared to pay a little more tax.
PS if you are on the AR its 47% (45% + 2% NI). You seem ignorant of this just as your group of supposedly sophisticated WhatsApp friends didn't know that NI is not paid on pensions, something that anyone with a basic understanding of tax would know.
I would call you a twat. But that could be deemed to be swearing so I won't.
Enjoy your money. And your family's money. That's you that is!
You do understand how a net/effective rate is calculated right? I'm not talking about the tax band, I'm talking about the net rate of tax. They aren't the same thing.
Once again, and hopefully you'll read it this time, it's not about my situation, it's the millions of working people who are about to get shat on who are already struggling. You're the epitome of the selfish old baby boomer who believes that only he worked hard for a living and everyone else is stupid and lazy if they aren't as successful.
It clearly is about your situation. That much is obvious from your posts and your whole tone.
You clearly haven't read my post as I said the burden should be on IT rather than NI so that 'old' people like me 'pay their share'.
You clearly have a problem with 'older' people, hopefully one day you gain the maturity to get past that.
No need for me to engage with you any further on this 👍
You're seeing it from your lens of giving a shit about no one but yourself. You made it, everyone who didn't is stupid or lazy.
My "problem" with older people is they've pulled the ladder up and then tell under 40s that clearly the issue is that we don't work hard enough like they did. It's definitely not because they bought all the houses and then leeched of us for rent for the first years of our careers. You do it all the time.
I want this social care tax to be paid for by pensioners. An income tax rise still unfairly puts the burden on working age people. There are 2m pensioners in the higher rate tax bracket. They can afford to take the hit. Millions of families on pretty modest wages with mortgages and kids can't. Your generation wants to live with its hand in our pockets.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
Stop dodging the question. I opposed tuition fees.
Should I pay my own tuition fees or not?
Almost no-one pays their own tuition fees. They're paid upfront by the government and you then pay a graduate tax for 30 years after you graduate. Almost no-one will ever actually pay off the debt.
Alright then, should there be a graduate tax if you go to uni, in other words should you have to pay in some form because you chose to go to uni?
If pensioners believe that young people should "pay their way" as I often here, why don't they have to pay their way?
I think all fees/loans for going to university should be abolished. But the only way to make that feasible is by returning to a situation where no more than about 30% of people go to university.
Elderly: the young should pay their way and pay their tuition fees
Also elderly: we will not pay for our bus passes, TfL travel or social care!
Also elderly: we all had our own houses at your age by working hard! But give us all your money for rent.
Actually many of the elderly help their grandchildren with deposits for houses now and also leave them and their children a hefty inheritance
The elderly don't leave their children an inheritance. They leave it to their elderly offspring.
An interesting question. Is it better to give adult children money on anannual basis from their 20s or a much larger lump sum when they are in their 60s. Is either good for them? Does having unearned income from an early stage reduce ambition/motivation?
One of Prince Charles’s closest aides quit last night after claims that he had fixed an honour for a Saudi tycoon who donated more than £1.5 million to royal charities.
Michael Fawcett, the prince’s former valet, stepped down temporarily as chief executive of the Prince’s Foundation after The Sunday Times provided evidence of Charles’s dealings with the businessman.
Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz paid tens of thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the prince who had told him they could secure the honour.
Charles, 72, personally awarded Mahfouz, 51, his CBE at a private ceremony at Buckingham Palace in November 2016. The event was not announced in the Court Circular, the official list of royal engagements.
Aides close to the prince and senior staff in his charities had helped the paid fixers to secure the CBE after Mahfouz donated large sums to restoration projects of particular interest to Charles, including Dumfries House and the Castle of Mey.
I think I will have to ask the police to investigate this.
Why? Some old houses got restored and some fat bloke gets to wear a bit of ribbon on his chest. Net net it’s good
I assume you are being tongue in cheek here @Charles.
If not, can you not see how corrupt this kind of thing looks to normal people?
It may well be corrupt but as someone who cares not a jot for the honours system, I cannot get too worked up over this. It is an old idea that companies' charitable works were paid from the "chairman's knighthood fund" and this is not, at first glance, radically different. Perhaps the stimulation of charitable works is the only good thing that can be said for the honours system.
It's not as bad as a backhander to a political party to get a development through, but though a lot about the honours system is grubby as it is, making it grubbier still harms it in the long run. People won't want to pay to causes or fixers if no one is impressed by an honour because everyone assumes its bought for (and it might not impress many, but enough do for Mr Mahfouz to want one). So it is self defeating.
If they beefed up rules like minimum attendances per year for peers fewer people would purchase peerages, for the same reason - it would no longer be as attractive to buyers.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
Its worth noting that research is from when Theresa May was in charge and matches the 2017 election, which is why the Tories lost their majority.
In the 2019 election the Tory/Labour crossover age dropped down to 39, which accounted for the Tory landslide majority.
Taking a dump on working voters will take us back to the dark days of Theresa May.
Not entirely true.
According to Mori at the 2019 election Labour won 18-24s 62% to 19%, 25-34s 51% to 27% and 35-44s 39% to 36%.
Therefore post Brexit the Tory vote is heavily dependent on Leave voting pensioners and middle aged owner occupiers looking for an inheritance, Remain voters under 45 left them in 2017 and even in 2019 did not return
Labour winning 35-44 year olds marginally is entirely compatible with a crossover age of 39.
In 2010 the crossover age was 25, in 2015 the crossover age was 35 in 2017 47, in 2019 39.
The under 40 Tory vote was lost with Brexit, however Brexit massively increased the over 55 Tory vote, it is preserving the over 45 vote that will re elect Boris
Its overly-simplistic to assume its all about Brexit.
If it was, the crossover age would have risen between 2017 and 2019, rather than dramatically falling.
It didn't dramatically fall, Boris lost 35-44s just as May had, Cameron won 35-44s in 2010 and tied them in 2015 and in 2010 Cameron even won over 25s.
Boris won in 2019 because he won over 45s by even more than May had in 2017, both lost under 45s.
Eyeballing the graphs, it does look like the 45-54 age group were the ones who swung most between 2017 and 2019. If one were being very worldweary, the simplest answer is that May's Social Care Plan threatened their inheritance from their parents and BoJo took that risk off the table.
A huge hike in IHT would be great but it will never happen under a Tory government. Ditto with the abolition of the legal notion of equity - just consider all legal owners to be beneficial owners. That too will never happen under the Tories. The Right Of Inheritance is one of the holy names of the Tory God. Another is The Right Of The Rich To Hide Their Wealth From The Taxman.
Not sure if I Louise’d this last night, but has anyone been watching Nat Geo’s SUPERB docu series on 9/11?
They have found quite extraordinary footage - and stories to go with. Episode 1 was just a work of art
If it continues this good…..
Not seen that - I assume it's subscription, which providers?
The BBC doc 9/11: Inside the President's War Room was pretty good - avail on iPlayer. G W Bush came across quite well, presumably partly because he and his team had a lot of input into it. Good documantary, anyway.
This is on a different level to anything I have seen. The Nat Geo producers were (I believe) given exclusive access to the archives of the 9/11 museum and library, hence the amazing found footage - and so much more
It is stomach-churning in good and bad ways. Stories of true heroism, but scenes of appalling horror. It really is like watching it all over again, the memories flood back. Tears doth flow
One of the most pivotal events in modern human history. I date America's true decline from this moment. So - for me - it really did change the world. Even if it didn't do that, it is one of the most strikingly horrific incidents in human experience - a massive, murderous attack on a huge city at peace with zero warning without any obvious motive, in the most dramatic, cinematic way
At the time the German composer Stockhausen called 9/11 "a work of conceptual art" and he was much vilified for it. But looking back, however distasteful his remark, he had a point. 9/11 affects the human brain like a genius work of art
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
People continue to look at this in total wrong way. Very few people will ever pay those fees, in reality for most people it is a capped graduate tax, which is basically what would happen if there weren't any fees.
Why should there be a capped graduate tax?
Why should eg a successful electrician earning six figure salaries have a lifetime lower tax rate than eg a teacher or other graduate with a lower income who happens to have a degree?
That's what I meant, the only difference would be a specific graduate tax, that wouldn't be capped. One downside of that is if an individual leaves the country, they won't owe anything. That might be motivation for some successful people to move.
I'm saying why would there have to be a graduate tax?
If you're going to do Education via taxation, then why should only graduates pay the tax? Taxation should be applicable to all.
Well that's what we used to have, and then there is no need for fee structure at all. But I am not sure the 50% who don't benefit from university would be very happy to subsidize the 50% who do, or those that paid off their loans already, asked to pay again.
It quite different situation from when 15% went to uni.
Obviously Jezza free uni for all was going to be this....very popular with the yuff, who saw words free, but not sure they quite realised it still meant higher taxes when they were working. There was no free lunch.
Ed Miliband if I remember correctly wanted to move to an explicit graduate tax.
I think the current system was badly explained / sold. It would have been much easier to brand it as a capped graduate tax. And I personally would have had things like incentives for are a doctor, nurse, dentist, you stay in NHS, every year you bring down the cap.
Willetts proposed a graduate tax but George Osborne rejected anything with the word tax in it, which is how we got here. It is politically stupid. Not for the first time, the so-called strategic genius Osborne hurt his own party – by saddling students with debt, and debt that is not repaid is still debt.
I see NFT land has gone even more insane now, people are paying $1000s for short sequences of random words and numbers....
When the merry go round stops, there are going to be some people out of pocket massively....
It's Tulip Mania all over again.
Absolutely.....so just like the gold rush, people selling the shovels made the money....i went and bought a load of the tokens they need for this silly game...
There are quite a lot of people who understand the technology behind NFTs who are going to make a killing out of this. There was a case on the news last week a think about a young boy who, aided with a bit of knowhow from his computer programmer Dad, had made something like £300,000 selling pictures of cartoon whales.
All the "investors" who are still holding these strings of code when the music finally stops may not do quite so well out of it.
Kaivan Shroff @KaivanShroff · Sep 2 But for Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton would have become the first female president of the United States – and none of this would have happened. Instead we got the first president to be impeached twice.
LOL. My dog would have made a better US President than HRC.
The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.
I think this tax will shift the voting age for Tories to well above 55, maybe approaching 60. I could easily see Labour get to 300+ seats if they oppose this and do it with some level of cunning.
Worth remembering that the incredibly steep age profile is a very recent phenomenon. These graphs are from the Mori post-election analyses;
Looks like Labour need to close the gap with the oldies
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
Low taxes and grow the economy. We should be set for an economic boom now which will transform the budget for the better anyway. Strangling that at birth with taxes is idiotic.
EDIT: Same answer applies to Benpointer just above.
"Low taxes and grow the economy" sounds great but how exactly do you think low taxes (and presumably the consequent public spending cuts) will grow the economy?
And of course even if we cut taxes and the economy did grow faster, the deficit would still be wider overall and they would use the situation as a reason to cut taxes again. Soon you end up like the clusterfuck in Kansas. It is zealotry, uninformed by real world evidence. They talk about the Laffer curve, but pretend there isn't a left hand side of it.
Ah the fabled Laffer curve - a curve with no formula, no coordinates, no data - about as real as a rainbow with a pot of gold at the end.
That's like saying the Bell curve isn't real because there's no formula etc
Of course the curve is real, and of course you can be on the left hand side of it. There's no inevitability of being on the right hand side.
I just happen to believe that a 75% real marginal tax rate on income is on the left hand side of it.
Don't be silly, a 'bell curve' is a style of curve reflecting normal distribution; it is not seeking to describe any specific data relationship although there are plenty of documented real-life situations that produce a bell-curve.
A Laffer curve is a conjectured relationship between taxation levels and tax-take that has no actual data to support it but is nevertheless treated with sacred awe by neoliberals.
You're the one being silly. The Laffer curve is a style of curve, just like Bell curve.
It isn't putting specific data of set curves on it, that will depend upon other factors.
There is plenty of evidence for the principle of the BellLaffer curve. On this site we've had many people (including Dr Foxy just above) say how very high marginal tax rates (in excess of 60 or 70% in some cases) discourages them from working - which depresses the economy and leads to smaller tax takes.
The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.
I think this tax will shift the voting age for Tories to well above 55, maybe approaching 60. I could easily see Labour get to 300+ seats if they oppose this and do it with some level of cunning.
Worth remembering that the incredibly steep age profile is a very recent phenomenon. These graphs are from the Mori post-election analyses;
Without the Corbyn effect on the young, Labour would be pushing up the daisies.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
Exactly, home owning over 65s are the Tories core vote and those in the 45-65 bracket who own property and are waiting for an inheritance are who won the Tories the last general election.
Even in 2019 Labour won under 44s so they can largely be ignored as far as the Tories are concerned, most of the under 40s are not voting Tory
Gives me a convenient opportunity to post this graphic from 2019, showing the results of research into where the two main parties derive their support:
As you say, the Tory core vote is (1) old people, who are also largely homeowners, and (2) middle class, middle aged or near pensionable people, who are mostly homeowners or mortgage payers, and a great many of whom are also expectant heirs.
Based on this, there are three things that a Johnson (i.e. populist) Tory Government ought not to do:
*Make pensioners pay for anything *Try to put new taxes on property *Raise inheritance tax
If they do actually elect to deprive oldies of the bumper state pension rise they have coming next Spring then it will be a very brave decision - in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
And the correct one (I am a pensioner so would be affected)
Good, you should pay. Or do you think I shouldn't pay my tuition fees?
Tuition fees were a labour policy and agreed by the lib dems
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
People continue to look at this in total wrong way. Very few people will ever pay those fees, in reality for most people it is a capped graduate tax, which is basically what would happen if there weren't any fees.
Why should there be a capped graduate tax?
Why should eg a successful electrician earning six figure salaries have a lifetime lower tax rate than eg a teacher or other graduate with a lower income who happens to have a degree?
That's what I meant, the only difference would be a specific graduate tax, that wouldn't be capped. One downside of that is if an individual leaves the country, they won't owe anything. That might be motivation for some successful people to move.
I'm saying why would there have to be a graduate tax?
If you're going to do Education via taxation, then why should only graduates pay the tax? Taxation should be applicable to all.
Well that's what we used to have, and then there is no need for fee structure at all. But I am not sure the 50% who don't benefit from university would be very happy to subsidize the 50% who do, or those that paid off their loans already, asked to pay again.
It quite different situation from when 15% went to uni.
Obviously Jezza free uni for all was going to be this....very popular with the yuff, who saw words free, but not sure they quite realised it still meant higher taxes when they were working. There was no free lunch.
Ed Miliband if I remember correctly wanted to move to an explicit graduate tax.
I think the current system was badly explained / sold. It would have been much easier to brand it as a capped graduate tax. And I personally would have had things like incentives for are a doctor, nurse, dentist, you stay in NHS, every year you bring down the cap.
Willetts proposed a graduate tax but George Osborne rejected anything with the word tax in it, which is how we got here. It is politically stupid. Not for the first time, the so-called strategic genius Osborne hurt his own party – by saddling students with debt, and debt that is not repaid is still debt.
Over the years on here, I have written far far far too many words about UK approach to university education / student finance.....if I was in charge, I certainly wouldn't be doing it the way we do it.
The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.
I think this tax will shift the voting age for Tories to well above 55, maybe approaching 60. I could easily see Labour get to 300+ seats if they oppose this and do it with some level of cunning.
Worth remembering that the incredibly steep age profile is a very recent phenomenon. These graphs are from the Mori post-election analyses;
Yes, its stunning. Seems like something that has always been the same but that's not so. Should give hope that nothing is inevitable.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
Low taxes and grow the economy. We should be set for an economic boom now which will transform the budget for the better anyway. Strangling that at birth with taxes is idiotic.
EDIT: Same answer applies to Benpointer just above.
"Low taxes and grow the economy" sounds great but how exactly do you think low taxes (and presumably the consequent public spending cuts) will grow the economy?
And of course even if we cut taxes and the economy did grow faster, the deficit would still be wider overall and they would use the situation as a reason to cut taxes again. Soon you end up like the clusterfuck in Kansas. It is zealotry, uninformed by real world evidence. They talk about the Laffer curve, but pretend there isn't a left hand side of it.
Ah the fabled Laffer curve - a curve with no formula, no coordinates, no data - about as real as a rainbow with a pot of gold at the end.
That's like saying the Bell curve isn't real because there's no formula etc
Of course the curve is real, and of course you can be on the left hand side of it. There's no inevitability of being on the right hand side.
I just happen to believe that a 75% real marginal tax rate on income is on the left hand side of it.
Don't be silly, a 'bell curve' is a style of curve reflecting normal distribution; it is not seeking to describe any specific data relationship although there are plenty of documented real-life situations that produce a bell-curve.
A Laffer curve is a conjectured relationship between taxation levels and tax-take that has no actual data to support it but is nevertheless treated with sacred awe by neoliberals.
You're the one being silly. The Laffer curve is a style of curve, just like Bell curve.
It isn't putting specific data of set curves on it, that will depend upon other factors.
There is plenty of evidence for the principle of the BellLaffer curve. On this site we've had many people (including Dr Foxy just above) say how very high marginal tax rates (in excess of 60 or 70% in some cases) discourages them from working - which depresses the economy and leads to smaller tax takes.
The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.
I think this tax will shift the voting age for Tories to well above 55, maybe approaching 60. I could easily see Labour get to 300+ seats if they oppose this and do it with some level of cunning.
Worth remembering that the incredibly steep age profile is a very recent phenomenon. These graphs are from the Mori post-election analyses;
Without the Corbyn effect on the young, Labour would be pushing up the daisies.
I wonder if they will turn out for Keir?
What's amusing is the young old split is so extreme both groups just look at each other, stupified, asking 'what on earth do you see in Corbyn?' . Young cant see why old people hate him, the old cannot see what the young like.
One of Prince Charles’s closest aides quit last night after claims that he had fixed an honour for a Saudi tycoon who donated more than £1.5 million to royal charities.
Michael Fawcett, the prince’s former valet, stepped down temporarily as chief executive of the Prince’s Foundation after The Sunday Times provided evidence of Charles’s dealings with the businessman.
Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz paid tens of thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the prince who had told him they could secure the honour.
Charles, 72, personally awarded Mahfouz, 51, his CBE at a private ceremony at Buckingham Palace in November 2016. The event was not announced in the Court Circular, the official list of royal engagements.
Aides close to the prince and senior staff in his charities had helped the paid fixers to secure the CBE after Mahfouz donated large sums to restoration projects of particular interest to Charles, including Dumfries House and the Castle of Mey.
I think I will have to ask the police to investigate this.
Why? Some old houses got restored and some fat bloke gets to wear a bit of ribbon on his chest. Net net it’s good
I assume you are being tongue in cheek here @Charles.
If not, can you not see how corrupt this kind of thing looks to normal people?
It may well be corrupt but as someone who cares not a jot for the honours system, I cannot get too worked up over this. It is an old idea that companies' charitable works were paid from the "chairman's knighthood fund" and this is not, at first glance, radically different. Perhaps the stimulation of charitable works is the only good thing that can be said for the honours system.
I have always found that ermine is a sure sign of a vain crook to be avoided. It is like the old habit of branding crooks on the forehead.
Not sure if I Louise’d this last night, but has anyone been watching Nat Geo’s SUPERB docu series on 9/11?
They have found quite extraordinary footage - and stories to go with. Episode 1 was just a work of art
If it continues this good…..
Not seen that - I assume it's subscription, which providers?
The BBC doc 9/11: Inside the President's War Room was pretty good - avail on iPlayer. G W Bush came across quite well, presumably partly because he and his team had a lot of input into it. Good documantary, anyway.
This is on a different level to anything I have seen. The Nat Geo producers were (I believe) given exclusive access to the archives of the 9/11 museum and library, hence the amazing found footage - and so much more
It is stomach-churning in good and bad ways. Stories of true heroism, but scenes of appalling horror. It really is like watching it all over again, the memories flood back. Tears doth flow
One of the most pivotal events in modern human history. I date America's true decline from this moment. So - for me - it really did change the world. Even if it didn't do that, it is one of the most strikingly horrific incidents in human experience - a massive, murderous attack on a huge city at peace with zero warning without any obvious motive, in the most dramatic, cinematic way
At the time the German composer Stockhausen called 9/11 "a work of conceptual art" and he was much vilified for it. But looking back, however distasteful his remark, he had a point. 9/11 affects the human brain like a genius work of art
9/11 shouldn't have happened. How could taking box-cutters on domestic flights in the US have been allowed in 2001? They certainly wouldn't have been on UK domestic flights at the same time.
Real Tories all coming out against the idiot NI rise. Boris has lost it, Rishi needs to push back and axe it completely now. Press the advantage.
As I understand it Rishi wanted a higher increase
No, Rishi wanted no tax rise, Boris and Sajid wanted 2% on employees and 2% on employers, he forced them down to 1% on each. If he pushes again now he can get rid of it completely.
Rishi is in the right. We need to pay down the debt, not leave it for future generations to pay off. Anti-tax zealotry is out of control on the backbenches.
Since when is this proposed tax rise going to pay down the debt?! It's tax and spend, the state is deciding to take a larger proportion of the economy leaving less for everyone else. The solution is and has always been to grow the bloody economy. The tax burden is already too high.
With the best will in the world tax rises are coming no matter who is HMG
This specific tax is to fund social care. Tax the people who use it. Pensioners can afford the tax, working people can't. Raising £20bn from over 65s would be easy and it's not as though they can easily leave the country to a lower tax jurisdiction. Again, 16% of pensioners are in the higher tax bracket. They pay at least £3000 less in tax than someone who works and they receive at least £9k in benefits. That 16% can cover the whole £20bn and more. It's time to make taxes fair.
Trouble is that wealthy retired people are the core demographic for Johnson's Conservatives (and to be fair, they always have been in modern times). And less wealthy but comfortable retired homeowners in the north are the next ones on Johnson's list. That's where his majority is from.
Anyone else in the great Conservative tradition is like the wife who has been dumped for a fruiter model.
Except there's no alimony this time.
They have nowhere else to go. They'll grumble a bit and go and vote Tory in 2024. Working age people have no such difficulty. I live in a marginal seat, it's a nailed on Tory loss at this rate. I'm not even talking about taxing all pensioners more, just the 2m higher rate ones.
So will you be voting Labour? Lib Dem? Green? Or becoming a non-voter in East Finchley (I believe)?
Elderly: the young should pay their way and pay their tuition fees
Also elderly: we will not pay for our bus passes, TfL travel or social care!
Also elderly: we all had our own houses at your age by working hard! But give us all your money for rent.
Actually many of the elderly help their grandchildren with deposits for houses now and also leave them and their children a hefty inheritance
The elderly don't leave their children an inheritance. They leave it to their elderly offspring.
An interesting question. Is it better to give adult children money on anannual basis from their 20s or a much larger lump sum when they are in their 60s. Is either good for them? Does having unearned income from an early stage reduce ambition/motivation?
That is indeed interesting. It always strikes me that giving young people the money for a deposit is regarded as virtuous behaviour. Entirely right and proper to be received with thanks. However, giving them a similar sum to do with as they wished would be considered the height of folly for the parents. And sponging on the part of the kids. We really do seem to see the mere act of property ownership as virtuous, and an end in itself. Why isn't bunging the kids a huge sum to train in an expensive career, or start their own business as common? Or accorded such status? Or even just go travelling for 5 years?
The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.
I think this tax will shift the voting age for Tories to well above 55, maybe approaching 60. I could easily see Labour get to 300+ seats if they oppose this and do it with some level of cunning.
Worth remembering that the incredibly steep age profile is a very recent phenomenon. These graphs are from the Mori post-election analyses;
I'm curious as to what Labour's policy will be re student fees / debt.
Comments
I enjoy swearing at you because you're an entitled old fool and you seem to believe that you're the only one who ever worked hard for a living and now you want a life with your hand in everyone else's pocket.
https://nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2021-1947-ELXN44-Nightly-Tracking-Report-2021-09-03.pdf
Mainstreet also has the Conservative lead down from 5.2% to 2.2% with the Liberals ahead on seats on 153 to 132 for the Conservatives although EKOS has the Conservatives 6.2% ahead.
https://archive.ph/fqhOa
https://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2021/09/daily-tracking-september-4-2021/
Drop the tax, there's less Deadweight loss and more money can be spent and recycled in the economy.
Also elderly: we will not pay for our bus passes, TfL travel or social care!
For which insight he is lauded by some as a kind of visionary seer.
Rather than the reaction being "Isn't that banal observation somewhat self-evident to anyone at all with even a few weeks of economics?"
Nobody thought to write it down before 'cos it is stating the bleeding obvious.
(Note that while nominal rates were higher in the decades before, there were many more in the way of deductions, so the effective rates were lower in many cases).
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16053452/boris-johnson-cabinet-showdown-tax-hike/
The argument that the State can address all of these immediate and very pressing issues by keeping taxes low and growth is frankly fantasy. Hundred of thousands of businesses will not be paying taxes for a year or two given the losses they have accrued over the last 2 years. Many will not survive. Those that replace them will not be generating much tax revenue for some time.
There are massive hits to both sides of the P&L account at the same time: expenditure massively increased and income falling. The issue is not whether taxes have to increase. The issue is which taxes payable by whom. My problem with NI is that it taxes the working part of the population who have already borne the brunt of this. That 8% reflects how much income people lost last year. The burden needs to be shared and protecting our better off pensioners should not be a priority, indeed they are an obvious target. But taxes need to increase. No question.
My granddaughter is starting a five year course at Leeds next week and the fees are eye watering
And when you say I should pay, you do know it is the amount of increase being argued over here not a reduction in the state pension
I don't need or want my hand in any one's pocket. I am self made and successful. I am happy to pay my way. I have said on here that the tax loading for social care should be on income tax not NI. You seem scared to pay a little more tax.
PS if you are on the AR its 47% (45% + 2% NI). You seem ignorant of this just as your group of supposedly sophisticated WhatsApp friends didn't know that NI is not paid on pensions, something that anyone with a basic understanding of tax would know.
I would call you a twat. But that could be deemed to be swearing so I won't.
Enjoy your money. And your family's money. That's you that is!
I'm very cynical about these sorts of questions. I think that most people believe that they are special sunflowers and that other, less deserving targets should be made to pay for stuff. In the case of the grey vote, one suspects that most of them are stickbangers (to clarify: that's my stereotype of the older person who, when asked to pay extra for anything, bangs their stick on the floor whilst angrily wailing "But I paid my taxes!")
If the Tory vote wasn't full of stickbangers then they'd propose freezing the state pension next year or, at most, uprating it in line with inflation, to ease the burden on the workers. Indeed, to a dispassionate observer, that line of thinking strikes one as a complete no-brainer. The fact that the Treasury hasn't done that already speaks volumes.
A Laffer curve is a conjectured relationship between taxation levels and tax-take that has no actual data to support it but is nevertheless treated with sacred awe by neoliberals.
Two very different beasts: one real, one fantastic.
Should I pay my own tuition fees or not?
This is why (have I mentioned this before?) that state pension should go up by CPI only and that the social care loading should be 2% income tax not NI.
But some people think I am trying to fleece working age persons. I don't think that's what I am saying. VERY STRANGE.
All that has happened is a migration from all of us paying for a small number of people to go to uni, to those that go to uni paying an additional tax for doing so.
The fees are that the universities are charging basically what the average cost of education, rather than the state paying or in the early 2000s a combination of the state and the individual.
Now if some unis or courses cost or are worth £9k a year, obviously not, they are subsidising courses like Chemistry that cost £15k a year to run.
It isn't putting specific data of set curves on it, that will depend upon other factors.
There is plenty of evidence for the principle of the BellLaffer curve. On this site we've had many people (including Dr Foxy just above) say how very high marginal tax rates (in excess of 60 or 70% in some cases) discourages them from working - which depresses the economy and leads to smaller tax takes.
I have long said I cannot agree the triple lock and at the same time see the £20UC uplift go
It is just not reasonable
Once again, and hopefully you'll read it this time, it's not about my situation, it's the millions of working people who are about to get shat on who are already struggling. You're the epitome of the selfish old baby boomer who believes that only he worked hard for a living and everyone else is stupid and lazy if they aren't as successful.
Why should eg a successful electrician earning six figure salaries have a lifetime lower tax rate than eg a teacher or other graduate with a lower income who happens to have a degree?
According to Mori at the 2019 election Labour won 18-24s 62% to 19%, 25-34s 51% to 27% and 35-44s 39% to 36%.
It was over 45s who won the election for Boris exactly as they did for May, the Tories won 45-54s 46% to 28%, 55-64s 49%-27% and over 65s by a whopping 64% to 17%.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election
By contrast in 2010 Cameron's Tories beat Brown's Labour in every age bracket over 25, with Labour only ahead with 18-24s.
Yet Cameron only won over 65s by 44% to 31% for Brown Labour.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2010
Therefore post Brexit the Tory vote is heavily dependent on Leave voting pensioners and middle aged owner occupiers looking for an inheritance, Remain voters under 45 left them in 2017 and even in 2019 did not return
I just want to understand if you believe in fairness or not
But they probably won’t.
That's why politicians need some backbone, as you can do it and people will recognise the need, but if you kite fly it of course we know they'll back down if we moan enough.
Now Mainstreet seem to be herding towards the others, while EKOS isn't.
As before. Someone is wrong. So EKOS can be lauded or lambasted. Take your pick.
I stupidly paid off all my student fees and debt in one lump sum.
If not, can you not see how corrupt this kind of thing looks to normal people?
If you're going to do Education via taxation, then why should only graduates pay the tax? Taxation should be applicable to all.
And of course as has been said the way tuition fees are repaid the vast majority of the fees will not be repaid
And yes universities should be able to charge fees
If pensioners believe that young people should "pay their way" as I often here, why don't they have to pay their way?
You clearly haven't read my post as I said the burden should be on IT rather than NI so that 'old' people like me 'pay their share'.
You clearly have a problem with 'older' people, hopefully one day you gain the maturity to get past that.
No need for me to engage with you any further on this 👍
The Charles story is not on that level of course, but these things really are a slippery slope. Start selling gongs or access for a 'good' reason and then you start selling them for a bad one. For the same reason apparent bias is as much a problem as actual bias these things need to at least appear on the level, not dodgy.
It quite different situation from when 15% went to uni.
Obviously Jezza free uni for all was going to be this....very popular with the yuff, who saw words free, but not sure they quite realised it still meant higher taxes when they were working. There was no free lunch.
Ed Miliband if I remember correctly wanted to move to an explicit graduate tax.
I think the current system was badly explained / sold. It would have been much easier to brand it as a capped graduate tax. And I personally would have had things like incentives for are a doctor, nurse, dentist, you stay in NHS, every year you bring down the cap.
Hurts when the boot is on the other foot doesn't it? Now you know what it's like to be young
The under 40 Tory vote was lost with Brexit, however Brexit massively increased the over 55 Tory vote, it is preserving the over 45 vote that will re elect Boris
If it was, the crossover age would have risen between 2017 and 2019, rather than dramatically falling.
However, I just don't think that you can compare University fees directly with... whatever it is you think pensioners aren't paying for - fuel subsidies? Bus passes?
Boris won in 2019 because he won over 45s by even more than May had in 2017, both lost under 45s.
I have had near 60 happy years married, a wonderful family, have paid a shedfield of tax over the years, and will pay for our social care in accordance with the law at the time should my wife and I need it
Mind you, you claim to be a top 5% earners and say your inheritance is going to enable you to buy a property in London
Strange you want to take inheritance away from others
My "problem" with older people is they've pulled the ladder up and then tell under 40s that clearly the issue is that we don't work hard enough like they did. It's definitely not because they bought all the houses and then leeched of us for rent for the first years of our careers. You do it all the time.
I want this social care tax to be paid for by pensioners. An income tax rise still unfairly puts the burden on working age people. There are 2m pensioners in the higher rate tax bracket. They can afford to take the hit. Millions of families on pretty modest wages with mortgages and kids can't. Your generation wants to live with its hand in our pockets.
If they beefed up rules like minimum attendances per year for peers fewer people would purchase peerages, for the same reason - it would no longer be as attractive to buyers.
I wonder if they will turn out for Keir?
However, giving them a similar sum to do with as they wished would be considered the height of folly for the parents. And sponging on the part of the kids.
We really do seem to see the mere act of property ownership as virtuous, and an end in itself.
Why isn't bunging the kids a huge sum to train in an expensive career, or start their own business as common? Or accorded such status?
Or even just go travelling for 5 years?