Would it have been possible for Hammond to have drastically raised the personal allowance (14k? 15k?) instead of raising the higher rate to 50k? Thus taking a huge swathe of the poorest paid out of paying tax entirely while still giving eveyone a tax cut (after all, people on 50k get their first 14k free, too).
I know there is an argument that everybody should contribute to society, but it's always struck me as a good thing to take the poorest in society out of tax to reduce the politics of envy - demonstrating how rich people literally take on the lion's share of the tax burden?
I know where you're coming from, but I don't think it would have that effect. The rich already take on overwhelmingly the lion's share of the burden, but that doesn't stop the Class War crowd, who are impervious to facts, because they argue from emotion. And taking the poorest out of tax increases yet further the number of people with interests in higher taxes and higher spending. Finally, focusing tax on fewer and fewer people makes revenues much more volatile. On this, Hammond was right and Osborne was wrong.
This sounds about right, I hadn't thought about it this way but I can now see how it could increase class divisions rather than heal them. Thanks to everyone who replied to this!
A surprisingly good Budget in these miserable times - although it says a lot about the state of the world that I'm now genuinely suprised that a Conservative Chancellor is actually cutting my taxes.
Wouldn't be surprised to see The Mail put their weight behind "Feel-good Phil" to replace May.....
Not long after the IPCC called for immediate action in reducing CO2, with the UK having previously used Budgets to trumpet "green initiatives" Phil seemed singularly indifferent to Green energy, environmental incentives and efforts from Dave and George, no huskies in this administration......then again, I dont see the environment havign much voice in the current BREXIT climate
Even without the budget, the UK's energy mix is rapidly becoming greener.
Sometimes, just sometimes, things happen without government assistance. We're getting PV installed and our next car will be, at worst, a hybrid if not full electric. That's because it's increasingly making sense.
Previous years governments have nudged through taxes and incentives to encourage greener uptake. Now the market is responding in force.
To fiddle with green taxes now would frankly be pissing in the wind. Let the market get on with it.
I dont think the UN's panel of experts would agree with that,,,,,
But the market works within the tax framework.
The last time I looked (might have been posted here) the two areas that have not achieved significant greenhouse gas reductions are Transport and Housing.
Electric transport will make a huge difference to transport (assuming renewable growth), but housing will not.
It is tempting to suggest a 2% (say) extra Stamp Duty on properties with an EPC figure of E or worse, or similar, from 2025, and perhaps C from 2030 - to mirror the requirements on rentals. Then they would get renovated.
The evil Tory bean-counters do nothing to address the grievance of those women born in the 1950s who have had their pensions stolen from them without due notification and consultation.If this was a private sector provider it would involved in a great mis-selling scandal but the government thinks it can get away with it.Working women to their early deaths,including Mrs volcano,is not an acceptable policy.They demand and deserve redress for this grievance.These are hard-working people who may well have worked since the age of 15 and have borne a disproportiate amount of this austerity belief system of the small-state ideology. The Tories will pay for this one way or the other.
You lost any credibility as a contributor after three words.....
To be fair, the first four words seemed fine to me
The rest... a bit ott imo. Equality means equality, surely?
Would it have been possible for Hammond to have drastically raised the personal allowance (14k? 15k?) instead of raising the higher rate to 50k? Thus taking a huge swathe of the poorest paid out of paying tax entirely while still giving eveyone a tax cut (after all, people on 50k get their first 14k free, too).
I know there is an argument that everybody should contribute to society, but it's always struck me as a good thing to take the poorest in society out of tax to reduce the politics of envy - demonstrating how rich people literally take on the lion's share of the tax burden?
It wouldn't benefit everyone as a point of order - anyone earning over £125k will have no personal allowance at all still. You may not be unhappy at that of course but it wouldn't benefit 'everyone'
Pedantically, those over £125k and below £128 k or £130k (dependent on if it was raised to 14k or 15k) would benefit to a degree, as the taper down would be from £100k-£128k/£130k instead of to £125k.
I was talking about the £12,500 new threshold allowance. it's all gone at £125k pa plus income...
A professor of surgery says students have spent so much time in front of screens and so little time using their hands that they have lost the dexterity for stitching or sewing up patients.
So £200m or so more money thrown at rural broadband... last time they spent the money reaching rural primary schools with BT Infinity type broadband and houses in the immediate vicinity benefitted too...more remote farms and houses didn’t. This time they are going to spend the money reaching rural primary schools with full fibre and houses in the immediate vicinity will benefit too. More remote farms and houses won’t. Good job we built our own community network with full fibre Gigabit broadband to every property, no matter how remote. Without public money. And we’ve connected the primary school. For free. And the Church. And the village hall.
A professor of surgery says students have spent so much time in front of screens and so little time using their hands that they have lost the dexterity for stitching or sewing up patients.
Would it have been possible for Hammond to have drastically raised the personal allowance (14k? 15k?) instead of raising the higher rate to 50k? Thus taking a huge swathe of the poorest paid out of paying tax entirely while still giving eveyone a tax cut (after all, people on 50k get their first 14k free, too).
I know there is an argument that everybody should contribute to society, but it's always struck me as a good thing to take the poorest in society out of tax to reduce the politics of envy - demonstrating how rich people literally take on the lion's share of the tax burden?
People earning more than roughly £110k don't get any personal allowance at all (I know, heart bleeds, don't know how lucky you are etc etc) so they don't get a tax cut unless the higher rate goes up. Of course in Scotland the last time the Chancellor did this the Scottish government did not pass it on and that might well happen again.
Should I open a Just giving account?
Sure - Hopefully you are giving to charity and so forth if you're lucky enough to be earning over a hundred grand a year.
There is a genuine issue with this though as the removal of the allowance of £1 for every £2 earned means there is in effect a 60% band. So it goes 20%, 40%, 60% 40%, 45% which is nonsense. It could easily be done better, even bring it in earlier with a longer taper. The current set up is so extreme it just allows avoidance by those on the cusp by use of AVCs for instance. To change would be fairer and probably bring in more tax.
Will no one think of the school fees?
I'm not suggesting reducing the tax burden. The point is with the current structure anyone say on £100,000 - £120,000 won't pay it anyway. They would be mad to. It is so easy to avoid. So change the structure. Bring it in earlier say at £80,000, lengthen the tapering, or do something different with the tax bands. What is the point of doing something that won't raise the revenue. The only people currently paying it will be those on much higher incomes for whom mitigating it is harder and as we know as you go up the income scale the number of taxpayer reduces significantly.
Would it have been possible for Hammond to have drastically raised the personal allowance (14k? 15k?) instead of raising the higher rate to 50k? Thus taking a huge swathe of the poorest paid out of paying tax entirely while still giving eveyone a tax cut (after all, people on 50k get their first 14k free, too).
I know there is an argument that everybody should contribute to society, but it's always struck me as a good thing to take the poorest in society out of tax to reduce the politics of envy - demonstrating how rich people literally take on the lion's share of the tax burden?
People earning more than roughly £110k don't get any personal allowance at all (I know, heart bleeds, don't know how lucky you are etc etc) so they don't get a tax cut unless the higher rate goes up. Of course in Scotland the last time the Chancellor did this the Scottish government did not pass it on and that might well happen again.
Should I open a Just giving account?
Sure - Hopefully you are giving to charity and so forth if you're lucky enough to be earning over a hundred grand a year.
There is a genuine issue with this though as the removal of the allowance of £1 for every £2 earned means there is in effect a 60% band. So it goes 20%, 40%, 60% 40%, 45% which is nonsense. It could easily be done better, even bring it in earlier with a longer taper. The current set up is so extreme it just allows avoidance by those on the cusp by use of AVCs for instance. To change would be fairer and probably bring in more tax.
Will no one think of the school fees?
I'm not suggesting reducing the tax burden. The point is with the current structure anyone say on £100,000 - £120,000 won't pay it anyway. They would be mad to. It is so easy to avoid. So change the structure. Bring it in earlier say at £80,000, lengthen the tapering, or do something different with the tax bands. What is the point of doing something that won't raise the revenue. The only people currently paying it will be those on much higher incomes for whom mitigating it is harder and as we know as you go up the income scale the number of taxpayer reduces significantly.
Why not bring the 45% band down to £100,000 for instance and not reduce the personal allowance?
So £200m or so more money thrown at rural broadband... last time they spent the money reaching rural primary schools with BT Infinity type broadband and houses in the immediate vicinity benefitted too...more remote farms and houses didn’t. This time they are going to spend the money reaching rural primary schools with full fibre and houses in the immediate vicinity will benefit too. More remote farms and houses won’t. Good job we built our own community network with full fibre Gigabit broadband to every property, no matter how remote. Without public money. And we’ve connected the primary school. For free. And the Church. And the village hall.
Good stuff. I'm on FTTP in my new house, it is in the sticks. I noted that UK broadband (Both mobile and domestic) seemed to be superior to the french offering when I went there a month or so back.
Would it have been possible for Hammond to have drastically raised the personal allowance (14k? 15k?) instead of raising the higher rate to 50k? Thus taking a huge swathe of the poorest paid out of paying tax entirely while still giving eveyone a tax cut (after all, people on 50k get their first 14k free, too).
I know there is an argument that everybody should contribute to society, but it's always struck me as a good thing to take the poorest in society out of tax to reduce the politics of envy - demonstrating how rich people literally take on the lion's share of the tax burden?
People earning more than roughly £110k don't get any personal allowance at all (I know, heart bleeds, don't know how lucky you are etc etc) so they don't get a tax cut unless the higher rate goes up. Of course in Scotland the last time the Chancellor did this the Scottish government did not pass it on and that might well happen again.
Should I open a Just giving account?
Sure - Hopefully you are giving to charity and so forth if you're lucky enough to be earning over a hundred grand a year.
There is a genuine issue with this though as the removal of the allowance of £1 for every £2 earned means there is in effect a 60% band. So it goes 20%, 40%, 60% 40%, 45% which is nonsense. It could easily be done better, even bring it in earlier with a longer taper. The current set up is so extreme it just allows avoidance by those on the cusp by use of AVCs for instance. To change would be fairer and probably bring in more tax.
Will no one think of the school fees?
I'm not suggesting reducing the tax burden. The point is with the current structure anyone say on £100,000 - £120,000 won't pay it anyway. They would be mad to. It is so easy to avoid. So change the structure. Bring it in earlier say at £80,000, lengthen the tapering, or do something different with the tax bands. What is the point of doing something that won't raise the revenue. The only people currently paying it will be those on much higher incomes for whom mitigating it is harder and as we know as you go up the income scale the number of taxpayer reduces significantly.
Why not bring the 45% band down to £100,000 for instance and not reduce the personal allowance?
A surprisingly good Budget in these miserable times - although it says a lot about the state of the world that I'm now genuinely suprised that a Conservative Chancellor is actually cutting my taxes.
As a higher rate tax payer, married to a basic rate primary school teacher, I am in one sense pleased to see us paying about a grand a year less in income tax. But we are well off in the scheme of things, and I hear on a daily basis about the struggles Mrs S's school has to contend with - I look forward to our discussion this evening about "the little things"! - which often mean she has to provide out of our own pockets some basic resources she needs to make her job easier for which the school budget doesn't extend, ditto the other staff members.
So I do wonder whether giving us a grand back at a cost of >£1bn was the right priority when Universal Credit is a shambles and taking cash from the neediest, and our schools still aren't getting the funding they need.
And I am a lifelong Tory voter.
I thought the tax cuts for the rich would again resonate, until McDonnell's intervention - and I do wonder if McDonnell has mis-spoken, because surely he can't be saying Labour would endorse this too?
Overall though, seemed a pretty sound Budget. But I think it oddly timed given the Brexit impasse and uncertainty. (Unless the "impasse" is a bit of a front and actually we are all being choreographed into a deal which the UK and EU have already stitched up....)
So £200m or so more money thrown at rural broadband... last time they spent the money reaching rural primary schools with BT Infinity type broadband and houses in the immediate vicinity benefitted too...more remote farms and houses didn’t. This time they are going to spend the money reaching rural primary schools with full fibre and houses in the immediate vicinity will benefit too. More remote farms and houses won’t. Good job we built our own community network with full fibre Gigabit broadband to every property, no matter how remote. Without public money. And we’ve connected the primary school. For free. And the Church. And the village hall.
Good stuff. I'm on FTTP in my new house, it is in the sticks. I noted that UK broadband (Both mobile and domestic) seemed to be superior to the french offering when I went there a month or so back.
A quiet revolution in the countryside where my parents are, with a new provider able to offer them 18mb/s and consulting on full fibre at the moment... if it's 1 gb/s then I may need to stay with them more often
A professor of surgery says students have spent so much time in front of screens and so little time using their hands that they have lost the dexterity for stitching or sewing up patients.
I know I write so little these days that my handwriting is appalling.
Ditto - my current level of handwriting would have seen me get many detentions from the primary school dragon.
I was taught proper italic handwriting at my primary school. And have had many compliments since. It is actually a very good style to know when writing notes quickly as you can write very fast indeed but still legibly.
I still use a proper pen for writing now, even when doing notes to myself, for work, to the milkman etc.
Hopelessly old-fashioned but still. Why shouldn’t simple every day things bring beauty into the world.
And, frankly, if people were forced to take out pen, ink, paper and slow down a bit before commenting we’d be spared pretty much all of the garbage that is promulgated by email, chat, Twitter etc. Let’s be honest. 99% of what is in peoples’ heads is not worth making public.
A professor of surgery says students have spent so much time in front of screens and so little time using their hands that they have lost the dexterity for stitching or sewing up patients.
I noticed you were jumping around celebrating every syllable offered by Hammond yesterday. Forgive me if I don't join you in the euphoria - a very small tax break for lower earners like me which (and no one seems to have noticed the personal allowances will be frozen in 20/21) which will be eaten by inflation in 2020.
In addition, very little meaningful help for local authorities looking at some difficult financial settlements this autumn and into next year. It's all very well Hammond saying "650 million for councils" but a) that is a drop in the ocean and b) who decides how that money is allocated.
Yes indeed. It is always unwise to judge a budget by its immediate reception on the first day. This morning's broadcast headlines thanks to the Resolution Foundation's work are rather different than the newspaper front pages written on Monday evening.
It's always the things that Chancellors wish to hide that matter, and they take a day or so to start to come out.
Other than a one-off windfall from tax receipts, Hammond had nothing extra to spend on a sustainable basis in terms of the health of the public finances, as future growth remains anaemic. He has instead decided that balanced budgets aren't after all sacrosanct, after a decade in which the Conservatives told us that they were. Having done that, what is striking is how much of the resultant largess was handed out to those who don't really need it, while those who do received very little. That warped sense of priorities means that Hammond will have squandered much of the political benefit that the Conservatives could have banked from this opening up of the purse strings.
A professor of surgery says students have spent so much time in front of screens and so little time using their hands that they have lost the dexterity for stitching or sewing up patients.
I know I write so little these days that my handwriting is appalling.
Ditto - my current level of handwriting would have seen me get many detentions from the primary school dragon.
I was taught proper italic handwriting at my primary school. And have had many compliments since. It is actually a very good style to know when writing notes quickly as you can write very fast indeed but still legibly.
I still use a proper pen for writing now, even when doing notes to myself, for work, to the milkman etc.
Hopelessly old-fashioned but still. Why shouldn’t simple every day things bring beauty into the world.
And, frankly, if people were forced to take out pen, ink, paper and slow down a bit before commenting we’d be spared pretty much all of the garbage that is promulgated by email, chat, Twitter etc. Let’s be honest. 99% of what is in peoples’ heads is not worth making public.
The ink has always dried when I try to use my pen. Best to use it else lose it.
I noticed you were jumping around celebrating every syllable offered by Hammond yesterday. Forgive me if I don't join you in the euphoria - a very small tax break for lower earners like me which (and no one seems to have noticed the personal allowances will be frozen in 20/21) which will be eaten by inflation in 2020.
In addition, very little meaningful help for local authorities looking at some difficult financial settlements this autumn and into next year. It's all very well Hammond saying "650 million for councils" but a) that is a drop in the ocean and b) who decides how that money is allocated.
Yes indeed. It is always unwise to judge a budget by its immediate reception on the first day. This morning's broadcast headlines thanks to the Resolution Foundation's work are rather different than the newspaper front pages written on Monday evening.
It's always the things that Chancellors wish to hide that matter, and they take a day or so to start to come out.
Other than a one-off windfall from tax receipts, Hammond had nothing extra to spend on a sustainable basis in terms of the health of the public finances, as future growth remains anaemic. He has instead decided that balanced budgets aren't after all sacrosanct, after a decade in which the Conservatives told us that they were. Having done that, what is striking is how much of the resultant largess was handed out to those who don't really need it, while those who do received very little. That warped sense of priorities means that Hammond will have squandered much of the political benefit that the Conservatives could have banked from this opening up of the purse strings.
A political argument that relies on a 0.8% deficit as somehow not being sufficiently close to a balanced budget is never going to fly, especially from an opposition which wants to splurge zillions.
A professor of surgery says students have spent so much time in front of screens and so little time using their hands that they have lost the dexterity for stitching or sewing up patients.
I know I write so little these days that my handwriting is appalling.
Ditto - my current level of handwriting would have seen me get many detentions from the primary school dragon.
I was taught proper italic handwriting at my primary school. And have had many compliments since. It is actually a very good style to know when writing notes quickly as you can write very fast indeed but still legibly.
I still use a proper pen for writing now, even when doing notes to myself, for work, to the milkman etc.
Hopelessly old-fashioned but still. Why shouldn’t simple every day things bring beauty into the world.
And, frankly, if people were forced to take out pen, ink, paper and slow down a bit before commenting we’d be spared pretty much all of the garbage that is promulgated by email, chat, Twitter etc. Let’s be honest. 99% of what is in peoples’ heads is not worth making public.
Am I right in thinking some American schools no longer bother with joined-up writing but go straight from print to typing?
Offtopic - The only people that should be embarrassed by the state of the Wembley pitch are SPURS. I'm glad it didn't inhibit Man City too much and they won, but the entire blame for having to play 24 hours after the American Football goes back to Spuds not being able to get their stadium finished on time.
Not long after the IPCC called for immediate action in reducing CO2, with the UK having previously used Budgets to trumpet "green initiatives" Phil seemed singularly indifferent to Green energy, environmental incentives and efforts from Dave and George, no huskies in this administration......then again, I dont see the environment havign much voice in the current BREXIT climate
Even without the budget, the UK's energy mix is rapidly becoming greener.
Sometimes, just sometimes, things happen without government assistance. We're getting PV installed and our next car will be, at worst, a hybrid if not full electric. That's because it's increasingly making sense.
Previous years governments have nudged through taxes and incentives to encourage greener uptake. Now the market is responding in force.
To fiddle with green taxes now would frankly be pissing in the wind. Let the market get on with it.
I dont think the UN's panel of experts would agree with that,,,,,
I'd have a lot more time for that sort of view if other countries also acted. Remember the ozone hole (as it happens, a British discovery)? At vast expense, governments and industry banned CFCs.
China could easily stop this, but they choose not to.
Blaming other people sometimes makes me feel better for my own shortcomings as well.
Us banning CFCs is rather pointless if China and others are willing to flout the internationally-agreed bans. Likewise many other environmental issues. (Local environmental improvements are another matter).
It doesn't matter how much self-flagellation you want to put us through: us acting alone is pointless in a global environment. Sadly, you appear more willing to blame ourselves than condemn China over this.
The UN panels should be screaming at China over this.
The average Chinese citizen produces a fraction of a UK citizen's CO2 output...not sure that blaming Beijing is going to reduce our environmental footprint.
Not long after the IPCC called for immediate action in reducing CO2, with the UK having previously used Budgets to trumpet "green initiatives" Phil seemed singularly indifferent to Green energy, environmental incentives and efforts from Dave and George, no huskies in this administration......then again, I dont see the environment havign much voice in the current BREXIT climate
Even without the budget, the UK's energy mix is rapidly becoming greener.
Sometimes, just sometimes, things happen without government assistance. We're getting PV installed and our next car will be, at worst, a hybrid if not full electric. That's because it's increasingly making sense.
Previous years governments have nudged through taxes and incentives to encourage greener uptake. Now the market is responding in force.
To fiddle with green taxes now would frankly be pissing in the wind. Let the market get on with it.
I dont think the UN's panel of experts would agree with that,,,,,
I'd have a lot more time for that sort of view if other countries also acted. Remember the ozone hole (as it happens, a British discovery)? At vast expense, governments and industry banned CFCs.
China could easily stop this, but they choose not to.
Blaming other people sometimes makes me feel better for my own shortcomings as well.
Us banning CFCs is rather pointless if China and others are willing to flout the internationally-agreed bans. Likewise many other environmental issues. (Local environmental improvements are another matter).
It doesn't matter how much self-flagellation you want to put us through: us acting alone is pointless in a global environment. Sadly, you appear more willing to blame ourselves than condemn China over this.
The UN panels should be screaming at China over this.
The average Chinese citizen produces a fraction of a UK citizen's CO2 output...not sure that blaming Beijing is going to reduce our environmental footprint.
CFCs and CO2 output are err.. two different issues.
Not long after the IPCC called for immediate action in reducing CO2, with the UK having previously used Budgets to trumpet "green initiatives" Phil seemed singularly indifferent to Green energy, environmental incentives and efforts from Dave and George, no huskies in this administration......then again, I dont see the environment havign much voice in the current BREXIT climate
Even without the budget, the UK's energy mix is rapidly becoming greener.
Sometimes, just sometimes, things happen without government assistance. We're getting PV installed and our next car will be, at worst, a hybrid if not full electric. That's because it's increasingly making sense.
Previous years governments have nudged through taxes and incentives to encourage greener uptake. Now the market is responding in force.
To fiddle with green taxes now would frankly be pissing in the wind. Let the market get on with it.
I dont think the UN's panel of experts would agree with that,,,,,
I'd have a lot more time for that sort of view if other countries also acted. Remember the ozone hole (as it happens, a British discovery)? At vast expense, governments and industry banned CFCs.
China could easily stop this, but they choose not to.
Blaming other people sometimes makes me feel better for my own shortcomings as well.
Us banning CFCs is rather pointless if China and others are willing to flout the internationally-agreed bans. Likewise many other environmental issues. (Local environmental improvements are another matter).
It doesn't matter how much self-flagellation you want to put us through: us acting alone is pointless in a global environment. Sadly, you appear more willing to blame ourselves than condemn China over this.
The UN panels should be screaming at China over this.
The average Chinese citizen produces a fraction of a UK citizen's CO2 output...not sure that blaming Beijing is going to reduce our environmental footprint.
CFCs and CO2 output are err.. two different issues.
The point was about climate change, I mistskenly used US figures (16 cubic metres) per head to China's 6........the point stands
The average Chinese citizen produces a fraction of a UK citizen's CO2 output...not sure that blaming Beijing is going to reduce our environmental footprint.
CFCs and CO2 output are err.. two different issues.
The point was about climate change, I mistskenly used US figures (16 cubic metres) per head to China's 6........the point stands
Ah yes but some of China's reduced CO2 emission is down to their use of err... CFCs...
CFC-11 makes a very efficient "blowing agent" for polyurethane foam, helping it to expand into rigid thermal insulation that's used in houses to cut energy bills and reduce carbon emissions. One seller of CFC-11 estimated that 70% of China's domestic sales used the illegal gas. The reason is quite simple - CFC-11 is better quality and much cheaper than the alternatives.
The point was about climate change, I mistskenly used US figures (16 cubic metres) per head to China's 6........the point stands
It doesn't, even in terms of CO2 per head. China: 2.05 metric tonnes of carbon per capita UK: 1.78 metric tonnes of carbon per capita (2017 data) Here's a full table.
He's not the only one. Time for a backbench revolt against the rightwingers of New Momentum.
It's reminiscent of GE2017 where McDonnell seemed to want to splash money around on every interest group with the single exception of the lowest-paid on benefits.
I believe that the Personal Allowance has already been raised to a level which is too high - particularly during a period of austerity. Whilst the LibDems like to claim credit for this development from the Coalition years, a much more balanced approach would have restricted any increase to that imposed by the Rooker- Wise rules coupled with higher public spending. I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
A professor of surgery says students have spent so much time in front of screens and so little time using their hands that they have lost the dexterity for stitching or sewing up patients.
I know I write so little these days that my handwriting is appalling.
Ditto - my current level of handwriting would have seen me get many detentions from the primary school dragon.
I was taught proper italic handwriting at my primary school. And have had many compliments since. It is actually a very good style to know when writing notes quickly as you can write very fast indeed but still legibly.
I still use a proper pen for writing now, even when doing notes to myself, for work, to the milkman etc.
Hopelessly old-fashioned but still. Why shouldn’t simple every day things bring beauty into the world.
And, frankly, if people were forced to take out pen, ink, paper and slow down a bit before commenting we’d be spared pretty much all of the garbage that is promulgated by email, chat, Twitter etc. Let’s be honest. 99% of what is in peoples’ heads is not worth making public.
Am I right in thinking some American schools no longer bother with joined-up writing but go straight from print to typing?
Not when I went to school in Washington DC. Which, admittedly, was a million years ago. The only two things that school ever taught me was nice handwriting and excellent marksmanship with a pistol at age 12. The latter has proved of more enduring utility than the former.
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet your bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0. In fact, it's probably worse than 0: it would be highly negative, as those affected would arrange their affairs so they weren't taxed in the UK at all.
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet your bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0. In fact, it's probably worse than 0: it would be highly negative, as those affected would arrange their affairs so they weren't taxed in the UK at all.
What happens if you add student debt payback to the 90.8% ? (Let's assume it is infinite and a more or less true tax for the purposes of argument..)
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet you bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0.
But a 60% rate is the same as accepted by Thatcher until 1988 - and even the 75% rate would be well below the levels seen in the 1970s under both Tory and Labour governments.
He's not the only one. Time for a backbench revolt against the rightwingers of New Momentum.
McDonnell saying this morning (and I watched the broadcast live) that he supports the personal allowance changes and the rich getting more was one of those moments in politics that raises the eyebrows. McDonnell's problem is he wants to give everything to everyone and had he been a more honest politician he would have said he would not have given the higher allowance.
However, that boat has sailed and he is, in his own words, happy for the rich to get tax cuts and of course the cost plus the freezing of fuel duty has left him with a big tax deficit in his own plans.
He's not the only one. Time for a backbench revolt against the rightwingers of New Momentum.
It's reminiscent of GE2017 where McDonnell seemed to want to splash money around on every interest group with the single exception of the lowest-paid on benefits.
It's very odd positioning.
Strategically I think it makes sense for Labour to signal that they're going to target wealth and the ultra-rich, over income and the upper-middle, as their source of revenue. But tactically this seems like a terrible way to do that
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet you bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0.
But a 60% rate is the same as accepted by Thatcher until 1988 - and even the 75% rate would be well below the levels seen in the 1970s under both Tory and Labour governments.
And what was the National Insurance rate at the time?
In any case, why do you assume that those ludicrously high tax rates raised revenue?
So - if 40% of GDP comes in tax, and we're approximately £44.5 billion down economy-wise due to Brexit so far, it's cost us a little under £18bn per year to the Treasury in tax.
The amusing irony is that it's £350 million per week. So far, anyway.
If that was right then the deficit would have increased rather than decreased.
Nope. It means the deficit would have decreased a lot further.
So - if 40% of GDP comes in tax, and we're approximately £44.5 billion down economy-wise due to Brexit so far, it's cost us a little under £18bn per year to the Treasury in tax.
The amusing irony is that it's £350 million per week. So far, anyway.
If they use June 2016 as the Brexit date then that is 28 months. So your 18 bil is technically 7.7bil per annum.
GDP is a flow, not a stock. It's a running annual bill that's reached £18 billion per year. The total cost will, of course, be higher (it'd have been less last year and less the year before, so if we assume it was £6bn, £12bn, £18bn, it would have come to £36bn by the end of this year and be standing at a further £18bn per year (assuming it remains unchanged)
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet your bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0. In fact, it's probably worse than 0: it would be highly negative, as those affected would arrange their affairs so they weren't taxed in the UK at all.
What happens if you add student debt payback to the 90.8% ? (Let's assume it is infinite and a more or less true tax for the purposes of argument..)
I expect nothing, since someone earning that much would have already paid it all back.
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet you bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0.
But a 60% rate is the same as accepted by Thatcher until 1988 - and even the 75% rate would be well below the levels seen in the 1970s under both Tory and Labour governments.
Lawson cut the top tax rate to 40% in 1988 ie lower than the 45% top income tax rate now.
Returning to a 60% top income tax rate would see the UK with a higher top income tax rate than any other Western economy and lead to a brain drain and a big rise in tax exiles
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet you bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0.
But a 60% rate is the same as accepted by Thatcher until 1988 - and even the 75% rate would be well below the levels seen in the 1970s under both Tory and Labour governments.
And what was the National Insurance rate at the time?
In any case, why do you assume that those ludicrously high tax rates raised revenue?
It staggers me that people think that anyone would be prepared to pay an income tax of 75% or above
The average Chinese citizen produces a fraction of a UK citizen's CO2 output...not sure that blaming Beijing is going to reduce our environmental footprint.
Urrrm, that's not addressing the point I'm making about CFC outputs, which you're ignoring.
Note: I'm not saying we shouldn't do stuff about CO2 and other chemical outputs; just that it's rather pointless us doing it without international agreement to do the same, and it's pointless when China totally breaks it, as they have with CFCs.
I can’t help feeling that this budget is wrongly timed. Surely, we should have been having a budget after Brexit so we could know what what sort of a position we were in and how best to mitigate it/take advantage.
It feels as if we are living in a fool’s paradise when in a few months we may find (I hope not) ourselves in a very difficult position.
On the detail, I can’t say I feel strongly. Schools may complain about the little extras comment but aren’t we always reading stories about schools having to raise money from parents for extras so why can’t this money be used for those sorts of expenses?
Didn't Hammond say he was 'confident' of a good deal ?
Now I wouldn't say that unless I was VERY confident.
But I prefer to under-promise and over-deliver.
Politicians have been known to take a different strategy
"All of this sets up what could be a feast-or-famine evening for Democrats next Tuesday."
As has been mentioned a fair bit on here, the Gerrymander that's built into a lot of republican seats protects them to a large degree if it's a modest swing. Any swing above around +8 for the Dems and a whole load of seats will come into play.
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet you bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0.
But a 60% rate is the same as accepted by Thatcher until 1988 - and even the 75% rate would be well below the levels seen in the 1970s under both Tory and Labour governments.
And what was the National Insurance rate at the time?
In any case, why do you assume that those ludicrously high tax rates raised revenue?
It staggers me that people think that anyone would be prepared to pay an income tax of 75% or above
Hollande tried it briefly and saw a mass exodus of the highest earning French people to London and so reversed it and imposed a levy on employers instead.
In the 1970s a lot of wealthy Brits moved to the USA, Monaco etc
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet you bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0.
But a 60% rate is the same as accepted by Thatcher until 1988 - and even the 75% rate would be well below the levels seen in the 1970s under both Tory and Labour governments.
And what was the National Insurance rate at the time?
In any case, why do you assume that those ludicrously high tax rates raised revenue?
Even today people earning above £892 per week only pay 2% National Insurance on any amount beyond that ceiling.
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet you bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0.
But a 60% rate is the same as accepted by Thatcher until 1988 - and even the 75% rate would be well below the levels seen in the 1970s under both Tory and Labour governments.
And what was the National Insurance rate at the time?
In any case, why do you assume that those ludicrously high tax rates raised revenue?
Even today people earning above £892 per week only pay 2% National Insurance on any amount beyond that ceiling.
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet you bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0.
But a 60% rate is the same as accepted by Thatcher until 1988 - and even the 75% rate would be well below the levels seen in the 1970s under both Tory and Labour governments.
And what was the National Insurance rate at the time?
In any case, why do you assume that those ludicrously high tax rates raised revenue?
Even today people earning above £892 per week only pay 2% National Insurance on any amount beyond that ceiling.
Didn't it used to be zero? I can remember the 1% and then 2% rates being brought in.
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet you bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0.
But a 60% rate is the same as accepted by Thatcher until 1988 - and even the 75% rate would be well below the levels seen in the 1970s under both Tory and Labour governments.
And what was the National Insurance rate at the time?
In any case, why do you assume that those ludicrously high tax rates raised revenue?
It staggers me that people think that anyone would be prepared to pay an income tax of 75% or above
Many would be staggered that anyone needs £1,500,000 per year to live well . Those enjoying such a lifestyle are unlikely to receive much sympathy from the community at large.
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet you bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0.
But a 60% rate is the same as accepted by Thatcher until 1988 - and even the 75% rate would be well below the levels seen in the 1970s under both Tory and Labour governments.
And what was the National Insurance rate at the time?
In any case, why do you assume that those ludicrously high tax rates raised revenue?
Even today people earning above £892 per week only pay 2% National Insurance on any amount beyond that ceiling.
Didn't it used to be zero? I can remember the 1% and then 2% rates being brought in.
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet you bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0.
But a 60% rate is the same as accepted by Thatcher until 1988 - and even the 75% rate would be well below the levels seen in the 1970s under both Tory and Labour governments.
And what was the National Insurance rate at the time?
In any case, why do you assume that those ludicrously high tax rates raised revenue?
Even today people earning above £892 per week only pay 2% National Insurance on any amount beyond that ceiling.
Didn't it used to be zero? I can remember the 1% and then 2% rates being brought in.
Yes, it was zero, and employer's contribution above the upper limit was also zero. The limit was removed under Thatcher (and a real blow at the time to small hi-tech companies).
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet you bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0.
But a 60% rate is the same as accepted by Thatcher until 1988 - and even the 75% rate would be well below the levels seen in the 1970s under both Tory and Labour governments.
And what was the National Insurance rate at the time?
In any case, why do you assume that those ludicrously high tax rates raised revenue?
It staggers me that people think that anyone would be prepared to pay an income tax of 75% or above
Many would be staggered that anyone needs £1,500,000 per year to live well . Those enjoying such a lifestyle are unlikely to receive much sympathy from the community at large.
I realise that, but they will just make alternative arrangements to ensure that they do not pay such a rate, therefore a rate that high will not raise any money.
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet you bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0.
But a 60% rate is the same as accepted by Thatcher until 1988 - and even the 75% rate would be well below the levels seen in the 1970s under both Tory and Labour governments.
And what was the National Insurance rate at the time?
In any case, why do you assume that those ludicrously high tax rates raised revenue?
It staggers me that people think that anyone would be prepared to pay an income tax of 75% or above
Many would be staggered that anyone needs £1,500,000 per year to live well . Those enjoying such a lifestyle are unlikely to receive much sympathy from the community at large.
No doubt the Daily Mail would describe such people as Middle Class.
We don't even need to go back to the 70s to realize that Justin's idea is bonkers...Hollande thought it was a goer and he U-Turned faster than Ed Miliband accidentally walking into a Greggs.
We don't even need to go back to the 70s to realize that Justin's idea is bonkers...Hollande thought it was a goer and he U-Turned faster than Ed Miliband accidentally walking into a Greggs.
Heath and MacMillan were content to apply such rates.
We don't even need to go back to the 70s to realize that Justin's idea is bonkers...Hollande thought it was a goer and he U-Turned faster than Ed Miliband accidentally walking into a Greggs.
Heath and MacMillan were content to apply such rates.
We live in a different world now and it didn't work then either.
Hollande realized this rather quickly, in a country traditionally far happier to pay higher taxes than us.
On the betting front, Indiana is too close to call,a good opportunity for an arb,and Missouri has some 11-8 on the Blues which looks too big.I can't find any odds for Georgia but Arizona is like Indiana,too close to call,Blues best-priced 11-10,Reds 5-6.I'd take a Blue gain in Georgia for over 6-4 too if i can find a market. 4 states which could go either way.
We don't even need to go back to the 70s to realize that Justin's idea is bonkers...Hollande thought it was a goer and he U-Turned faster than Ed Miliband accidentally walking into a Greggs.
Heath and MacMillan were content to apply such rates.
They were higher across the western world, certainly in the 1970s before the Reagan Thatcher era so it did less damage as there were fewer places to move to if income tax was raised nonetheless there was still a brain drain in the 1970s to areas like Monaco and the Bahamas
We don't even need to go back to the 70s to realize that Justin's idea is bonkers...Hollande thought it was a goer and he U-Turned faster than Ed Miliband accidentally walking into a Greggs.
Heath and MacMillan were content to apply such rates.
In practice, hardly anyone paid them, as there were so many reliefs one could claim, and no CGT until 1965.
I wonder what might be the electoral impact of a proposal from McDonnell to raise the standard rate to 25% whilst simultaneously halving VAT to 10%? That would reverse what Howe did in his first Budget in June 1979 when he increased VAT from 8% to 15% with the standard rate down to 30% from 33%. Seeing a significant reduction in the prices of such a wide range of goods & services might be more popular than many assume.
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet you bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0.
But a 60% rate is the same as accepted by Thatcher until 1988 - and even the 75% rate would be well below the levels seen in the 1970s under both Tory and Labour governments.
And what was the National Insurance rate at the time?
In any case, why do you assume that those ludicrously high tax rates raised revenue?
It staggers me that people think that anyone would be prepared to pay an income tax of 75% or above
Many would be staggered that anyone needs £1,500,000 per year to live well . Those enjoying such a lifestyle are unlikely to receive much sympathy from the community at large.
I wonder what might be the electoral impact of a proposal from McDonnell to raise the standard rate to 25% whilst simultaneously halving VAT to 10%? That would reverse what Howe did in his first Budget in June 1979 when he increased VAT from 8% to 15% with the standard rate down to 30% from 33%. Seeing a significant reduction in the prices of such a wide range of goods & services might be more popular than many assume.
My back of a fag packet calculation suggests raising the basic rate to 25p would only allow for a 5% reduction in the rate of VAT, unless you thought there would be a singificant behavioural effect
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet you bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0.
But a 60% rate is the same as accepted by Thatcher until 1988 - and even the 75% rate would be well below the levels seen in the 1970s under both Tory and Labour governments.
Lawson cut the top tax rate to 40% in 1988 ie lower than the 45% top income tax rate now.
Returning to a 60% top income tax rate would see the UK with a higher top income tax rate than any other Western economy and lead to a brain drain and a big rise in tax exiles
Because of the effect of withdrawing personal allowances, we have an effective 60% band from £100 000 to 123 000
So - if 40% of GDP comes in tax, and we're approximately £44.5 billion down economy-wise due to Brexit so far, it's cost us a little under £18bn per year to the Treasury in tax.
The amusing irony is that it's £350 million per week. So far, anyway.
If that was right then the deficit would have increased rather than decreased.
Nope. It means the deficit would have decreased a lot further.
But the actual government borrowing is very similar to what the OBR forecast in March 2016 and that's not including the OBR's tendency up to then to forecast lower borrowing than what eventually arose.
It seems highly likely if the economy was smaller than what the OBR expected then government borrowing would be substantially higher than it has been.
A surprisingly good Budget in these miserable times - although it says a lot about the state of the world that I'm now genuinely suprised that a Conservative Chancellor is actually cutting my taxes.
Wouldn't be surprised to see The Mail put their weight behind "Feel-good Phil" to replace May.....
TMay emphatically denied the possibility of another GE upon being asked by a journalist this morning, while visiting Norway. Her advisers are making sure she doesn't go for a walk in the hills.. . .
I wonder what might be the electoral impact of a proposal from McDonnell to raise the standard rate to 25% whilst simultaneously halving VAT to 10%? That would reverse what Howe did in his first Budget in June 1979 when he increased VAT from 8% to 15% with the standard rate down to 30% from 33%. Seeing a significant reduction in the prices of such a wide range of goods & services might be more popular than many assume.
I thought our problem was saving too little - surely the tax burden should be on spending rather than income ?
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet you bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0.
But a 60% rate is the same as accepted by Thatcher until 1988 - and even the 75% rate would be well below the levels seen in the 1970s under both Tory and Labour governments.
Lawson cut the top tax rate to 40% in 1988 ie lower than the 45% top income tax rate now.
Returning to a 60% top income tax rate would see the UK with a higher top income tax rate than any other Western economy and lead to a brain drain and a big rise in tax exiles
Because of the effect of withdrawing personal allowances, we have an effective 60% band from £100 000 to 123 000
It would be interesting to know since that came into force how many people now earn £99k, but take more holidays.
So - if 40% of GDP comes in tax, and we're approximately £44.5 billion down economy-wise due to Brexit so far, it's cost us a little under £18bn per year to the Treasury in tax.
The amusing irony is that it's £350 million per week. So far, anyway.
If that was right then the deficit would have increased rather than decreased.
Nope. It means the deficit would have decreased a lot further.
But the actual government borrowing is very similar to what the OBR forecast in March 2016 and that's not including the OBR's tendency up to then to forecast lower borrowing than what eventually arose.
It seems highly likely if the economy was smaller than what the OBR expected then government borrowing would be substantially higher than it has been.
And that's before we consider how GDP could have been bigger during the last two years.
Exports would almost certainly have been lower with a higher Sterling exchange rate.
Its difficult to imagine construction increasing more than it has done.
Would government spending have been higher ? I doubt it.
So what does that leave ?
Higher house prices and more consumer spending with borrowed money on imported goods.
On the betting front, Indiana is too close to call,a good opportunity for an arb,and Missouri has some 11-8 on the Blues which looks too big.I can't find any odds for Georgia but Arizona is like Indiana,too close to call,Blues best-priced 11-10,Reds 5-6.I'd take a Blue gain in Georgia for over 6-4 too if i can find a market. 4 states which could go either way.
What do you make of the Georgia governor race (the Dem is at 2.44 on Betfair exchange) ?
The runup to the midterms is getting quite uncomfortable for the Republicans: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/2018-midterms-battlegrounds-republican-spending.html ...As the New York Times reported over the weekend, Democrats are set to spend $143 million on TV ads through the election compared to Republicans’ $86 million. Democratic candidates aren’t just awash in the most obvious battlegrounds, like those districts with Republican incumbents that Hillary Clinton carried in 2016: They’ve got money up and down the ballot.
Democrats have been disciplined in using that money to bash Republicans over their top issue: that Republicans have tried, and will try again, to repeal protections for people with pre-existing conditions. It’s an issue that works in every district. It works in a coastal Florida district. It’s worked so well in a theoretically safe Wisconsin district that incumbent Rep. Glenn Grothman recently “pleaded with party leaders to invest in a nationwide TV ad that could run in competitive districts like his, defending the House GOP’s Obamacare repeal bill that passed the chamber last year,” according to Politico. (Party leaders said no....
I wonder what might be the electoral impact of a proposal from McDonnell to raise the standard rate to 25% whilst simultaneously halving VAT to 10%? That would reverse what Howe did in his first Budget in June 1979 when he increased VAT from 8% to 15% with the standard rate down to 30% from 33%. Seeing a significant reduction in the prices of such a wide range of goods & services might be more popular than many assume.
My back of a fag packet calculation suggests raising the basic rate to 25p would only allow for a 5% reduction in the rate of VAT, unless you thought there would be a singificant behavioural effect
I have done the detailed maths - but in 1979 a 7% VAT increase was accompanied by a 3% reduction in the standard rate and a very significant cut in the higher rates of Income Tax. Doubtless there would be some behavioural effects from such a progressive change in the tax burden with those likely to have a higher Marginal Propensity to Consume being the main beneficiaries.
It is bit depressing that the article starts off with a clearly falsifiable fact: “In summer 2012, English tuition fees suddenly tripled to become the highest in the world”. Highest in Europe, for sure, but not in the world. They are cheaper than US state universities and much cheaper than US private universities.
The article then says something that I agree with: “Labour ... cannot go into an election telling young people that if they are unlucky enough to have started university the day before a Labour government is elected, they will still have to pay off a £30,000 loan, just to cover their fees.’
And it comes to a solution: "How will we pay for this? The answer is another question: if the rest of Europe can do it, why can’t we?”
Is that really it? We are all familiar to our cost with the depressingly low standards of Oxford PPE and the generation of vacuous pols it has produced. It seems that Oxford Geography is as bad. No costing at all, no examination of different alternatives, no serious analysis of the differences between continental Europe and the UK (e.g., in Germany, much lower proportions of the population go to University).
And finally, at the end of the article the traditional Corbynista free lunch, “we could raise taxes on wealth, on corporations and on people receiving the highest incomes to the levels of the rest of western Europe.”
So even at the end, a cop-out. Facebook & Amazon will pay. In fact, there is no reason why higher levels of Income Tax should not fund this. If numbers at University are reduced to German or Swiss levels and the money is raised in a sensible manner, the people benefiting from Universities would (in the main) end up paying.
I.e., the situation needs returning to before New Labour got their sweaty hands on it.
I think they get to their "fact" about highest in the world, even US, by including US community colleges.
You mean by including things that are not universities ... because Community Colleges don’t offer degrees.
Well yes, but Gruadian / facts / figures ....
The Guardian quietly issued a sheepish correction last week, admitting they got their benefit cap figures out by a mere 5,100%.
Also, I guess they would argue that a significant number of people go to community college to get an "Associate degree" or then use the grades to transfer to a full university course with those credits.
Edit - According to wikipedia, since 2013, some Community Colleges have offered bachelor's degrees.
My wife started at community college before transferring to Berkeley on a scholarship
I wonder what might be the electoral impact of a proposal from McDonnell to raise the standard rate to 25% whilst simultaneously halving VAT to 10%? That would reverse what Howe did in his first Budget in June 1979 when he increased VAT from 8% to 15% with the standard rate down to 30% from 33%. Seeing a significant reduction in the prices of such a wide range of goods & services might be more popular than many assume.
We'd have to have left the EU (and presumably finished the transitional period) first.
I wonder what might be the electoral impact of a proposal from McDonnell to raise the standard rate to 25% whilst simultaneously halving VAT to 10%? That would reverse what Howe did in his first Budget in June 1979 when he increased VAT from 8% to 15% with the standard rate down to 30% from 33%. Seeing a significant reduction in the prices of such a wide range of goods & services might be more popular than many assume.
We'd have to have left the EU (and presumably finished the transitional period) first.
I wonder what might be the electoral impact of a proposal from McDonnell to raise the standard rate to 25% whilst simultaneously halving VAT to 10%? That would reverse what Howe did in his first Budget in June 1979 when he increased VAT from 8% to 15% with the standard rate down to 30% from 33%. Seeing a significant reduction in the prices of such a wide range of goods & services might be more popular than many assume.
We'd have to have left the EU (and presumably finished the transitional period) first.
Now imagine that these numbers were reversed with consumer spending up 3% in France and down 1.5% in the UK.
Would the consequent apocalyptic reporting be blaming Brexit or austerity or both ?
You can always turn an economic statistic to prove the point you want to make. So you could say that the British are having more fun. Or you could say that prices in the UK are higher so people are having to spend more just to keep up.
Carter's quite right. Given all that's going on on Georgia at the moment, it would be much better to have a third party in charge of arrangements. That is not to say Kemp would rig the ballot, merely that if it's a narrow win he's leaving himself open to accusations of having done so.
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet you bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0.
But a 60% rate is the same as accepted by Thatcher until 1988 - and even the 75% rate would be well below the levels seen in the 1970s under both Tory and Labour governments.
We now have the 1% paying 27% of all income tax. What was that proportion under previous Labour Govts.?
Would it have been possible for Hammond to have drastically raised the personal allowance (14k? 15k?) instead of raising the higher rate to 50k? Thus taking a huge swathe of the poorest paid out of paying tax entirely while still giving eveyone a tax cut (after all, people on 50k get their first 14k free, too).
I know there is an argument that everybody should contribute to society, but it's always struck me as a good thing to take the poorest in society out of tax to reduce the politics of envy - demonstrating how rich people literally take on the lion's share of the tax burden?
People earning more than roughly £110k don't get any personal allowance at all (I know, heart bleeds, don't know how lucky you are etc etc) so they don't get a tax cut unless the higher rate goes up. Of course in Scotland the last time the Chancellor did this the Scottish government did not pass it on and that might well happen again.
Should I open a Just giving account?
Sure - Hopefully you are giving to charity and so forth if you're lucky enough to be earning over a hundred grand a year.
He's not the only one. Time for a backbench revolt against the rightwingers of New Momentum.
As with Brexit, I suspect it's a fight JMc and JC have chosen to sit out while in opposition. It would turn the debate onto their tax policies ("Corbyn's tax attack on middle England") when they can see hay to be made with the Tories' "little extras" for schools etc.
(That said, I think opposing the higher rate change would hardly have surprised anyone.)
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet you bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0.
But a 60% rate is the same as accepted by Thatcher until 1988 - and even the 75% rate would be well below the levels seen in the 1970s under both Tory and Labour governments.
And what was the National Insurance rate at the time?
In any case, why do you assume that those ludicrously high tax rates raised revenue?
Even today people earning above £892 per week only pay 2% National Insurance on any amount beyond that ceiling.
Envy is a terrible thing, get out and earn more than £892.
Comments
The last time I looked (might have been posted here) the two areas that have not achieved significant greenhouse gas reductions are Transport and Housing.
Electric transport will make a huge difference to transport (assuming renewable growth), but housing will not.
It is tempting to suggest a 2% (say) extra Stamp Duty on properties with an EPC figure of E or worse, or similar, from 2025, and perhaps C from 2030 - to mirror the requirements on rentals. Then they would get renovated.
The rest... a bit ott imo. Equality means equality, surely?
Otoh there have been studies showing that video games help prepare surgeons to operate so it is not all one-sided to the Luddites.
I noted that UK broadband (Both mobile and domestic) seemed to be superior to the french offering when I went there a month or so back.
So I do wonder whether giving us a grand back at a cost of >£1bn was the right priority when Universal Credit is a shambles and taking cash from the neediest, and our schools still aren't getting the funding they need.
And I am a lifelong Tory voter.
I thought the tax cuts for the rich would again resonate, until McDonnell's intervention - and I do wonder if McDonnell has mis-spoken, because surely he can't be saying Labour would endorse this too?
Overall though, seemed a pretty sound Budget. But I think it oddly timed given the Brexit impasse and uncertainty. (Unless the "impasse" is a bit of a front and actually we are all being choreographed into a deal which the UK and EU have already stitched up....)
I still use a proper pen for writing now, even when doing notes to myself, for work, to the milkman etc.
Hopelessly old-fashioned but still. Why shouldn’t simple every day things bring beauty into the world.
And, frankly, if people were forced to take out pen, ink, paper and slow down a bit before commenting we’d be spared pretty much all of the garbage that is promulgated by email, chat, Twitter etc. Let’s be honest. 99% of what is in peoples’ heads is not worth making public.
It's always the things that Chancellors wish to hide that matter, and they take a day or so to start to come out.
Other than a one-off windfall from tax receipts, Hammond had nothing extra to spend on a sustainable basis in terms of the health of the public finances, as future growth remains anaemic. He has instead decided that balanced budgets aren't after all sacrosanct, after a decade in which the Conservatives told us that they were. Having done that, what is striking is how much of the resultant largess was handed out to those who don't really need it, while those who do received very little. That warped sense of priorities means that Hammond will have squandered much of the political benefit that the Conservatives could have banked from this opening up of the purse strings.
I'm glad it didn't inhibit Man City too much and they won, but the entire blame for having to play 24 hours after the American Football goes back to Spuds not being able to get their stadium finished on time.
CFC-11 makes a very efficient "blowing agent" for polyurethane foam, helping it to expand into rigid thermal insulation that's used in houses to cut energy bills and reduce carbon emissions.
One seller of CFC-11 estimated that 70% of China's domestic sales used the illegal gas. The reason is quite simple - CFC-11 is better quality and much cheaper than the alternatives.
China: 2.05 metric tonnes of carbon per capita
UK: 1.78 metric tonnes of carbon per capita
(2017 data)
Here's a full table.
It's very odd positioning.
I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet your bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0. In fact, it's probably worse than 0: it would be highly negative, as those affected would arrange their affairs so they weren't taxed in the UK at all.
Needed to hold Warwick and Leamington, Kensington and Canterbury
However, that boat has sailed and he is, in his own words, happy for the rich to get tax cuts and of course the cost plus the freezing of fuel duty has left him with a big tax deficit in his own plans.
The Politburo has not been infiltrated by Rightists, as this bourgeois capitalist pigdog would have you believe!
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/30/david-axelrod-2020-democratic-candidates-trump-harris-gillibrand-bernie-castro-patrick-221951
In any case, why do you assume that those ludicrously high tax rates raised revenue?
It's a running annual bill that's reached £18 billion per year. The total cost will, of course, be higher (it'd have been less last year and less the year before, so if we assume it was £6bn, £12bn, £18bn, it would have come to £36bn by the end of this year and be standing at a further £18bn per year (assuming it remains unchanged)
Returning to a 60% top income tax rate would see the UK with a higher top income tax rate than any other Western economy and lead to a brain drain and a big rise in tax exiles
Note: I'm not saying we shouldn't do stuff about CO2 and other chemical outputs; just that it's rather pointless us doing it without international agreement to do the same, and it's pointless when China totally breaks it, as they have with CFCs.
What's your answer to that?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-battleground-in-the-house-is-really-big-and-that-makes-life-hard-for-republicans/
"All of this sets up what could be a feast-or-famine evening for Democrats next Tuesday."
As has been mentioned a fair bit on here, the Gerrymander that's built into a lot of republican seats protects them to a large degree if it's a modest swing. Any swing above around +8 for the Dems and a whole load of seats will come into play.
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1057243269573341184
In the 1970s a lot of wealthy Brits moved to the USA, Monaco etc
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/30/sanders-biden-avenatti-2020-media-primary-943252
4.
Georgia
Missouri
Arizona
Indiana
47-48
42-43
46-47
44-45
Hollande realized this rather quickly, in a country traditionally far happier to pay higher taxes than us.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/29/politics/jimmy-carter-brian-kemp/index.html
4 states which could go either way.
https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1057228492352430080
It seems highly likely if the economy was smaller than what the OBR expected then government borrowing would be substantially higher than it has been.
Exports would almost certainly have been lower with a higher Sterling exchange rate.
Its difficult to imagine construction increasing more than it has done.
Would government spending have been higher ? I doubt it.
So what does that leave ?
Higher house prices and more consumer spending with borrowed money on imported goods.
Does anyone think that's what the country needs ?
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/south-america/2018/10/brazil-shows-how-elite-responds-when-forced-choose-between-fascism-and
The runup to the midterms is getting quite uncomfortable for the Republicans:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/2018-midterms-battlegrounds-republican-spending.html
...As the New York Times reported over the weekend, Democrats are set to spend $143 million on TV ads through the election compared to Republicans’ $86 million. Democratic candidates aren’t just awash in the most obvious battlegrounds, like those districts with Republican incumbents that Hillary Clinton carried in 2016: They’ve got money up and down the ballot.
Democrats have been disciplined in using that money to bash Republicans over their top issue: that Republicans have tried, and will try again, to repeal protections for people with pre-existing conditions. It’s an issue that works in every district. It works in a coastal Florida district. It’s worked so well in a theoretically safe Wisconsin district that incumbent Rep. Glenn Grothman recently “pleaded with party leaders to invest in a nationwide TV ad that could run in competitive districts like his, defending the House GOP’s Obamacare repeal bill that passed the chamber last year,” according to Politico. (Party leaders said no....
The Budget has been branded "a bit of a gamble" by a respected economic research group.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46030166
http://www.iwcp.co.uk/news/17188571.vandals-smash-scout-hut-windows-in-shanklin/
Mr. B2, Genseric up to no good again, I see.
(That said, I think opposing the higher rate change would hardly have surprised anyone.)