Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The front pages after Johnson’s big conference speech

135

Comments

  • philiph said:

    In the real world the response is likely to be

    "Who gives a F***"


    "F*ck Business Boris!"
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 5,092
    The EU have to decide possible outcomes if there’s an extension .

    Will Bozo go full on no deal in their election manifesto , if he doesn’t can he get a big enough majority to dump the DUP and go back to a simple backstop for NI.

    If there’s no deal and it ends up a disaster before an election then the Tories could suffer a backlash by voters and in the GE could be ousted with a new government going for a softer Brexit v Remain .

    The current proposals are going nowhere unless the DUP veto is dropped and other issues around customs are addressed .

    The UK media are obsessed with the numbers to get this unicorn deal over the line .

  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780

    I agree the EU will be more accommodating to any UK govt that can demonstrate a majority in parliament. They are probably willing to do one last concession but dont want to waste it if it is unlikely to pass in parliament.

    I disagree they will be more accommodating post no-deal. Not because they dont want to, but because we would need sign off from 28 national parliaments plus several regional parliaments, not just the heads of state. That will bring into play all sorts of sectional interests with minor politicians looking to make a name for themselves with their own electorates. It will be a quagmire.
    On the latter, whilst I agree with the implication that the EU is an utterly dysfunctonal organisation, I think you greatly overstate the consequences in this case. With the actuality rather than the prospect of no deal, the pressure will if anything be greater. States will be falling over themselves to preserve as much of what they have now, faced with the alternative. States within the EU are also be capable of putting a great deal of pressure on any recalcitrant member seen as playing silly buggers, as can the EU bureaucracy. And because they will be trying to preserve the status quo. it's a very different situation to getting agreement to something new, so I don't think there is any real prospects of the likes of the Walloons kicking off.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,059
    kinabalu said:

    My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
    A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,296

    Your objectives are not helped by questioning whether the tax system is regressive because of VAT, or calling a valid figure part of the tax dodgers alliance.

    I would be in favour of aggressively closing loopholes that help the very rich and also a Warren style billionaire tax.
    Personally, I think the Income Tax system is progressive enough but several changes I would like to see are:

    - Extending NI to non-earned income, e.g pensions, dividends, interest etc. or better still rolling Income Tax and NI into one, over time.
    - A wealth tax
    - The overall tax take to go up by a few % of GDP (say from the current 37% to 40%) to improve public services and reduce borrowing. The NI and wealth tax changes to fund this %GDP increase.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Pulpstar said:

    Has he shown his workings for the 270-280 figure ?
    Not that I'm aware. Lord Hayward was asked by Adam Boulton for his assessment. Lord Hayward indicated that his view was a nowcast and the political situation was so fluid as to make any other forecast for a near future general election immensely difficult.

    Lord Hayward also indicated that the prospect of Labour as largest party was small and the seat winners were the LibDems and the SNP.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    HYUFD said:

    A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
    We'll chalk you down as a Laffer-curve denier then ;)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,059

    Probably - great for Warren's prospects, as she doesn't have to take bold, left-wing, general-election-losing positions any more.
    She already has and she still does to keep her base in the Democratic primaries
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,481
    I haven't bet on it but Ladbrokes have an interesting match market for the election.

    Con + DUP + UKIP versus pretty much everyone else. I think everyone else is 1.95.

    That's seat totals, incidentally, not votes.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,296
    kinabalu said:

    My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
    We'd get close to that by removing the NI upper earings limit and extending NI to unearned income.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,059
    Noo said:

    We'll chalk you down as a Laffer-curve denier then ;)
    The Latter curve shows quite clearly the higher you raise tax the lower the revenues you get past a certain point and a 63% top rate is well past that point
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,296

    I haven't bet on it but Ladbrokes have an interesting match market for the election.

    Con + DUP + UKIP versus pretty much everyone else. I think everyone else is 1.95.

    That's seat totals, incidentally, not votes.

    UKIP ??
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,705
    edited October 2019
    HYUFD said:

    A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
    What is the upper rate in France now? They did a hike (now reversed?) which saw a movement of talent under Hollande, I seem to recall.

    While you have free movement you can't have a nation with a successful significantly higher tax rate than others in the area.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,527
    HYUFD said:

    A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
    You do know that if you earn between £100,000 and £120,000 you paying an effective marginal rate of 62% already in the UK.
  • Personally, I think the Income Tax system is progressive enough but several changes I would like to see are:

    - Extending NI to non-earned income, e.g pensions, dividends, interest etc. or better still rolling Income Tax and NI into one, over time.
    - A wealth tax
    - The overall tax take to go up by a few % of GDP (say from the current 37% to 40%) to improve public services and reduce borrowing. The NI and wealth tax changes to fund this %GDP increase.
    Your suggestions plus inheritance tax being moved to the recipient, lowering pension relief caps and removing the last bit of tax relief/credit for landlords would have me on board. Education (across lifetime not just kids) to get a decent share of the increase to 40%.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    Personally, I think the Income Tax system is progressive enough but several changes I would like to see are:

    - Extending NI to non-earned income, e.g pensions, dividends, interest etc. or better still rolling Income Tax and NI into one, over time.
    - A wealth tax
    - The overall tax take to go up by a few % of GDP (say from the current 37% to 40%) to improve public services and reduce borrowing. The NI and wealth tax changes to fund this %GDP increase.
    Merging Income tax and NI desperately needs doing - but politically it's about as popular as sorting social care or planning reform, destined to be forever left in the 'too-difficult' pile.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,296
    edited October 2019
    philiph said:

    What is the upper rate in France now? They did a hike which saw a movement of talent under Hollande, I seem to recall.

    While you have free movement you can't have a nation with a successful significantly higher tax rate than others in the area.
    Surely migration of the wealthiest 1% is not really checked by the free movement rules or proximity considerations that apply to everyone else?

    But anyway I am not sure I buy this 'wealth flight' argument...

    If I were a billionaire, I'd probably be financially better off in the US, Monaco, or any one of a number of other places. But frankly, if I were a billionaire I wouldn't give two sh%ts about saving a bit of tax, I'd want to live in the place I love best, which happens to be Dorset, right now.

    (Oh, also, most billionaires are lucky not talented imo.)
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    HYUFD said:

    A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
    The highest effective marginal tax rates are on the low not high earners when you bring tax credits and benefits into the equation, and they have got higher not lower in the last decade or so. Student loans have effectively also added 9% to the tax rate for a large swathe of the younger half of the working population and will never be paid off for almost all of those taking out loans post Nick Clegg. NI is paid by the low paid but ceases above a moderately high income threshold.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,552
    JackW said:

    Sky News - Psephologist and Conservative peer Lord Hayward indicates 270-280 seats presently for the Tories.

    Also recommends to both Speakers that Dominic Cumming's parliamentary pass be revoked for contempt of parliament.

    That will come as a comfort to Labour, whose private polling apparently sees their seats going down by 100.....
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584
    JackW said:

    Sky News - Psephologist and Conservative peer Lord Hayward indicates 270-280 seats presently for the Tories.

    Also recommends to both Speakers that Dominic Cumming's parliamentary pass be revoked for contempt of parliament.

    Sounds like a balanced arbiter of neutrality.
  • kjh said:

    You do know that if you earn between £100,000 and £120,000 you paying an effective marginal rate of 62% already in the UK.
    Only assuming you dont use your pension relief, SEIS, EIS, VCT allowances, which presumably the vast majority of those earners take advantage of?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,296
    Sandpit said:

    Merging Income tax and NI desperately needs doing - but politically it's about as popular as sorting social care or planning reform, destined to be forever left in the 'too-difficult' pile.
    Sadly, you may be right.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,481
    Mr. Pointer, ahem, TBP.

    I got confused between Faragian political vehicles.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    HYUFD said:

    The Latter curve shows quite clearly the higher you raise tax the lower the revenues you get past a certain point and a 63% top rate is well past that point
    To be accurate, the theory of the Laffer curve claims.......
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,296
    HYUFD said:

    The Latter curve shows quite clearly the higher you raise tax the lower the revenues you get past a certain point and a 63% top rate is well past that point

    Ah great... I take it you have the official proven coordinates for the Laffer curve then. I've been looking for that for some time.

    Could you post a copy, thx
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    HYUFD said:

    The Latter curve shows quite clearly the higher you raise tax the lower the revenues you get past a certain point and a 63% top rate is well past that point
    Unless the Laffer curve optimum is 85 per cent, in which case 63% is too low.
    https://equitablegrowth.org/determining-optimal-u-s-tax-rate-higher-earners/

    The fact is the Laffer curve is pseudo-scientific drivel used to provide a veneer of rationalisation for self-serving lobbyists for billionaires. Plug in any number you like provided it is above 0 and below 100.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,527
    Sandpit said:

    The Treasury did a lot of work on income Laffer curves in 2010 and 2011, before reducing the 52% rate to 47% (inc the 2% NI). - and seeing income tax receipts go up as a result.

    It turns out that 50% is a hugely symbolic number, that has a lot of people reaching for an accountant's phone number.

    Further down the income scale, there's also evidence that the effective 65% rate due to personal allowance withdrawal at 100k income is causing people to avoid that income bracket, either by doing less work or increasing pension contributions. Think doctors, lawyers, pilots etc turning down that extra shift or extra customer, as the marginal gain is so small.

    Personal anecdata - in a previous job I stopped working overtime when I hit the 40% bracket, simply decided that it wasn't worth working nights and weekends for the net rate offered.
    Agree re personal allowance withdrawal. Use of AVC to pension is the obvious way around it and something we did.

    Just to ensure I am not misunderstanding, why do you say 65%. Surely it is 60% or 62% if you include NI. Am I missing something?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,527

    Only assuming you dont use your pension relief, SEIS, EIS, VCT allowances, which presumably the vast majority of those earners take advantage of?
    Agree.
  • Our main medal hope in Montreal was Brendan Foster who had some sort of tummy trouble, and the team's doctor was not a gastroenterologist. Since then, athletes are barely allowed to cross the road without a medium-sized general hospital on standby. I vaguely recall a couple of Olympics ago, the Guardian musing on why the British archery team had a neurosurgeon in tow.

    Shades of losing the World Cup in 1970, which may have cost Labour the election that year.
    Everton’s keeper Gordon West was scheduled to be backup but his wife refused to let him go. That cost us it.

  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046
    HYUFD said:

    The Latter curve shows quite clearly the higher you raise tax the lower the revenues you get past a certain point and a 63% top rate is well past that point
    Whilst the "Laffer effect" is real, the tipping point is quite variable.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,810

    The main issue for the remain side is that there is no way that getting rid of the Conservative government leaves no alternative leader for them. Mr. Corbyn as interim PM is unacceptable to the LibDems as this would cement in voters minds the possibility of him as PM and Labour as the alternative government. Equivalently Labour cannot afford Mr. Corbyn to be sidelined as this would leave voters to question why the LotO is not PM.
    Whatever people believe regarding the importance of halting Brexit, the fact remains that the real battle in the HoC is for the party that will be the alternative anti-Conservative Party in the next GE.
    Both of those parties see it as a fight to the death. Neither can afford to back down.

    Think this is right. Especially for the LDs. They have a great chance for break through and must surely be focusing on that above all else.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,076
    Sandpit said:


    Personal anecdata - in a previous job I stopped working overtime when I hit the 40% bracket, simply decided that it wasn't worth working nights and weekends for the net rate offered.

    Without delving into individual specifics, there is also an upside to getting people to think twice about maximising their salary and considering their priavte life a bit more. It can be better for the economy as a whole in the long term to have a few more employees learning the required skills, with less burn-outs and heart attacks for the few with highly specialised skills. And the easiest way for the government to maximise tax revenue is to have a long term healthy economy, rather than looking at the income tax takings over one or two years.

    The people who really hate high income tax levels are the employers because they really would like to employ one specialist to work 80 hours a week than find and train two to work 40 hours a week.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,059
    edited October 2019
    philiph said:

    What is the upper rate in France now? They did a hike (now reversed?) which saw a movement of talent under Hollande, I seem to recall.

    While you have free movement you can't have a nation with a successful significantly higher tax rate than others in the area.
    Under Macron the top income tax rate in France is now 45%, the same as the UK (albeit with a 4% extra rate for incomes over €500 million).

    Under Hollande many of the Paris rich fled to London
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,045
    HYUFD said:

    The Latter curve shows quite clearly the higher you raise tax the lower the revenues you get past a certain point and a 63% top rate is well past that point
    The Laffer curve also shows quite clearly that the lower you put the tax rates, the lower the revenues you get past a certain point.

    How do you know that a 63% top rate is above or below that point?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,814

    Surely migration of the wealthiest 1% is not really checked by the free movement rules or proximity considerations that apply to everyone else?

    But anyway I am not sure I buy this 'wealth flight' argument...

    If I were a billionaire, I'd probably be financially better off in the US, Monaco, or any one of a number of other places. But frankly, if I were a billionaire I wouldn't give two sh%ts about saving a bit of tax, I'd want to live in the place I love best, which happens to be Dorset, right now.

    (Oh, also, most billionaires are lucky not talented imo.)
    In the real world, multinationals have offices around the world and executives can often be placed in any number of them. I speak from experience that headhunters use flexibility of location as a key tool to get candidates over the line when selling a role.

    And with the SPECTRE hanging over the UK thanks to Labour’s collapse to the extreme left, high earners are relocating to and extending placements in Asia and the Middle East.
  • What the hell is that live rugby "reenactment" thingy that the ITV prersenters are doing in the fake Japanese dojo? It looks awkward and cringe worthy!
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    HYUFD said:

    Under Macron the top income tax rate in France is now 45%, the same as the UK (albeit with a 4% extra rate for incomes over €500 million).

    Under Hollande many of the Paris rich fled to London
    Define "many"
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,810
    Sandpit said:

    It turns out that 50% is a hugely symbolic number, that has a lot of people reaching for an accountant's phone number.

    Further down the income scale, there's also evidence that the effective 65% rate due to personal allowance withdrawal at 100k income is causing people to avoid that income bracket, either by doing less work or increasing pension contributions. Think doctors, lawyers, pilots etc turning down that extra shift or extra customer, as the marginal gain is so small.

    Personal anecdata - in a previous job I stopped working overtime when I hit the 40% bracket, simply decided that it wasn't worth working nights and weekends for the net rate offered.

    66.66% is also psychologically potent. "One for me two for the pot" sounds excessively altruistic. Hence pitched just below that at 63%.

    I take your point about some people therefore turning work down. But in the coming age of AI and a consequently shorter working week and job share this could be a good thing.
  • The Laffer curve also shows quite clearly that the lower you put the tax rates, the lower the revenues you get past a certain point.

    How do you know that a 63% top rate is above or below that point?
    Four reasons.

    1: Logic - It is above anyone else so people could move anywhere else to avoid it.
    2: Logic - It is above anyone else so they must have also figured out it would be too high.
    3: Evidence - Cutting it from 50 increased revenues, demonstrates 50 is too high so 63 would be too high.
    4: Evidence - France increasing it was swiftly reversed due to the effect it had on revenues, indicting it was too high for them.
  • Unless the Laffer curve optimum is 85 per cent, in which case 63% is too low.
    https://equitablegrowth.org/determining-optimal-u-s-tax-rate-higher-earners/

    The fact is the Laffer curve is pseudo-scientific drivel used to provide a veneer of rationalisation for self-serving lobbyists for billionaires. Plug in any number you like provided it is above 0 and below 100.

    How does the Laffer curve work in the Nordic countries?

  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,076
    Tabman said:

    Whilst the "Laffer effect" is real, the tipping point is quite variable.
    Well said! And sources of this variability are at the international, national, regional, employments sector and personal levels. The effects can only be sensibly measured over a 5+ year time scale, as a lot of people react slowly to tax changes and there are knock on factors as in house prices in the late 80's when suddenly reducing top rate of income tax.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Unless the Laffer curve optimum is 85 per cent, in which case 63% is too low.
    https://equitablegrowth.org/determining-optimal-u-s-tax-rate-higher-earners/

    The fact is the Laffer curve is pseudo-scientific drivel used to provide a veneer of rationalisation for self-serving lobbyists for billionaires. Plug in any number you like provided it is above 0 and below 100.
    I choose 110
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,076

    How does the Laffer curve work in the Nordic countries?

    The climate there is too cold for it to work properly! :smile:
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,810

    We'd get close to that by removing the NI upper earings limit and extending NI to unearned income.

    Yes. And NI is really income tax after all.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,795
    tlg86 said:
    What a bunch of idiots... do they really think this is going to bring more people to their cause or turn people away?
  • All the new spending that Johnson is promising will havr to be paid for. That means taxes going up and/or a lot more borrowing. All within the context of a No Deal Brexit.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    kjh said:

    Agree re personal allowance withdrawal. Use of AVC to pension is the obvious way around it and something we did.

    Just to ensure I am not misunderstanding, why do you say 65%. Surely it is 60% or 62% if you include NI. Am I missing something?
    I said 65% because I got the number wrong thinking off the top of my head! ;)
  • Sandpit said:

    He wants regulatory equivalence, what he doesn't want is regulatory alignment. 'Canada' rather than 'Norway'

    Yep - it is going to really hurt our sevices industries. But not as much as No Deal will, of course.

  • Sandpit said:

    The Treasury did a lot of work on income Laffer curves in 2010 and 2011, before reducing the 52% rate to 47% (inc the 2% NI). - and seeing income tax receipts go up as a result.

    It turns out that 50% is a hugely symbolic number, that has a lot of people reaching for an accountant's phone number.

    Further down the income scale, there's also evidence that the effective 65% rate due to personal allowance withdrawal at 100k income is causing people to avoid that income bracket, either by doing less work or increasing pension contributions. Think doctors, lawyers, pilots etc turning down that extra shift or extra customer, as the marginal gain is so small.

    Personal anecdata - in a previous job I stopped working overtime when I hit the 40% bracket, simply decided that it wasn't worth working nights and weekends for the net rate offered.
    If you have 3 kids like me, the marginal rate between 50-60K is 67%. 40% tax + losing all child benefit (Around £2700 pa for 3). I put as much as i could into my pension to avoid this while i could.

    Earning £60K with 3 kids a mortgage and a wife who did not work at the time does not a fatcat make. If my wife and i had both earned £49999 we would of course have kept all our child benefit as a family, because that makes total sense and isn't at all bonkers. Thanks Mr Osborne.

    1st world problems and all that but it seems more unfair than no longer being treated preferentially vs men in pension terms for example...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,547
    Not sure I fully understand this thread on theory of distribution of votes in forthcoming GE, but conclusions may be interesting:

    https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/1179382200812343296

    https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/1179391067331944448
  • What has been overlooked in all the 2 borders discussion is that in the letter that Boris wrote he stated that this Govts aim is at the end of the transition to have just an FTA with no customs union or regulatory equivalence with the EU.
    I'm not sure why that would be a surprise to anyone though, it is exactly what he campaigned for in the referendum!

    What would be the point of arguing against EU regulations, leaving the Single Market so we can make our own regulations, then keep them aligned? What would all this have been for?

    If we wanted regulatory alignment we may as well have remained in the Single Market.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,716

    Not sure I fully understand this thread on theory of distribution of votes in forthcoming GE, but conclusions may be interesting:

    https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/1179382200812343296

    https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/1179391067331944448

    I'm sure this must be right because it has graphs and uses the word "regression", then comes to a conclusion I want to be true
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    I see the Laffer curve chimps are out. It's like a secret sign or a dog whistle or something. Speak the word "economics" in a low voice on a still night and soon the moon will be obscured by a thousand wingéd howlers whooping through the night sky.
    The cherries will be picked, the multidimensionality of economics flattened into a frozen parody of an already oversimplified subject, the attempt at a conversation about detail drowned in a wall of airborne simian screeches, all repeating the same holy word "Laffer! Laffer! Laffer!"
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    moonshine said:

    In the real world, multinationals have offices around the world and executives can often be placed in any number of them. I speak from experience that headhunters use flexibility of location as a key tool to get candidates over the line when selling a role.

    And with the SPECTRE hanging over the UK thanks to Labour’s collapse to the extreme left, high earners are relocating to and extending placements in Asia and the Middle East.
    Yup, no personal income tax in UAE, and top rate of 22% in Singapore, for non-citizen expatriates in those countries.

    UK would be better off making the tax code a lot shorter with fewer allowances, then reducing the rates.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,867
    edited October 2019

    Govt win (yes really) pension case

    How long until Tony Blair's Supreme Court overturns it? :D
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,555
    If you are interested in the top 1% of income tax payers then this IFS report is good reading.

    https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN253-Characteristics-and-Incomes-Of-The-Top-1%.pdf

    Note that most statistics are based on the top 1% of income tax payers, not top 1% of the population. As around 43% of people do not pay income tax, this makes quite a difference.



    To be in the top 1% of income tax payers in the UK (i.e. to be among the 310,000 individuals with the highest income), a taxable income of at least £160,000 is required. £236,000 is required to be in the top 0.5% and nearly £650,000 to be in the top 0.1%. 43% of adults pay no income tax and to be in the top 1% of all adults (or the top 540,000 people), a pre-tax income of at least £120,000 is required.

    The top 1% of income tax payers are disproportionately male, middle-aged and London-based. A man aged 45–54 in London could be in the top 1% nationally while still needing a further £550,000 to be in the top 1% for his gender, age and region.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    What a bunch of idiots... do they really think this is going to bring more people to their cause or turn people away?
    Payrises for firefighters needed. Turns out even the basics, like not dropping the bloody hose, are harder than it looks. I wonder how many ER graduates ever stopped to wonder why fire brigades use teams; maybe they just assumed it was because firefighters are all working class thickos.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,867
    tlg86 said:
    That gave em' a shock.

    Where on earth did they get the fire engine from though?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,233

    I'm sure this must be right because it has graphs and uses the word "regression", then comes to a conclusion I want to be true
    If the right vote is split 33-14 and the left vote split 23-24-5 then under FPTP one would normally expect the 33 party to clean up but if the 23-24 is distinctly geographically distributed that can work for the left too.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,738

    I'm sure this must be right because it has graphs and uses the word "regression", then comes to a conclusion I want to be true
    I don't think it actually tells us anything except that Labour and the Lib Dems will get the votes they get. The end result depends on who much of Leave vote goes to BXP rather than Boris. The greater the number who vote for BXP the more likely the local remain party will win the seat.
  • If you are interested in the top 1% of income tax payers then this IFS report is good reading.

    https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN253-Characteristics-and-Incomes-Of-The-Top-1%.pdf

    Note that most statistics are based on the top 1% of income tax payers, not top 1% of the population. As around 43% of people do not pay income tax, this makes quite a difference.



    To be in the top 1% of income tax payers in the UK (i.e. to be among the 310,000 individuals with the highest income), a taxable income of at least £160,000 is required. £236,000 is required to be in the top 0.5% and nearly £650,000 to be in the top 0.1%. 43% of adults pay no income tax and to be in the top 1% of all adults (or the top 540,000 people), a pre-tax income of at least £120,000 is required.

    The top 1% of income tax payers are disproportionately male, middle-aged and London-based. A man aged 45–54 in London could be in the top 1% nationally while still needing a further £550,000 to be in the top 1% for his gender, age and region.

    You can also be sitting on millions in cash and not have a job, so not liable for income tax.

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Noo said:

    I see the Laffer curve chimps are out. It's like a secret sign or a dog whistle or something. Speak the word "economics" in a low voice on a still night and soon the moon will be obscured by a thousand wingéd howlers whooping through the night sky.
    The cherries will be picked, the multidimensionality of economics flattened into a frozen parody of an already oversimplified subject, the attempt at a conversation about detail drowned in a wall of airborne simian screeches, all repeating the same holy word "Laffer! Laffer! Laffer!"

    Most of the discussion on this thread is about cliff-edge marginal rates and not absolute values.
  • Also where are the police and security services? That could be anyone/anything.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,481
    Mr. That, if they're taking the same approach as they did when the obnoxious oafs blocked routes into hospitals then the police just won't be bothering enforcing that pesky law.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,547
    Europe is defenceless against an economic crisis but will it force a no-deal Brexit anyway?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/10/02/europe-defenceless-against-economic-crisis-will-force-no-deal/
  • If you are interested in the top 1% of income tax payers then this IFS report is good reading.

    https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN253-Characteristics-and-Incomes-Of-The-Top-1%.pdf

    Note that most statistics are based on the top 1% of income tax payers, not top 1% of the population. As around 43% of people do not pay income tax, this makes quite a difference.



    To be in the top 1% of income tax payers in the UK (i.e. to be among the 310,000 individuals with the highest income), a taxable income of at least £160,000 is required. £236,000 is required to be in the top 0.5% and nearly £650,000 to be in the top 0.1%. 43% of adults pay no income tax and to be in the top 1% of all adults (or the top 540,000 people), a pre-tax income of at least £120,000 is required.

    The top 1% of income tax payers are disproportionately male, middle-aged and London-based. A man aged 45–54 in London could be in the top 1% nationally while still needing a further £550,000 to be in the top 1% for his gender, age and region.

    Suggests footballers make up as much as 2-3% of the top 0.1% of earners. They have much to thank Jimmy Hill for!
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    You can also be sitting on millions in cash and not have a job, so not liable for income tax.

    But.. but.. 27%!
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,033

    Europe is defenceless against an economic crisis but will it force a no-deal Brexit anyway?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/10/02/europe-defenceless-against-economic-crisis-will-force-no-deal/

    'Fog in Channel '
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,264
    GIN1138 said:
    https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=fire+engine

    surprisingly cheap too, might trade in my car and beat the traffic jams!
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,264
    Selebian said:

    https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=fire+engine

    surprisingly cheap too, might trade in my car and beat the traffic jams!
    Not, perhaps, the most environmentally friendly mode of transport though...
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,705

    I'm not sure why that would be a surprise to anyone though, it is exactly what he campaigned for in the referendum!

    What would be the point of arguing against EU regulations, leaving the Single Market so we can make our own regulations, then keep them aligned? What would all this have been for?

    If we wanted regulatory alignment we may as well have remained in the Single Market.
    bingo!
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,405
    I struggle to understand the mentality of people who decide where to live based on minimising their tax bill. The rich should be grateful that they have the opportunity to contribute more to their country and their community as a result of their material good fortune rather than begrudge it. Personally I would gladly pay more in tax in order to have better functioning public services and a more adequate social safety net.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Also where are the police and security services? That could be anyone/anything.
    So could anything. During the Diana years, the tabloids would print paparazzi photos of blurry figures in the middle distance, screaming that the camera could have been a rifle. Sure, the protesters could have been terrorists but equally the people taking the pictures might have been wielding kitchen knives.
  • MangoMango Posts: 1,031



    Get real. The top 1% of taxpayers allow us to fund the NHS.

    Personally, I'd have twice as many of them - and a far better NHS.

    Being the money launderers of the world is not the only way to fund the government sector. It is bad for our long-term international reputation. It is bad for governance when a single sector can call the regulatory tune of an entire society. And it is probably bad for capitalism: the financial sector sucks in so many resources (including human) that it undermines efficient allocation, and creates huge systemic risks.

    The UK urgently needs definancialisation, although clearly it would be better to pursue it as a long-term strategy than to unleash the cretinous chaos of Tory Brexit or Milne-Murray-Corbynism. It's one of a number of structural issues (residential property as a store of value, lack of regional government, adversarial politics, adversarial industrial relations, etc.) that have been ducked by government after government.

    But apparently you'd rather be a white-collar gangster state with a few crumbs for the 65 million servants.


  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,233
    Selebian said:

    https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=fire+engine

    surprisingly cheap too, might trade in my car and beat the traffic jams!
    8.3 litre engine. Only 33,000 miles on the clock.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,547
    "This will not end well."

    "Before Trump will allow himself to be chased from the temple, he’ll bring it down."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/opinion/trump-impeachment.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Barnesian said:

    I'm expecting an avalanche of polls in the next day or two, now that the conference season is over. Will there be a Boris Bounce or a Swinson Swing?
    I hope we get lots of polls soon.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,536
    Selebian said:

    https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=fire+engine

    surprisingly cheap too, might trade in my car and beat the traffic jams!
    The former grand prix motorcycle racer Steve Parrish owns an assortment of vehicles including a hearse and an ambulance.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,458

    Europe is defenceless against an economic crisis but will it force a no-deal Brexit anyway?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/10/02/europe-defenceless-against-economic-crisis-will-force-no-deal/

    That paper just gets more weird and i wish they wouldn'd send me a daily email asking them to re subscribe
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    In all the excitement last night, counting up the number of Labour MPs following Boris into lobby to deliver his brexit, did we miss the fact all of them were qualifying their support “only if EU agree” “only if extension bypassed and no deal certain” ?
  • Our Prime Minister’s closest ally ...
    https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1179447233592397826?s=21
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,338
    edited October 2019
    Noo said:

    I see the Laffer curve chimps are out. It's like a secret sign or a dog whistle or something. Speak the word "economics" in a low voice on a still night and soon the moon will be obscured by a thousand wingéd howlers whooping through the night sky.
    The cherries will be picked, the multidimensionality of economics flattened into a frozen parody of an already oversimplified subject, the attempt at a conversation about detail drowned in a wall of airborne simian screeches, all repeating the same holy word "Laffer! Laffer! Laffer!"

    Things are so bad that tediously repetitive Laffer tropes are a welcome relief from tediously repetitive B***** tropes. Even a round of 'how fcuking marvellous was Maggie, eh?' might might be preferable.
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    So when candidates drop out of US election race, what happens to the big pots of money they raised?

    If they get to keep it will ever have to do a days work again. I might run myself
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,705
    edited October 2019
    Scott_P said:
    We are appealing to the WTO to see if they can help us in this situation re tariffs. Surely this is not the same WTO whose rules we intend to ignore when it comes to tariff-setting as a result of our policy in NI?
  • egg said:

    In all the excitement last night, counting up the number of Labour MPs following Boris into lobby to deliver his brexit, did we miss the fact all of them were qualifying their support “only if EU agree” “only if extension bypassed and no deal certain” ?

    There can be no deal if the EU do not agree. But if the EU do agree there can be no deal because the ERG will not agree. Labour MPs can say what they like. They know there will never be a meaningful vote.

  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    I struggle to understand the mentality of people who decide where to live based on minimising their tax bill. The rich should be grateful that they have the opportunity to contribute more to their country and their community as a result of their material good fortune rather than begrudge it. Personally I would gladly pay more in tax in order to have better functioning public services and a more adequate social safety net.

    You aren't alone in that view. It's quite a cultural thing. Lots of people in Scandinavia are happy with their income tax rates and, indeed, happy in general.
    Someone posted a good video yesterday about the excesses of liberalism, which was challenging to me as a liberal but gave me a few anchor points as to why that makes sense. This idea that maximising personal income or even maximising the efficiency of a tax system are the holiest of outcomes is highly suspect. It may be a dominant narrative of our culture, but it really doesn't transpose to all human cultures.
    It's just the grinding self-assured certainty of the orthodoxy that is baffling to me. Too many people on here have quite certain views and have clearly never stopped to examine them or notice that there are people who disagree and who are also quite rational about it. Those same people are fond of -- rightly -- pointing out the cult like nature of Corbyn supporters, without actually noticing that they are in exactly the same kind of situation. Bizarre.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,552

    Also where are the police and security services? That could be anyone/anything.
    Good job they didn't turn up with a flamethrower.

    Athough on that performance, it would be the rebels facing extinction.
  • I'm not sure why that would be a surprise to anyone though, it is exactly what he campaigned for in the referendum!

    What would be the point of arguing against EU regulations, leaving the Single Market so we can make our own regulations, then keep them aligned? What would all this have been for?

    If we wanted regulatory alignment we may as well have remained in the Single Market.

    Johnson also said that Brexit would have no impact on the current status of the Irish border. He has no accepted he was wrong about that.

  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Things are so bad that even tediously repetitive Laffer tropes are a welcome relief from tediously repetitive B***** tropes. Even a round of 'how fcuking marvellous was Maggie, eh?' might might be preferable.
    Haha, ok, I'll leave you to enjoy/endure the wingéd monkeys whilst I take cover for a while. I think I might be slightly allergic..
  • There can be no deal if the EU do not agree. But if the EU do agree there can be no deal because the ERG will not agree. Labour MPs can say what they like. They know there will never be a meaningful vote.

    The ERG have already said that they will back this deal if the EU agree, plus Boris can and will remove the whip from and deselect anyone who votes down the deal.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,867
    Isn't is more the case that US is UKs closest ally (I actually don't think it's true but that's the spin) while the Presidents and Prime Ministers themselves come and go the friendship between the two nations endures?
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Good job they didn't turn up with a flamethrower.

    Athough on that performance, it would be the rebels facing extinction.
    What if they'd turned up with a Laffer curve? Doesn't bear thinking about.
  • Selebian said:

    https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=fire+engine

    surprisingly cheap too, might trade in my car and beat the traffic jams!
    I hope it wasnt a diesel that they bought.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,527
    eristdoof said:

    The climate there is too cold for it to work properly! :smile:
    Excellent.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,705

    Good job they didn't turn up with a flamethrower.

    Athough on that performance, it would be the rebels facing extinction.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESOhN-SaH-s
This discussion has been closed.