Labour are going to tax the shit out of savers aren't they?
How can you ‘tax the shit’ out of something which is already taxed in line with the highest rate of tax (ie income)?
Do tories think before they speak?
Nothing stopping the government taxing something twice.
That would be a wealth tax, not a tax on savings income. Why are we creating straw bogey men on day 0? Nobody would be more appalled than I, as a ‘lefty’, if starmer announced some standing charge on savings. It’s not going to happen.
Why not do both? Nunu5’s comment wasn’t specific about how they would be taxed, but they certainly think savers will be.
Scapping all ISA allowances would raise around £4bn a year according to GPT, assumes no movement of savings into other assets. Personally I think it would be a mistake because the ISA is the bedrock of savings culture and sends a bad message to marginal savers. But that is the absolute maximum government is going to be able to raise from savings income. Reducing the total lifetime cash isa; to something like 500k, will hit like a wealth tax. Very few people have over that much in liquid assets and they shouldn’t be considered ‘savers’ in the traditional sense (imo)
Yes, as I pointed out earlier today, Labour have won just just over 20% of the electorate and under 10m votes. It's a landslide, but not as we've seen them. It is going to make Labour very timid over the next few years and fundamentally the country are going to feel the same as it has over the last 3 years.
Imagine if they had actually won the 46% they had in multiple polls for many months. We'd be saying Parliamentary democracy was fundamentally broken.
It is seriously disappointing that 2 such fine sides can once again not produce a goal between them in more than 80 minutes. I really don't know what has gone wrong at these Euros but a spectacle of football it isn't.
Need bigger goals or smaller keepers. In golf the specifications of clubs and balls gets changed to stop the best golfers making a mockery of courses. Similar in javelin. Maybe it really is time for wider, taller goals?
Labour are going to tax the shit out of savers aren't they?
Yes, which won't do much for investment, which won't do much for growth. But they need the cash, big time.
I think aligning taxing capital gains with income tax and taxing dividends at the same rate is nailed on.
Maybe reduce the annual ISA limit
And reduce the pensions annual allowance to £30,000
And the big one. Restrict pensions tax relief to 20%
Lots of revenue raising opportunities for LAB!
Touch any part of pensions (relief to 20% or the annual allowance) and a lot of people will be retiring rather rapidly.
Being slightly cynical Rachel Reeves' aim is to collect as much tax today without people causing a stink about it. Pensions are boring to most working people. They contribute via their monthly pay and tax is collected by PAYE. They will be largely unaware if they pay a bit more tax due to pension contributions not being fully deductable at the higher tax rate.
If people decide to reduce their pension contributions, she just gets all the tax on their income instead of some of it. Even in the marginal case where people retire early she gets to tax their pensions. There's not a lot of downside for her that I can see.
It is seriously disappointing that 2 such fine sides can once again not produce a goal between them in more than 80 minutes. I really don't know what has gone wrong at these Euros but a spectacle of football it isn't.
This side of the draw has been somewhat underwhelming.
Labour are going to tax the shit out of savers aren't they?
Yes, which won't do much for investment, which won't do much for growth. But they need the cash, big time.
I think aligning taxing capital gains with income tax and taxing dividends at the same rate is nailed on.
Maybe reduce the annual ISA limit
And reduce the pensions annual allowance to £30,000
And the big one. Restrict pensions tax relief to 20%
Lots of revenue raising opportunities for LAB!
Touch any part of pensions (relief to 20% or the annual allowance) and a lot of people will be retiring rather rapidly.
Being slightly cynical Rachel Reeves' aim is to collect as much tax today without people causing a stink about it. As pensions are boring to most working people and they contribute via their monthly pay and via PAYE they will be largely unaware if they pay a bit more tax due to pension contributions not being fully deductable at the higher tax rate.
If people decide to reduce their pension contributions, she just gets all the tax on their income. Even in the marginal case where people retire early she gets to tax their pensions. There's not a lot of downside for her that I can see.
Just watch as the NHS dies on its arse as all the consultants retire - as I said Labour is not going to touch pensions - it always comes back and bites you.
He's right of course. The result is utterly mental. A landslide off a third of the vote.
When Cameron became PM of a majority govt in 2015 on 36.9% of the vote I don't remember quite so much concern about vote shares.
He didn’t have a 176 majority. Essentially untrammelled power.
A majority is a majority - the rest is just internal party management....
It’s absolutely fair to compare the two, I get that. But the point is to have a landslide with such a low vote is rather unusual, and I think doe# raise questions (that Labour will do their best to ignore, conference votes aside). Why would they change the system now when it’s worked so well?
Yes, as I pointed out earlier today, Labour have won just just over 20% of the electorate and under 10m votes. It's a landslide, but not as we've seen them. It is going to make Labour very timid over the next few years and fundamentally the country are going to feel the same as it has over the last 3 years.
They ought to feel timid, but we’ve seen on here certain labour superfans don’t recognise this yet. A landslide built on a vote of 45% or more of the vote is substantially different from one from 34%. The latter is a lot more susceptible to being eroded.
Yup, this is the calculation the Conservatives are making right now. Detoxify the party, nab a few policies from reform and grab 4-5% from them, unwind tactical voting against them and grab some seats from the Lib Dems and 1%, let Labour become unpopular raising taxes and cutting spending and grab 3-4% from them, motivate the stay home voters from this election and increase their vote by another 3-4% organically and you've got an election winning coalition without needing to actually do very much other than not be in power and not be completely mental.
I don’t know why people are over complicated the pensions stuff
Just cap the tax free employee contributions at something like £750 per month to stop people taking the piss and taking huge amounts of their salary as pension to dodge tax
Not hard, 95%+ of people wouldn’t notice and would raise more money than you think
Yes, as I pointed out earlier today, Labour have won just just over 20% of the electorate and under 10m votes. It's a landslide, but not as we've seen them. It is going to make Labour very timid over the next few years and fundamentally the country are going to feel the same as it has over the last 3 years.
They ought to feel timid, but we’ve seen on here certain labour superfans don’t recognise this yet. A landslide built on a vote of 45% or more of the vote is substantially different from one from 34%. The latter is a lot more susceptible to being eroded.
Not for 5 years, and not by a party who have just had a record low vote in a GE.
As we’ve seen since 2019, events happen and time passes surprisingly fast. Starmer would probably aim for a new mandate in 2028.
Labour are going to tax the shit out of savers aren't they?
Yes, which won't do much for investment, which won't do much for growth. But they need the cash, big time.
I think aligning taxing capital gains with income tax and taxing dividends at the same rate is nailed on.
Maybe reduce the annual ISA limit
And reduce the pensions annual allowance to £30,000
And the big one. Restrict pensions tax relief to 20%
Lots of revenue raising opportunities for LAB!
I will be immediately handing in my notice and retiring if they do that.
It also will have huge repercussions for the low paid and employers.
It means ending the tax free status of income put into pensions and giving a 20p tax credit.
So suddenly all pension contributions become taxable and employer contributions become benefits in kind. So taxable pay far higher, so far more money means tested for Universal Credit and a slew of extra people find themselves in the 40p band and over the marriage allowance, child benefit withdrawal / childcare withdrawal cliffedge.
Hang on, the basic rate of income tax *is* 20p in the pound. 20%. Won't make any difference to low paid.
And this is in any case typical Tory doomcasting.
Wrong.
Pension contributions are not taxable income at the moment.
If this is replaced with a 20p tax credit on pension contributions then pension contributions become taxable income.
Example 1:
Earn £30k pay £5k towards Pension, employer pays £3k towards your pension. Taxable income /£25k. Universal credit means tested on income of £20k.
New regime. Taxable income is now £33k. £30k income and £3k taxable benefits (employer contributions. 20p tax credit cancels out the extra tax but Universal Credit asssessed on taxable income now £33k not £25k and student loan parental contribution assessed on £33k not £25k.
-------
Example 2:
Earn £55k pay £8k towards Pension, employer pays £5k towards your pension. Taxable income /£50k. All in 20% band so taxed at 20p and marriage allowance kept.
New regime. Taxable income is now £68k. £60k income and £5k taxable benefits (employer contributions. 20p tax credit cancels out the extra tax on earnings of up to £50k but £18k in 40% band and 20p credit only cancels half of it so £3,600 tax bill . Plus marriage allowance lost and 40% of child benefit lost.
Point taken. But this presupposes no other changes. We'll see.
Sorting out the Universal Credit ought to be straightforward enough (if they want to do that).
The tax liability when the change in the way it is done tips you into a higher band or over a cliffedge is much more complex and is I suspect the only reason Hunt didn't do it.
Sorting out universal credit isn't straightforward - otherwise it would have been fixed.
In fact all of the knife edges are virtually impossible to fix...
Yes, as I pointed out earlier today, Labour have won just just over 20% of the electorate and under 10m votes. It's a landslide, but not as we've seen them. It is going to make Labour very timid over the next few years and fundamentally the country are going to feel the same as it has over the last 3 years.
They ought to feel timid, but we’ve seen on here certain labour superfans don’t recognise this yet. A landslide built on a vote of 45% or more of the vote is substantially different from one from 34%. The latter is a lot more susceptible to being eroded.
Yup, this is the calculation the Conservatives are making right now. Detoxify the party, nab a few policies from reform and grab 4-5% from them, unwind tactical voting against them and grab some seats from the Lib Dems and 1%, let Labour become unpopular raising taxes and cutting spending and grab 3-4% from them, motivate the stay home voters from this election and increase their vote by another 3-4% organically and you've got an election winning coalition without needing to actually do very much other than not be in power and not be completely mental.
I see you put the fatal flaw in the plan at the very end.
Labour are going to tax the shit out of savers aren't they?
How can you ‘tax the shit’ out of something which is already taxed in line with the highest rate of tax (ie income)?
Do tories think before they speak?
Well, no, savings are not already taxed in line with the highest rate of tax (ie income). Firstly there's an additional savings allowance if your other income is less than £17,500, meaning you could have up to £5,000 additional personal allowance if your olny income is savings interest.
More importantly you don't pay NI on savings (or other unearned income).
The net effect of these two features is that a person earning £40,000pa would pay c. £7,680 in ICT and NI (20% ICT + 8% NI above £12570).
A person receiving £40,000pa from savings interest, and no other income would pay £4,486 ICT.
However, I am not sure bringing them into line (which should be done) really counts as 'taxing the shit out of savers'.
Thanks - I wasn’t aware of the additional personal allowance. Given this disproportionately affects pensioners, I can’t see it being scrapped… charging NI on savings could really rock the banking sector; especially during a rate cutting cycle..
Labour are going to tax the shit out of savers aren't they?
Yes, which won't do much for investment, which won't do much for growth. But they need the cash, big time.
I think aligning taxing capital gains with income tax and taxing dividends at the same rate is nailed on.
Maybe reduce the annual ISA limit
And reduce the pensions annual allowance to £30,000
And the big one. Restrict pensions tax relief to 20%
Lots of revenue raising opportunities for LAB!
Touch any part of pensions (relief to 20% or the annual allowance) and a lot of people will be retiring rather rapidly.
Being slightly cynical Rachel Reeves' aim is to collect as much tax today without people causing a stink about it. As pensions are boring to most working people and they contribute via their monthly pay and via PAYE they will be largely unaware if they pay a bit more tax due to pension contributions not being fully deductable at the higher tax rate.
If people decide to reduce their pension contributions, she just gets all the tax on their income. Even in the marginal case where people retire early she gets to tax their pensions. There's not a lot of downside for her that I can see.
Just watch as the NHS dies on its arse as all the consultants retire - as I said Labour is not going to touch pensions - it always comes back and bites you.
Easy enough to differentiate between DB and DC pensions for tax purposes. Just change the multiplier for the “pot” of a DB pension.
We knew that Labour needed to appoint a shitton of working peers. Interesting that Starmer is utilising that as an opportunity to install external experts and heavy hitters to his government.
Lord Timpson? Prison reform minister? Fantastic idea.
I think Starmer recognises the wisdom of Douglas Hurd's aphorism "Prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse"
Cutting the re-offending rate is the sort of productivity improvement that our criminal justice system needs.
If this is a sign that Starmer isn't interested in populist gimmicks, but rather in the hard work of serious improvement then I may change my mind over him.
If fewer people are banged up Suella will be writing articles in the Mail every five minutes.
Just build a new prison in her constituency, then.
He's right of course. The result is utterly mental. A landslide off a third of the vote.
When Cameron became PM of a majority govt in 2015 on 36.9% of the vote I don't remember quite so much concern about vote shares.
He didn’t have a 176 majority. Essentially untrammelled power.
A majority is a majority - the rest is just internal party management....
It’s absolutely fair to compare the two, I get that. But the point is to have a landslide with such a low vote is rather unusual, and I think doe# raise questions (that Labour will do their best to ignore, conference votes aside). Why would they change the system now when it’s worked so well?
We are back to 1997 where the manifesto commitment to change the voting system was rapidly scrapped once the size of the win was noted - this time round although the majority is massive it comes from very efficient voting which can instantly fall apart as Rishi and the SNP discovered
Labour are going to tax the shit out of savers aren't they?
How can you ‘tax the shit’ out of something which is already taxed in line with the highest rate of tax (ie income)?
Do tories think before they speak?
Well, no, savings are not already taxed in line with the highest rate of tax (ie income). Firstly there's an additional savings allowance if your other income is less than £17,500, meaning you could have up to £5,000 additional personal allowance if your olny income is savings interest.
More importantly you don't pay NI on savings (or other unearned income).
The net effect of these two features is that a person earning £40,000pa would pay c. £7,680 in ICT and NI (20% ICT + 8% NI above £12570).
A person receiving £40,000pa from savings interest, and no other income would pay £4,486 ICT.
However, I am not sure bringing them into line (which should be done) really counts as 'taxing the shit out of savers'.
If anything the one getting the savings income should pay a higher rate of tax than someone earning it through work.
One works for it (and pays fares etc. out of taxed pay), the other sits on their backside and profits frpm others work.
Didn't the Callaghan government charge a 15% supplement on unearned income?
It is seriously disappointing that 2 such fine sides can once again not produce a goal between them in more than 80 minutes. I really don't know what has gone wrong at these Euros but a spectacle of football it isn't.
I’m finding it more amazing that the two matches today were reffed by english ref teams who have managed both matches really well and no controversies. It truly is the age of Starmer where dull officials get their moment. Southgate must be feeling the luck of the dull is on his side.
Having now contested the cybernats I am a Sadder and Wiser Engine.
I am a massive Monty Python aficionado. Who proposed putting a tax on all foreigners living abroad.
Sadly I read on my Facebook that i AM a foreigner living abroad...
What did you expect?
Nothing less! They have been spectacular fun. Not sure what kind of Scotland they envisage after independence. Perhaps Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict
Labour are going to tax the shit out of savers aren't they?
How can you ‘tax the shit’ out of something which is already taxed in line with the highest rate of tax (ie income)?
Do tories think before they speak?
Well, no, savings are not already taxed in line with the highest rate of tax (ie income). Firstly there's an additional savings allowance if your other income is less than £17,500, meaning you could have up to £5,000 additional personal allowance if your olny income is savings interest.
More importantly you don't pay NI on savings (or other unearned income).
The net effect of these two features is that a person earning £40,000pa would pay c. £7,680 in ICT and NI (20% ICT + 8% NI above £12570).
A person receiving £40,000pa from savings interest, and no other income would pay £4,486 ICT.
However, I am not sure bringing them into line (which should be done) really counts as 'taxing the shit out of savers'.
Thanks - I wasn’t aware of the additional personal allowance. Given this disproportionately affects pensioners, I can’t see it being scrapped… charging NI on savings could really rock the banking sector; especially during a rate cutting cycle..
Why would charging NI on savings seriously rock the banking sector? Where are people going to move their money - under the mattress generally pays 0% interest.
In the spirit of this topic, and aided by the ever-useful resources of electionpolling.co.uk, here's some more info on the huge number of marginals that now exist across the electoral landscape.
Listed below are the marginal targets and defences of the principal GB parties. I've defined a marginal as any seat that can be won with a swing of 5% or less to the second-placed party; this typically equates to a majority of no more than about 5,000 votes. The numbers in parentheses correspond to the subset of ultra-marginal seats within that total, available on a swing of 1% or less and with majorities not typically exceeding 1,000 votes.
Labour
Target: 72 (15) Defence: 104 (25)
Conservative
Target: 112 (25) Defence: 77 (12)
Liberal Democrat
Target: 11 (1) Defence: 20 (2)
SNP
Target: 11 (1) Defence: 7 (2)
Reform UK
Target: 13 (0) Defence: 3 (1)
Green
Target: Nil Defence: Nil
Plaid Cymru
Target: 1 (0) Defence: 2 (1)
(Pedantry alert: I know these totals don't incorporate the outcome of the one remaining Scottish seat that won't declare until tomorrow; if that goes as expected we can probably add one more LD defence and one more SNP target.)
The stats for the two major parties demonstrate how far each can rise - or fall - with further, relatively modest, changes in their support. If Labour were to capture all of its 5% targets and the Tories lose all their defences, the two parties would end up on 484 and 44 seats respectively (Lab majority 318, Con reduced to a rump.) In the reverse situation, they'd be on 308 and 233 (hung Parliament territory.)
The surges and crashes in support for various parties have wreaked havoc with strongholds all over the place, as well as bringing fresh targets into play for ambitious smaller parties. Each party's safest seat is now as follows:
Labour Bootle - 21,983 votes, 28.27%, second place: Reform UK
Conservative Richmond and Northallerton - 12,185 votes, 12.56%, second place: Labour
Liberal Democrat Westmorland and Lonsdale - 21,472 votes, 21.67%, second place: Conservative
SNP Argyll, Bute and Lochaber South - 6,232 votes, 6.95%, second place: Conservative
Reform UK Clacton - 8,405 votes, 9.14%, second place: Conservative
Green Brighton Pavilion - 14,290 votes, 13.65%, second place: Labour
Plaid Cymru Dwyfor Meirionnydd - 15,876 votes, 19.65%, second place: Labour
Looking forward to the next election, the Labour-held three-way marginal of Llanelli is now the number 1 target for both Plaid and Reform. Labour holds a 1,504 vote majority over Reform in second place, with Plaid another 1,736 votes behind Reform in third. Bangor Aberconwy is now available to Plaid at a more ambitious but still quite achievable swing of 5.9% from Labour, although the Conservatives are less than a hundred votes further back in third. Reform has another dozen assorted targets (including a further target in Wales, Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr, where Labour and Reform both leapfrogged the Tory incumbent after he soiled himself in the betting scandal,) available on swings from the incumbent of 5% or less.
The carefully targeted strategy of the Green Party is evident by their having no very tight fought defences or targets, but the election has brought four more seats into range that require swings of less than 10% to capture, and which they might therefore be tempted to build towards next time: Huddersfield, Isle of Wight East (now an unusual four-horse race, with Reform, Green and Labour all within striking distance of the Tories,) and two more Labour constituencies in Bristol, neighbouring Carla Denyer's new seat of Bristol Central.
I’m off to bed now after 36hrs of election mania. One of the highlights of those hours was chatting with LordKinnock in the BBC green room. Lovely man. Let’s never forget that what unites us as Brits is 90% of stuff and we mustn’t let the 10% that we disagree about be what breaks us and breaks the West. Good night 💤
Having now contested the cybernats I am a Sadder and Wiser Engine.
I am a massive Monty Python aficionado. Who proposed putting a tax on all foreigners living abroad.
Sadly I read on my Facebook that i AM a foreigner living abroad...
What did you expect?
Nothing less! They have been spectacular fun. Not sure what kind of Scotland they envisage after independence. Perhaps Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict
Perhaps if they didn't live in a land Obscured by Clouds?
Labour are going to tax the shit out of savers aren't they?
How can you ‘tax the shit’ out of something which is already taxed in line with the highest rate of tax (ie income)?
Do tories think before they speak?
Well, no, savings are not already taxed in line with the highest rate of tax (ie income). Firstly there's an additional savings allowance if your other income is less than £17,500, meaning you could have up to £5,000 additional personal allowance if your olny income is savings interest.
More importantly you don't pay NI on savings (or other unearned income).
The net effect of these two features is that a person earning £40,000pa would pay c. £7,680 in ICT and NI (20% ICT + 8% NI above £12570).
A person receiving £40,000pa from savings interest, and no other income would pay £4,486 ICT.
However, I am not sure bringing them into line (which should be done) really counts as 'taxing the shit out of savers'.
If anything the one getting the savings income should pay a higher rate of tax than someone earning it through work.
One works for it (and pays fares etc. out of taxed pay), the other sits on their backside and profits frpm others work.
Didn't the Callaghan government charge a 15% supplement on unearned income?
Isn't the HMRC savings allowance specific to bank and building society interest only? So it's only really useful for smaller/poorer incomes with most of their stash in such accounts. And, given interest rates until recently ...
Dividends from shares are taxed differently, ditto other incomes such as freelance work and rentals.
Yes, as I pointed out earlier today, Labour have won just just over 20% of the electorate and under 10m votes. It's a landslide, but not as we've seen them. It is going to make Labour very timid over the next few years and fundamentally the country are going to feel the same as it has over the last 3 years.
They ought to feel timid, but we’ve seen on here certain labour superfans don’t recognise this yet. A landslide built on a vote of 45% or more of the vote is substantially different from one from 34%. The latter is a lot more susceptible to being eroded.
Yup, this is the calculation the Conservatives are making right now. Detoxify the party, nab a few policies from reform and grab 4-5% from them, unwind tactical voting against them and grab some seats from the Lib Dems and 1%, let Labour become unpopular raising taxes and cutting spending and grab 3-4% from them, motivate the stay home voters from this election and increase their vote by another 3-4% organically and you've got an election winning coalition without needing to actually do very much other than not be in power and not be completely mental.
Oxymoron alert!
Detoxify the party, nab a few policies from reform...
Having now contested the cybernats I am a Sadder and Wiser Engine.
I am a massive Monty Python aficionado. Who proposed putting a tax on all foreigners living abroad.
Sadly I read on my Facebook that i AM a foreigner living abroad...
What did you expect?
Nothing less! They have been spectacular fun. Not sure what kind of Scotland they envisage after independence. Perhaps Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict
Perhaps if they didn't live in a land Obscured by Clouds?
Yes, as I pointed out earlier today, Labour have won just just over 20% of the electorate and under 10m votes. It's a landslide, but not as we've seen them. It is going to make Labour very timid over the next few years and fundamentally the country are going to feel the same as it has over the last 3 years.
They ought to feel timid, but we’ve seen on here certain labour superfans don’t recognise this yet. A landslide built on a vote of 45% or more of the vote is substantially different from one from 34%. The latter is a lot more susceptible to being eroded.
Yup, this is the calculation the Conservatives are making right now. Detoxify the party, nab a few policies from reform and grab 4-5% from them, unwind tactical voting against them and grab some seats from the Lib Dems and 1%, let Labour become unpopular raising taxes and cutting spending and grab 3-4% from them, motivate the stay home voters from this election and increase their vote by another 3-4% organically and you've got an election winning coalition without needing to actually do very much other than not be in power and not be completely mental.
Have you seen the supposed list of tory party leader candidates? - Detoxify is the opposite of what that group would do..
Thankfully they won't be in the position to crash the economy immediately by being able to implement what they promise...
Labour are going to tax the shit out of savers aren't they?
How can you ‘tax the shit’ out of something which is already taxed in line with the highest rate of tax (ie income)?
Do tories think before they speak?
Well, no, savings are not already taxed in line with the highest rate of tax (ie income). Firstly there's an additional savings allowance if your other income is less than £17,500, meaning you could have up to £5,000 additional personal allowance if your olny income is savings interest.
More importantly you don't pay NI on savings (or other unearned income).
The net effect of these two features is that a person earning £40,000pa would pay c. £7,680 in ICT and NI (20% ICT + 8% NI above £12570).
A person receiving £40,000pa from savings interest, and no other income would pay £4,486 ICT.
However, I am not sure bringing them into line (which should be done) really counts as 'taxing the shit out of savers'.
Thanks - I wasn’t aware of the additional personal allowance. Given this disproportionately affects pensioners, I can’t see it being scrapped… charging NI on savings could really rock the banking sector; especially during a rate cutting cycle..
Why would charging NI on savings seriously rock the banking sector? Where are people going to move their money - under the mattress generally pays 0% interest.
Well you could buy gilts… or risky assets which are subject to CGT.
Labour are going to tax the shit out of savers aren't they?
How can you ‘tax the shit’ out of something which is already taxed in line with the highest rate of tax (ie income)?
Do tories think before they speak?
Well, no, savings are not already taxed in line with the highest rate of tax (ie income). Firstly there's an additional savings allowance if your other income is less than £17,500, meaning you could have up to £5,000 additional personal allowance if your olny income is savings interest.
More importantly you don't pay NI on savings (or other unearned income).
The net effect of these two features is that a person earning £40,000pa would pay c. £7,680 in ICT and NI (20% ICT + 8% NI above £12570).
A person receiving £40,000pa from savings interest, and no other income would pay £4,486 ICT.
However, I am not sure bringing them into line (which should be done) really counts as 'taxing the shit out of savers'.
If anything the one getting the savings income should pay a higher rate of tax than someone earning it through work.
One works for it (and pays fares etc. out of taxed pay), the other sits on their backside and profits frpm others work.
Didn't the Callaghan government charge a 15% supplement on unearned income?
Isn't the HMRC savings allowance specific to bank and building society interest only? So it's only really useful for smaller/poorer incomes with most of their stash in such accounts. And, given interest rates until recently ...
Dividends from shares are taxed differently, ditto other incomes such as freelance work and rentals.
Yes it is but the original comment was 'Labour are going to tax the shit out of savers'
Yes, as I pointed out earlier today, Labour have won just just over 20% of the electorate and under 10m votes. It's a landslide, but not as we've seen them. It is going to make Labour very timid over the next few years and fundamentally the country are going to feel the same as it has over the last 3 years.
They ought to feel timid, but we’ve seen on here certain labour superfans don’t recognise this yet. A landslide built on a vote of 45% or more of the vote is substantially different from one from 34%. The latter is a lot more susceptible to being eroded.
Yup, this is the calculation the Conservatives are making right now. Detoxify the party, nab a few policies from reform and grab 4-5% from them, unwind tactical voting against them and grab some seats from the Lib Dems and 1%, let Labour become unpopular raising taxes and cutting spending and grab 3-4% from them, motivate the stay home voters from this election and increase their vote by another 3-4% organically and you've got an election winning coalition without needing to actually do very much other than not be in power and not be completely mental.
Oxymoron alert!
Detoxify the party, nab a few policies from reform...
They had a few that polled very well so it's not that difficult to grab those.
The "we will win in 2029 because we will take over the Reform vote" thing will only happen if the Tories either crush Reform totally or Reform decide to go away of their own will. Reform have no intention going away right now and trying to crush Reform is high risk. Half way house is the worst of all worlds. Dilemma!
A lot assumes that reform”s happiest hunting grounds next election are Tory voters. If Labour doesn’t take care of a big part of their trad vote then it’s easier oickings for reform than just gutting the Tories.
Labour should in no way be complacent about reform being “my enemy”s enemy is my friend”.
Farage has already said quite bluntly that he is going for Labour voters in 2029.
Could be diminishing returns though. He may well have cannibalised the susceptible demographic already.
Labour are going to tax the shit out of savers aren't they?
How can you ‘tax the shit’ out of something which is already taxed in line with the highest rate of tax (ie income)?
Do tories think before they speak?
Well, no, savings are not already taxed in line with the highest rate of tax (ie income). Firstly there's an additional savings allowance if your other income is less than £17,500, meaning you could have up to £5,000 additional personal allowance if your olny income is savings interest.
More importantly you don't pay NI on savings (or other unearned income).
The net effect of these two features is that a person earning £40,000pa would pay c. £7,680 in ICT and NI (20% ICT + 8% NI above £12570).
A person receiving £40,000pa from savings interest, and no other income would pay £4,486 ICT.
However, I am not sure bringing them into line (which should be done) really counts as 'taxing the shit out of savers'.
If anything the one getting the savings income should pay a higher rate of tax than someone earning it through work.
One works for it (and pays fares etc. out of taxed pay), the other sits on their backside and profits frpm others work.
Didn't the Callaghan government charge a 15% supplement on unearned income?
Isn't the HMRC savings allowance specific to bank and building society interest only? So it's only really useful for smaller/poorer incomes with most of their stash in such accounts. And, given interest rates until recently ...
Dividends from shares are taxed differently, ditto other incomes such as freelance work and rentals.
Yes it is but the original comment was 'Labour are going to tax the shit out of savers'
Sure, but that was evidently in the context of a rather different kind of "saver". Or at least the discussion has been,
The "we will win in 2029 because we will take over the Reform vote" thing will only happen if the Tories either crush Reform totally or Reform decide to go away of their own will. Reform have no intention going away right now and trying to crush Reform is high risk. Half way house is the worst of all worlds. Dilemma!
A lot assumes that reform”s happiest hunting grounds next election are Tory voters. If Labour doesn’t take care of a big part of their trad vote then it’s easier oickings for reform than just gutting the Tories.
Labour should in no way be complacent about reform being “my enemy”s enemy is my friend”.
Farage has already said quite bluntly that he is going for Labour voters in 2029.
Could be diminishing returns though. He may well have cannibalised the susceptible demographic already.
That depends on whether Starmer does a good job or runs into the sand.
He's right of course. The result is utterly mental. A landslide off a third of the vote.
When Cameron became PM of a majority govt in 2015 on 36.9% of the vote I don't remember quite so much concern about vote shares.
He didn’t have a 176 majority. Essentially untrammelled power.
A majority is a majority - the rest is just internal party management....
It’s absolutely fair to compare the two, I get that. But the point is to have a landslide with such a low vote is rather unusual, and I think doe# raise questions (that Labour will do their best to ignore, conference votes aside). Why would they change the system now when it’s worked so well?
We are back to 1997 where the manifesto commitment to change the voting system was rapidly scrapped once the size of the win was noted - this time round although the majority is massive it comes from very efficient voting which can instantly fall apart as Rishi and the SNP discovered
1997 resulted in the Jenkins report into electoral reform, which considered all the options, recommended AV+, and was roundly ignored and quickly forgotten...
Interesting… this guy opposed the anti-BDS bill and was part of a group of 8 Jewish lawyers who called on Israel to obey international law, replacing Emily Thornberry who refused to say if Israel was breaking it or not…
Thanks @Farooq for running the competition. Interested and surprised I'm in 4th so far. Worst position in the Olympics but proud of that with the great knowledge on the website. Great work @IanB2 so far. Any scope for a recount or randomised drugs tests? 🤣
Can somebody confirm what I think is the case: the biggest notional majority that was overturned was Boston & Skegness, 27,402.
Aside, I'm relieved there was at least one bigger than Islington North (26,188) because I don't know whether it counts as an overturned majority: Corbyn is the same candidate, but standing against the party he was elected for last time. I thought I'd thought of every nasty eventuality that could cause controversy in the prediction comp, but I didn't spot that one til just today. I can see both sides.
Yes, as I pointed out earlier today, Labour have won just just over 20% of the electorate and under 10m votes. It's a landslide, but not as we've seen them. It is going to make Labour very timid over the next few years and fundamentally the country are going to feel the same as it has over the last 3 years.
They ought to feel timid, but we’ve seen on here certain labour superfans don’t recognise this yet. A landslide built on a vote of 45% or more of the vote is substantially different from one from 34%. The latter is a lot more susceptible to being eroded.
Yup, this is the calculation the Conservatives are making right now. Detoxify the party, nab a few policies from reform and grab 4-5% from them, unwind tactical voting against them and grab some seats from the Lib Dems and 1%, let Labour become unpopular raising taxes and cutting spending and grab 3-4% from them, motivate the stay home voters from this election and increase their vote by another 3-4% organically and you've got an election winning coalition without needing to actually do very much other than not be in power and not be completely mental.
I honestly get the sense that no one is in control of the conservative party. It has been able to drift in to this current situation. Sunak probably saved it from extinction by acting decisively and calling this election where it did ok, avoided an extinction level event, just about, the worst result in their history is seen as a good outcome. The question is if the party is even coherent enough to come up with a strategy and make the changes needed to win again, or if alternatively it has just run out of road and come to the end of its life like many other centre right 'establishment' parties in Europe.
That’s how it was done before Google, kids. You got a very clever ASD man with some Oxford degrees to just remember interesting constituency histories.
Can somebody confirm what I think is the case: the biggest notional majority that was overturned was Boston & Skegness, 27,402.
Aside, I'm relieved there was at least one bigger than Islington North (26,188) because I don't know whether it counts as an overturned majority: Corbyn is the same candidate, but standing against the party he was elected for last time. I thought I'd thought of every nasty eventuality that could cause controversy in the prediction comp, but I didn't spot that one til just today. I can see both sides.
Useful interactive Times chart of all 2019 seats that changed hands which I think confirms. Paywall though.
Mail claims the sudden July election was "because Oliver Dowden, who was deputy prime minister and Sunak's closest political friend, had discovered that every month fixed term mortgage rates were ending for 135,000 homeowners."
Average rise from 2.7% to 6% and it meant that if an election was held in November another 800,000 would be hit.
That's the most misleading headline I have ever seen. It looks as if it means people are over stating Labour's power in the Commons when actually it means the power is real but disproportionate to the national vote.
Mail claims the sudden July election was "because Oliver Dowden, who was deputy prime minister and Sunak's closest political friend, had discovered that every month fixed term mortgage rates were ending for 135,000 homeowners."
Average rise from 2.7% to 6% and it meant that if an election was held at the end of November another 800,000 would be hit.
The Help to Buy scheme is also causing huge stress and strain. Loads of people didn't pay their interest free loan, after being advised that its ok, fold it into the mortgage as interest rates are so low, and now costing an arm and a leg.
Also remember, inflation is already priced in to go up in the next few months. No interest rate cuts are coming anytime soon.
The news will follow at the end of this game, just as well we don’t have to wait until one of these two teams score a goal… We might have to wait until the next general election.
Close 3 way there between Tories, Reform and Labour, pity about Stephen Metcalfe who was a good MP and a former EDFC councillor and his mother a Buckhurst Hill county councillor
Just think, if the Tories had taken the gloves off and attacked Reform, instead of pretending they were fellow travellers, how many more seats would they have won?
Absolutely. Anyone with the political brain of a bird would have realised that. Except the recently ex-PM it seems. They even gave him opportunity to fight back with Farage attacking his background.
You do have to ask: what the FUCK were they thinking?
Well indeed. Exactly my point. Of course that analytical political genius known as @Leon would like the Tories to cosy up to them and doesn't agree. The Tories need to hit them hard, but they need an articulate leader who has the balls to do it. Not sure who that would be.
Rishi shortly resigns as an MP.
Penny Mordaunt gets the call for the by-election. Which she wins comfortably. And then the Party leadership.
You heard it here first.
Why do you expect Sunak to stand down? He's young, he wasn't PM for that long, he should stick around. I don't get the obsession with Mordaunt. She stood for the leadership before and made little impression.
Because it's perceived that he has other, better career options. Whether that's still true after this is another question. Plumb global sinecures to often seem to be the reward for political failure, but not usually on this scale.
Mail claims the sudden July election was "because Oliver Dowden, who was deputy prime minister and Sunak's closest political friend, had discovered that every month fixed term mortgage rates were ending for 135,000 homeowners."
Average rise from 2.7% to 6% and it meant that if an election was held in November another 800,000 would be hit.
And the trap is that, for many other reasons, a 5% bank rate is quite a good thing if you want growth.
Comments
I am a massive Monty Python aficionado. Who proposed putting a tax on all foreigners living abroad.
Sadly I read on my Facebook that i AM a foreigner living abroad...
If people decide to reduce their pension contributions, she just gets all the tax on their income instead of some of it. Even in the marginal case where people retire early she gets to tax their pensions. There's not a lot of downside for her that I can see.
(Cue three worldies before full time!)
Just cap the tax free employee contributions at something like £750 per month to stop people taking the piss and taking huge amounts of their salary as pension to dodge tax
Not hard, 95%+ of people wouldn’t notice and would raise more money than you think
Owen Jones has just quoted one of my tweets.
I am re-evaluating my life choices.
In fact all of the knife edges are virtually impossible to fix...
For example: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/31/electoral-reform-general-election-results-2015-first-past-the-post
One works for it (and pays fares etc. out of taxed pay), the other sits on their backside and profits frpm others work.
Didn't the Callaghan government charge a 15% supplement on unearned income?
Listed below are the marginal targets and defences of the principal GB parties. I've defined a marginal as any seat that can be won with a swing of 5% or less to the second-placed party; this typically equates to a majority of no more than about 5,000 votes. The numbers in parentheses correspond to the subset of ultra-marginal seats within that total, available on a swing of 1% or less and with majorities not typically exceeding 1,000 votes.
Labour
Target: 72 (15)
Defence: 104 (25)
Conservative
Target: 112 (25)
Defence: 77 (12)
Liberal Democrat
Target: 11 (1)
Defence: 20 (2)
SNP
Target: 11 (1)
Defence: 7 (2)
Reform UK
Target: 13 (0)
Defence: 3 (1)
Green
Target: Nil
Defence: Nil
Plaid Cymru
Target: 1 (0)
Defence: 2 (1)
(Pedantry alert: I know these totals don't incorporate the outcome of the one remaining Scottish seat that won't declare until tomorrow; if that goes as expected we can probably add one more LD defence and one more SNP target.)
The stats for the two major parties demonstrate how far each can rise - or fall - with further, relatively modest, changes in their support. If Labour were to capture all of its 5% targets and the Tories lose all their defences, the two parties would end up on 484 and 44 seats respectively (Lab majority 318, Con reduced to a rump.) In the reverse situation, they'd be on 308 and 233 (hung Parliament territory.)
The surges and crashes in support for various parties have wreaked havoc with strongholds all over the place, as well as bringing fresh targets into play for ambitious smaller parties. Each party's safest seat is now as follows:
Labour
Bootle - 21,983 votes, 28.27%, second place: Reform UK
Conservative
Richmond and Northallerton - 12,185 votes, 12.56%, second place: Labour
Liberal Democrat
Westmorland and Lonsdale - 21,472 votes, 21.67%, second place: Conservative
SNP
Argyll, Bute and Lochaber South - 6,232 votes, 6.95%, second place: Conservative
Reform UK
Clacton - 8,405 votes, 9.14%, second place: Conservative
Green
Brighton Pavilion - 14,290 votes, 13.65%, second place: Labour
Plaid Cymru
Dwyfor Meirionnydd - 15,876 votes, 19.65%, second place: Labour
The carefully targeted strategy of the Green Party is evident by their having no very tight fought defences or targets, but the election has brought four more seats into range that require swings of less than 10% to capture, and which they might therefore be tempted to build towards next time: Huddersfield, Isle of Wight East (now an unusual four-horse race, with Reform, Green and Labour all within striking distance of the Tories,) and two more Labour constituencies in Bristol, neighbouring Carla Denyer's new seat of Bristol Central.
That will raise a couple of billion per year.
Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧
@montie
I’m off to bed now after 36hrs of election mania. One of the highlights of those hours was chatting with LordKinnock in the BBC green room. Lovely man. Let’s never forget that what unites us as Brits is 90% of stuff and we mustn’t let the 10% that we disagree about be what breaks us and breaks the West. Good night 💤
https://x.com/rncresearch/status/1809310956029178257
Dividends from shares are taxed differently, ditto other incomes such as freelance work and rentals.
Detoxify the party, nab a few policies from reform...
Comrade.
Thankfully they won't be in the position to crash the economy immediately by being able to implement what they promise...
Well you could buy gilts… or risky assets which are subject to CGT.
https://x.com/ericpickles/status/1809295591152971954
Portugal build well. Quite nice to watch despite the lack of cutting edge.
https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1809262665690120249?t=l-tekQyuTaSz_mdU1YCoMQ&s=19
Interesting… this guy opposed the anti-BDS bill and was part of a group of 8 Jewish lawyers who called on Israel to obey international law, replacing Emily Thornberry who refused to say if Israel was breaking it or not…
https://x.com/jasebyjason/status/1809285760710771183?t=AHfff6MgS0bx0zEb8H-foQ&s=19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYwRCkUpOiM&
We promised to get negotiations up and running and that is what we are doing.
My statement-
https://x.com/wesstreeting/status/1809303687367672162?t=4nz2ZTaKREFmKByjjlFeMQ&s=19
Naomi Alderman
@naomialderman.bsky.social
Through my childhood, on election nights, my dad was the man under Peter Snow’s desk putting interesting facts on notecards into his socks.
That’s how it was done before Google, kids. You got a very clever ASD man with some Oxford degrees to just remember interesting constituency histories.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/general-election-2024-results-map-charts-seats-mps-dnr5j72r9
Lab 33.7%
Con 23.7%
Ref 14.3%
LD 12.2%
Grn 6.8%
Average rise from 2.7% to 6% and it meant that if an election was held in November another 800,000 would be hit.
How on earth did the Tories hold Keighley and only lose 7.8%?
Also remember, inflation is already priced in to go up in the next few months. No interest rate cuts are coming anytime soon.
e.g. to automatically start a leadership context only 15% of tory MPs have to put in letters.
15% of 130ish seats is... not a lot (19 letters)..
The news will follow at the end of this game, just as well we don’t have to wait until one of these two teams score a goal… We might have to wait until the next general election.