Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
This bizarre outcome arises because a part of the formula for computing the Scottish budget is a deduction for the forgone UK tax revenue for the part that makes up the Scottish budget. If IT is increased the deduction for foregone revenue also increases.
£1bn is a lot in the context of the Scottish budget. Unless some offsetting provision is made I don't see how this could be brought into effect.
If they wanted to be politically clever, they would offer a one off £1billion balancing payment to the Scottish Government, with strong hints that if Labour are elected to run Holyrood next year it would be continued. Otherwise….
If only we knew the elasticity of the (income) tax base wrt the tax rate we'd know whether raising or lowering the tax rate(s) would bring in more revenue. She should call Art Laffer, he's been seen hereabouts recently ... ... seriously, it's quite possible that an increase in the IT rate will lead to a fall in receipts to the govt
RIP Dick Cheney. Whatever you think of his views he was one of the dominant US politicians of the last 50 years. Chief of Staff to President Ford, Defence Secretary under President Bush 41 in the Gulf War and most famously VP to President George W Bush when he was leader of the neocons with Rumsfeld and led the response to 9/11 and orchestrated to War on Terror and invasion of Iraq that removed Saddam. He also was a vocal opponent of Trump and one of the few Republicans brave enough to openly say they were voting for Harris last year
He very slightly redeemed himself with his principled opposition to Trump, he clearly cared about his country and correctly identified Trump as a real danger to the American republic. But he was probably the main architect of the disaster of the Iraq war, and that is an awful lot of deaths on the other side of the ledger.
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
And the only people it really screws over are people making primarily unearned income. I think even I'm better off, because the cut on NICs will affect more of my income than the increase in taxes on my property income.
If only we knew the elasticity of the (income) tax base wrt the tax rate we'd know whether raising or lowering the tax rate(s) would bring in more revenue. She should call Art Laffer, he's been seen hereabouts recently ... ... seriously, it's quite possible that an increase in the IT rate will lead to a fall in receipts to the govt
How
PAYE would result in the same money being paid - it's just switched from NI to Income Tax. Those working aged over 66 will be paying more (so it's a slight increase) Landlords will be paying 2% more. Pensioners will be paying 2% more and will be extracting money from pensions because they don't want the money in their pension pot when they die after last years changes.
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
Many of us have advocated this on here for years.
On all sides of the spectrum. Surely that means they won't do it, as it is too sensible?
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Here’s new @CBSNews Chief Bari Weiss in attendance at the @60Minutes interview yucking it up with Trump, who praised her on camera — no wonder @NorahODonnell seemed like she was in a hostage video. The boss was there to keep her from pushing back on the lies.
If only we knew the elasticity of the (income) tax base wrt the tax rate we'd know whether raising or lowering the tax rate(s) would bring in more revenue. She should call Art Laffer, he's been seen hereabouts recently ... ... seriously, it's quite possible that an increase in the IT rate will lead to a fall in receipts to the govt
How
PAYE would result in the same money being paid - it's just switched from NI to Income Tax. Those working aged over 66 will be paying more (so it's a slight increase) Landlords will be paying 2% more. Pensioners will be paying 2% more and will be extracting money from pensions because they don't want the money in their pension pot when they die after last years changes.
I don't see much of a downside.
You don't think people act rationally in the face of new constraints? It's a view ..
If only we knew the elasticity of the (income) tax base wrt the tax rate we'd know whether raising or lowering the tax rate(s) would bring in more revenue. She should call Art Laffer, he's been seen hereabouts recently ... ... seriously, it's quite possible that an increase in the IT rate will lead to a fall in receipts to the govt
How
PAYE would result in the same money being paid - it's just switched from NI to Income Tax. Those working aged over 66 will be paying more (so it's a slight increase) Landlords will be paying 2% more. Pensioners will be paying 2% more and will be extracting money from pensions because they don't want the money in their pension pot when they die after last years changes.
I don't see much of a downside.
Er, two percentage points more. Not 2% more tax than before. More like 10% more tax, very roughly. Cue howling from the Tories on behalf of their pensioner clients?
And a lot of pensioners don't have access to their pension pots at all.
RIP Dick Cheney. Whatever you think of his views he was one of the dominant US politicians of the last 50 years. Chief of Staff to President Ford, Defense Secretary under President Bush 41 in the Gulf War and most famously VP to President George W Bush when he was leader of the neocons with Rumsfeld and led the response to 9/11 and orchestrated to War on Terror and invasion of Iraq that removed Saddam. He also was a vocal opponent of Trump and one of the few Republicans brave enough to openly say they were voting for Harris last year
I thought Vice was an excellent film which actually reflected fairly well on him. He was a serious politician and operator and looks all the more so in this age of clowns. The White House "noted" his passing but made no further comment.
RIP Dick Cheney. Whatever you think of his views he was one of the dominant US politicians of the last 50 years. Chief of Staff to President Ford, Defence Secretary under President Bush 41 in the Gulf War and most famously VP to President George W Bush when he was leader of the neocons with Rumsfeld and led the response to 9/11 and orchestrated to War on Terror and invasion of Iraq that removed Saddam. He also was a vocal opponent of Trump and one of the few Republicans brave enough to openly say they were voting for Harris last year
He very slightly redeemed himself with his principled opposition to Trump, he clearly cared about his country and correctly identified Trump as a real danger to the American republic. But he was probably the main architect of the disaster of the Iraq war, and that is an awful lot of deaths on the other side of the ledger.
He also raised a daughter who has taken one of the few important stands against Trump madness by a republican.
A coalition of sanity ticket in 2028 might be Dem Candidate-Cheney???
RIP Dick Cheney. Whatever you think of his views he was one of the dominant US politicians of the last 50 years. Chief of Staff to President Ford, Defence Secretary under President Bush 41 in the Gulf War and most famously VP to President George W Bush when he was leader of the neocons with Rumsfeld and led the response to 9/11 and orchestrated to War on Terror and invasion of Iraq that removed Saddam. He also was a vocal opponent of Trump and one of the few Republicans brave enough to openly say they were voting for Harris last year
He very slightly redeemed himself with his principled opposition to Trump, he clearly cared about his country and correctly identified Trump as a real danger to the American republic. But he was probably the main architect of the disaster of the Iraq war, and that is an awful lot of deaths on the other side of the ledger.
Even the Iraq War doesn't now look so bad in restrospect. Iraq is now Saddam free and has an elected government. Syria is also now free of Assad as a knock on effect and Libya free of Gaddaffi.
Afghanistan though is back in the hands of the Taliban after Biden withdrew, even if Bin Laden was killed it was in Pakistan
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
RIP Dick Cheney. Whatever you think of his views he was one of the dominant US politicians of the last 50 years. Chief of Staff to President Ford, Defence Secretary under President Bush 41 in the Gulf War and most famously VP to President George W Bush when he was leader of the neocons with Rumsfeld and led the response to 9/11 and orchestrated to War on Terror and invasion of Iraq that removed Saddam. He also was a vocal opponent of Trump and one of the few Republicans brave enough to openly say they were voting for Harris last year
He very slightly redeemed himself with his principled opposition to Trump, he clearly cared about his country and correctly identified Trump as a real danger to the American republic. But he was probably the main architect of the disaster of the Iraq war, and that is an awful lot of deaths on the other side of the ledger.
He also raised a daughter who has taken one of the few important stands against Trump madness by a republican.
A coalition of sanity ticket in 2028 might be Dem Candidate-Cheney???
It is very difficult indeed to see any Dem candidate winning with Liz Cheney on the ticket.
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
No, NIC should be ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and some social care
RIP Dick Cheney. Whatever you think of his views he was one of the dominant US politicians of the last 50 years. Chief of Staff to President Ford, Defense Secretary under President Bush 41 in the Gulf War and most famously VP to President George W Bush when he was leader of the neocons with Rumsfeld and led the response to 9/11 and orchestrated to War on Terror and invasion of Iraq that removed Saddam. He also was a vocal opponent of Trump and one of the few Republicans brave enough to openly say they were voting for Harris last year
I thought Vice was an excellent film which actually reflected fairly well on him. He was a serious politician and operator and looks all the more so in this age of clowns. The White House "noted" his passing but made no further comment.
Indeed, he dominated the policy making of the W Bush White House, with Bush the charismatic frontman for it.
While very conservative and right wing he also was willing to leave office gracefully when Obama won in 2008 and was appalled when Trump tried to overturn his 2020 defeat
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
No, NIC should be ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and some social care
Ringfence it at 0%.
People already get NIC contributions when paying 0% anyway today, as you have been told many times.
If only we knew the elasticity of the (income) tax base wrt the tax rate we'd know whether raising or lowering the tax rate(s) would bring in more revenue. She should call Art Laffer, he's been seen hereabouts recently ... ... seriously, it's quite possible that an increase in the IT rate will lead to a fall in receipts to the govt
Laffer's record on this isn't great
In 2012, based on Laffer curve arguments, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback greatly reduced state tax rates in what has been called the Kansas experiment.[42][43][44] Laffer was paid $75,000 to advise in the creation of Brownback's tax cut plan, and gave Brownback his full endorsement, stating that what Brownback was doing was "truly revolutionary."[42] The state, which had previously had a budget surplus, experienced a budget deficit of about $200 million in 2012. Drastic cuts to state funding for education and infrastructure followed[45] before the tax cut was repealed in 2017 by a bipartisan super majority in the Kansas legislature.[42
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
No, NIC should be ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and some social care
Not sure that ringfencing is relevant nowadays. I'm sure that the pension etc is subsidised by taxation anyway.
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
No, NIC should be ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and some social care
Ringfence it at 0%.
People already get NIC contributions when paying 0% anyway today, as you have been told many times.
Only because of NI credits, which should be scrapped at the same time so you only get out if you have put in via NI
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
No, NIC should be ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and some social care
National Insurance was introduced in 1911 for just that reason. It was based on the idea that benefits should be contributory rather than universal, and given poor people paid very little (if any) tax at that time this was the only practical way of doing it. In effect, it was the first time of income tax for poor people.
Which isn't illogical, but in the days when the vast majority of the population pays income tax is also anachronistic. Ever since PAYE was brought in in 1943, we've had the mechanism to abolish NI and roll the principle of it into income tax. We could very easily transfer the qualifying for benefits/pension aspect of NI to income tax and run with that.
NI is also a tax on employment and a serious complication in payroll. Both of which are Bad Things and Not Memorable.
I'll lose out if it goes because of the way my income is structured, but given the choice I'd have no hesitation in saying 'get rid.' I don't suppose we will, at least immediately (Osborne looked at it and did a Trump) but even steps in the right direction are to be welcomed.
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
No, NIC should be ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and some social care
Not sure that ringfencing is relevant nowadays. I'm sure that the pension etc is subsidised by taxation anyway.
Pension credits for those without enough NI contributions can remain for the very poorest pensioners funded by taxpayers
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
No, NIC should be ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and some social care
Ringfence it at 0%.
People already get NIC contributions when paying 0% anyway today, as you have been told many times.
Only because of NI credits, which should be scrapped at the same time so you only get out if you have put in via NI
Wrong.
Working people get NIC contributions at 0% too.
Again, you've been told this many, many, many times.
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
No, NIC should be ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and some social care
National Insurance was introduced in 1911 for just that reason. It was based on the idea that benefits should be contributory rather than universal, and given poor people paid very little (if any) tax at that time this was the only practical way of doing it. In effect, it was the first time of income tax for poor people.
Which isn't illogical, but in the days when the vast majority of the population pays income tax is also anachronistic. Ever since PAYE was brought in in 1943, we've had the mechanism to abolish NI and roll the principle of it into income tax.
NI is also a tax on employment and a serious complication in payroll. Both of which are Bad Things and Not Memorable.
I'll lose out if it goes because of the way my income is structured, but given the choice I'd have no hesitation in saying 'get rid.' I don't suppose we will, at least immediately (Osborne looked at it and did a Trump) but even steps in the right direction are to be welcomed.
Looks at the 10,000 payslips I'm checking today - it's really not that difficult...
I see YouGov continues on its merry way in terms of polling. Labour back up three suggesting last week's 17% was an outlier and the Greens, Conservatives and LDs in a statistical tie for third place.
On the YouGov numbers (via Baxter which is increasingly meaningless), Reform would scrape a tiny majority but at the moment Farage benefits from a divided opposition in extremis. Whether that remains the case is uncertain - I suspect the Budget won't be the political event many on here suspect - indeed @MaxPB may be extremely prescient about the contents.
I do think fuel duty will rise as will remote gaming duty though I suspect horse racing has done enough to keep general betting duty unchanged. The bookmakers are complaining even changing the duty on the slot machines will klead to shop closures, job losses and the like but, as someone famously said in an entirely different context, they would say that, wouldn't they?
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
No, NIC should be ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and some social care
Ringfence it at 0%.
People already get NIC contributions when paying 0% anyway today, as you have been told many times.
Only because of NI credits, which should be scrapped at the same time so you only get out if you have put in via NI
Wrong.
Working people get NIC contributions at 0% too.
Again, you've been told this many, many, many times.
As I said ONLY because of NI credits, they should be scrapped and only someone earning less than full time minimum wage will now pay no NIC contributions at all
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
No, NIC should be ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and some social care
Ah, one of the quaint traditions of "British" politics, like the King's Champion and the Chiltern Hundreds.
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
No, NIC should be ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and some social care
Ringfence it at 0%.
People already get NIC contributions when paying 0% anyway today, as you have been told many times.
Only because of NI credits, which should be scrapped at the same time so you only get out if you have put in via NI
Wrong.
Working people get NIC contributions at 0% too.
Again, you've been told this many, many, many times.
As I said ONLY because of NI credits, they should be scrapped
WRONG.
Working people get NI contributions at 0% with no credits.
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
You can't change income tax mid tax year, you can change National Insurance on the 6th of any month you pick.
As an immediate means of increasing tax revenue or giving working people a tax cut it's just about the only game in town beyond VAT..
RIP Dick Cheney. Whatever you think of his views he was one of the dominant US politicians of the last 50 years. Chief of Staff to President Ford, Defence Secretary under President Bush 41 in the Gulf War and most famously VP to President George W Bush when he was leader of the neocons with Rumsfeld and led the response to 9/11 and orchestrated to War on Terror and invasion of Iraq that removed Saddam. He also was a vocal opponent of Trump and one of the few Republicans brave enough to openly say they were voting for Harris last year
He very slightly redeemed himself with his principled opposition to Trump, he clearly cared about his country and correctly identified Trump as a real danger to the American republic. But he was probably the main architect of the disaster of the Iraq war, and that is an awful lot of deaths on the other side of the ledger.
Even the Iraq War doesn't now look so bad in restrospect. Iraq is now Saddam free and has an elected government. Syria is also now free of Assad as a knock on effect and Libya free of Gaddaffi.
Afghanistan though is back in the hands of the Taliban after Biden withdrew, even if Bin Laden was killed it was in Pakistan
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
No, NIC should be ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and some social care
Ringfence it at 0%.
People already get NIC contributions when paying 0% anyway today, as you have been told many times.
Only because of NI credits, which should be scrapped at the same time so you only get out if you have put in via NI
Wrong.
Working people get NIC contributions at 0% too.
Again, you've been told this many, many, many times.
As I said ONLY because of NI credits, they should be scrapped
WRONG.
Working people get NI contributions at 0% with no credits.
ONLY if they earn LESS than full time UK minimum wage now, so nobody will pay 0 NI contributions if they are in paid full time work
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
No, NIC should be ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and some social care
National Insurance was introduced in 1911 for just that reason. It was based on the idea that benefits should be contributory rather than universal, and given poor people paid very little (if any) tax at that time this was the only practical way of doing it. In effect, it was the first time of income tax for poor people.
Which isn't illogical, but in the days when the vast majority of the population pays income tax is also anachronistic. Ever since PAYE was brought in in 1943, we've had the mechanism to abolish NI and roll the principle of it into income tax.
NI is also a tax on employment and a serious complication in payroll. Both of which are Bad Things and Not Memorable.
I'll lose out if it goes because of the way my income is structured, but given the choice I'd have no hesitation in saying 'get rid.' I don't suppose we will, at least immediately (Osborne looked at it and did a Trump) but even steps in the right direction are to be welcomed.
Looks at the 10,000 payslips I'm checking today - it's really not that difficult...
I will admit it isn't my least favourite tax (which is VAT, then Council Tax, then Stamp Duty). But it's still an unnecessary complication that could be got rid of without much administrative trouble.
It's only because of the squealing form those who would lose out that it hasn't been.
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
You can't change income tax mid tax year, you can change National Insurance on the 6th of any month you pick.
As an immediate means of increasing tax revenue or giving working people a tax cut it's just about the only game in town beyond VAT..
Excellent point.
Now off to bed, though I wonder who will win the Barty-HYUFD contest for the more immovable arguer.
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
No, NIC should be ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and some social care
Ringfence it at 0%.
People already get NIC contributions when paying 0% anyway today, as you have been told many times.
Only because of NI credits, which should be scrapped at the same time so you only get out if you have put in via NI
Wrong.
Working people get NIC contributions at 0% too.
Again, you've been told this many, many, many times.
As I said ONLY because of NI credits, they should be scrapped
WRONG.
Working people get NI contributions at 0% with no credits.
ONLY if they earn LESS than full time minimum wage, so nobody now will pay 0 NI contributions if they are in paid full time work
Right, so people do get NI credits on 0% already.
No reason why we can't ringfence that 0% and extend it beyond, while keeping every bit of "contributions" we already have today.
RIP Dick Cheney. Whatever you think of his views he was one of the dominant US politicians of the last 50 years. Chief of Staff to President Ford, Defence Secretary under President Bush 41 in the Gulf War and most famously VP to President George W Bush when he was leader of the neocons with Rumsfeld and led the response to 9/11 and orchestrated to War on Terror and invasion of Iraq that removed Saddam. He also was a vocal opponent of Trump and one of the few Republicans brave enough to openly say they were voting for Harris last year
He very slightly redeemed himself with his principled opposition to Trump, he clearly cared about his country and correctly identified Trump as a real danger to the American republic. But he was probably the main architect of the disaster of the Iraq war, and that is an awful lot of deaths on the other side of the ledger.
Even the Iraq War doesn't now look so bad in restrospect. Iraq is now Saddam free and has an elected government. Syria is also now free of Assad as a knock on effect and Libya free of Gaddaffi.
Afghanistan though is back in the hands of the Taliban after Biden withdrew, even if Bin Laden was killed it was in Pakistan
No the Iraq war still looks really bad.
It doesn't, in retrospect it was more successful than the Afghanistan war as I said
RIP Dick Cheney. Whatever you think of his views he was one of the dominant US politicians of the last 50 years. Chief of Staff to President Ford, Defence Secretary under President Bush 41 in the Gulf War and most famously VP to President George W Bush when he was leader of the neocons with Rumsfeld and led the response to 9/11 and orchestrated to War on Terror and invasion of Iraq that removed Saddam. He also was a vocal opponent of Trump and one of the few Republicans brave enough to openly say they were voting for Harris last year
He very slightly redeemed himself with his principled opposition to Trump, he clearly cared about his country and correctly identified Trump as a real danger to the American republic. But he was probably the main architect of the disaster of the Iraq war, and that is an awful lot of deaths on the other side of the ledger.
Even the Iraq War doesn't now look so bad in restrospect. Iraq is now Saddam free and has an elected government. Syria is also now free of Assad as a knock on effect and Libya free of Gaddaffi.
Afghanistan though is back in the hands of the Taliban after Biden withdrew, even if Bin Laden was killed it was in Pakistan
No the Iraq war still looks really bad.
It doesn't, in retrospect it was more successful than the Afghanistan war as I said
Siri, show me what the lowest bar imaginable looks like.
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
This bizarre outcome arises because a part of the formula for computing the Scottish budget is a deduction for the forgone UK tax revenue for the part that makes up the Scottish budget. If IT is increased the deduction for foregone revenue also increases.
£1bn is a lot in the context of the Scottish budget. Unless some offsetting provision is made I don't see how this could be brought into effect.
If they wanted to be politically clever, they would offer a one off £1billion balancing payment to the Scottish Government, with strong hints that if Labour are elected to run Holyrood next year it would be continued. Otherwise….
Even cleverer.
Just announce the balancing billion.
Watching the extreme Nits arguing that a no-strings billion that didn’t have to be given was somehow an attack on Scotland would be worth every penny.
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
No, NIC should be ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and some social care
Ringfence it at 0%.
People already get NIC contributions when paying 0% anyway today, as you have been told many times.
Only because of NI credits, which should be scrapped at the same time so you only get out if you have put in via NI
Wrong.
Working people get NIC contributions at 0% too.
Again, you've been told this many, many, many times.
As I said ONLY because of NI credits, they should be scrapped
WRONG.
Working people get NI contributions at 0% with no credits.
ONLY if they earn LESS than full time minimum wage, so nobody now will pay 0 NI contributions if they are in paid full time work
Right, so people do get NI credits on 0% already.
No reason why we can't ringfence that 0% and extend it beyond, while keeping every bit of "contributions" we already have today.
You only get NI contributions at 0% if you are in low paid part time work, no full time paid worker in the UK will not be paying NI contributions now. Those contributions should be kept and ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and some social care as I said.
"As of 3 p.m. ET, nearly 1.5 million people had voted in New York City’s mayoral election, according to the city’s Board of Elections. With six hours still to go until the polls close, the turnout had already surpassed the total votes cast in any city mayoral election in the past 20 years."
My guess is that this favours Mamdani with lots of voters who don't normally bother turning out but who knows?
If only we knew the elasticity of the (income) tax base wrt the tax rate we'd know whether raising or lowering the tax rate(s) would bring in more revenue. She should call Art Laffer, he's been seen hereabouts recently ... ... seriously, it's quite possible that an increase in the IT rate will lead to a fall in receipts to the govt
Laffer's record on this isn't great
In 2012, based on Laffer curve arguments, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback greatly reduced state tax rates in what has been called the Kansas experiment.[42][43][44] Laffer was paid $75,000 to advise in the creation of Brownback's tax cut plan, and gave Brownback his full endorsement, stating that what Brownback was doing was "truly revolutionary."[42] The state, which had previously had a budget surplus, experienced a budget deficit of about $200 million in 2012. Drastic cuts to state funding for education and infrastructure followed[45] before the tax cut was repealed in 2017 by a bipartisan super majority in the Kansas legislature.[42
Interesting. Nevertheless the key question is how much the tax base shrinks as the tax rate rises. In Kansas it seems that the relation was inelastic (presumably to Laffer's surprise). What that says about the UK in 2025 is ... nothing at all
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
No, NIC should be ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and some social care
Ringfence it at 0%.
People already get NIC contributions when paying 0% anyway today, as you have been told many times.
Only because of NI credits, which should be scrapped at the same time so you only get out if you have put in via NI
Wrong.
Working people get NIC contributions at 0% too.
Again, you've been told this many, many, many times.
As I said ONLY because of NI credits, they should be scrapped
WRONG.
Working people get NI contributions at 0% with no credits.
ONLY if they earn LESS than full time minimum wage, so nobody now will pay 0 NI contributions if they are in paid full time work
Right, so people do get NI credits on 0% already.
No reason why we can't ringfence that 0% and extend it beyond, while keeping every bit of "contributions" we already have today.
You only get NI contributions at 0% if you are in low paid part time work, no full time paid worker in the UK will not be paying NI contributions now.
As I also said NI credits should be scrapped
Many people are in low paid time work, full time is not all that matters.
What would be wrong with having ringfenced NI contributions at 0% for everyone on Basic Rate tax, it would keep every single element of contributions we have today. Could scrap NI credits while you're at it.
RIP Dick Cheney. Whatever you think of his views he was one of the dominant US politicians of the last 50 years. Chief of Staff to President Ford, Defence Secretary under President Bush 41 in the Gulf War and most famously VP to President George W Bush when he was leader of the neocons with Rumsfeld and led the response to 9/11 and orchestrated to War on Terror and invasion of Iraq that removed Saddam. He also was a vocal opponent of Trump and one of the few Republicans brave enough to openly say they were voting for Harris last year
He very slightly redeemed himself with his principled opposition to Trump, he clearly cared about his country and correctly identified Trump as a real danger to the American republic. But he was probably the main architect of the disaster of the Iraq war, and that is an awful lot of deaths on the other side of the ledger.
Even the Iraq War doesn't now look so bad in restrospect. Iraq is now Saddam free and has an elected government. Syria is also now free of Assad as a knock on effect and Libya free of Gaddaffi.
Afghanistan though is back in the hands of the Taliban after Biden withdrew, even if Bin Laden was killed it was in Pakistan
No the Iraq war still looks really bad.
It doesn't, in retrospect it was more successful than the Afghanistan war as I said
Siri, show me what the lowest bar imaginable looks like.
In terms of achieving its objectives, the Iraq War largely did
RIP Dick Cheney. Whatever you think of his views he was one of the dominant US politicians of the last 50 years. Chief of Staff to President Ford, Defence Secretary under President Bush 41 in the Gulf War and most famously VP to President George W Bush when he was leader of the neocons with Rumsfeld and led the response to 9/11 and orchestrated to War on Terror and invasion of Iraq that removed Saddam. He also was a vocal opponent of Trump and one of the few Republicans brave enough to openly say they were voting for Harris last year
He very slightly redeemed himself with his principled opposition to Trump, he clearly cared about his country and correctly identified Trump as a real danger to the American republic. But he was probably the main architect of the disaster of the Iraq war, and that is an awful lot of deaths on the other side of the ledger.
Even the Iraq War doesn't now look so bad in restrospect. Iraq is now Saddam free and has an elected government. Syria is also now free of Assad as a knock on effect and Libya free of Gaddaffi.
Afghanistan though is back in the hands of the Taliban after Biden withdrew, even if Bin Laden was killed it was in Pakistan
No the Iraq war still looks really bad.
It doesn't, in retrospect it was more successful than the Afghanistan war as I said
Siri, show me what the lowest bar imaginable looks like.
In terms of achieving its objectives, the Iraq War largely did
Indeed, there aren't any chemical weapons now in Iraq. Mission accomplished.
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
No, NIC should be ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and some social care
Ringfence it at 0%.
People already get NIC contributions when paying 0% anyway today, as you have been told many times.
Only because of NI credits, which should be scrapped at the same time so you only get out if you have put in via NI
Wrong.
Working people get NIC contributions at 0% too.
Again, you've been told this many, many, many times.
As I said ONLY because of NI credits, they should be scrapped
WRONG.
Working people get NI contributions at 0% with no credits.
ONLY if they earn LESS than full time minimum wage, so nobody now will pay 0 NI contributions if they are in paid full time work
Right, so people do get NI credits on 0% already.
No reason why we can't ringfence that 0% and extend it beyond, while keeping every bit of "contributions" we already have today.
You only get NI contributions at 0% if you are in low paid part time work, no full time paid worker in the UK will not be paying NI contributions now.
As I also said NI credits should be scrapped
Many people are in low paid time work, full time is not all that matters.
What would be wrong with having ringfenced NI contributions at 0% for everyone on Basic Rate tax, it would keep every single element of contributions we have today. Could scrap NI credits while you're at it.
RIP Dick Cheney. Whatever you think of his views he was one of the dominant US politicians of the last 50 years. Chief of Staff to President Ford, Defence Secretary under President Bush 41 in the Gulf War and most famously VP to President George W Bush when he was leader of the neocons with Rumsfeld and led the response to 9/11 and orchestrated to War on Terror and invasion of Iraq that removed Saddam. He also was a vocal opponent of Trump and one of the few Republicans brave enough to openly say they were voting for Harris last year
He very slightly redeemed himself with his principled opposition to Trump, he clearly cared about his country and correctly identified Trump as a real danger to the American republic. But he was probably the main architect of the disaster of the Iraq war, and that is an awful lot of deaths on the other side of the ledger.
Even the Iraq War doesn't now look so bad in restrospect. Iraq is now Saddam free and has an elected government. Syria is also now free of Assad as a knock on effect and Libya free of Gaddaffi.
Afghanistan though is back in the hands of the Taliban after Biden withdrew, even if Bin Laden was killed it was in Pakistan
No the Iraq war still looks really bad.
It doesn't, in retrospect it was more successful than the Afghanistan war as I said
Siri, show me what the lowest bar imaginable looks like.
In terms of achieving its objectives, the Iraq War largely did
Indeed, there aren't any chemical weapons now in Iraq. Mission accomplished.
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
This bizarre outcome arises because a part of the formula for computing the Scottish budget is a deduction for the forgone UK tax revenue for the part that makes up the Scottish budget. If IT is increased the deduction for foregone revenue also increases.
£1bn is a lot in the context of the Scottish budget. Unless some offsetting provision is made I don't see how this could be brought into effect.
If they wanted to be politically clever, they would offer a one off £1billion balancing payment to the Scottish Government, with strong hints that if Labour are elected to run Holyrood next year it would be continued. Otherwise….
Even cleverer.
Just announce the balancing billion.
Watching the extreme Nits arguing that a no-strings billion that didn’t have to be given was somehow an attack on Scotland would be worth every penny.
Hm, you're confusing funding through the SG with direct UKG funding in devolved areas - which latter can be problematic, for legal reasons (ultra vires) and because of long term implications (capital without revenue funding), as well as practical issues such as plonking road works in places at random.
Sir Alan Bates has received a multi million pound compensation settlement from the PO after his campaigning, as well as the knighthood he got from the King https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5e723qv0no
A 1% increase in income tax across all bands raises £10bn pa. Reducing employees NI by 1% loses £4bn of that. I'm not sure she will want to give that away.
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
"As of 3 p.m. ET, nearly 1.5 million people had voted in New York City’s mayoral election, according to the city’s Board of Elections. With six hours still to go until the polls close, the turnout had already surpassed the total votes cast in any city mayoral election in the past 20 years."
My guess is that this favours Mamdani with lots of voters who don't normally bother turning out but who knows?
With each passing second, I am more bullish on Zohran Mamdani exceeding 55%. Manhattan and Brooklyn continue to turn out in droves, with lines reported across base neighborhoods. We’re pacing for a record number of votes.
Sir Alan Bates has received a multi million pound compensation settlement from the PO after his campaigning, as well as the knighthood he got from the King https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5e723qv0no
New: The FBI is quietly urging ICE agents to properly ID themselves in the field.
In a bulletin to law enforcement last month, it warned of criminals posing as ICE to rob, rape, kidnap—a problem it says now demands national coordination to confront.
A 1% increase in income tax across all bands raises £10bn pa. Reducing employees NI by 1% loses £4bn of that. I'm not sure she will want to give that away.
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
And probably sends Labour to fifth in the polls behind Reform, The Tories, The Greens and LDs...decisions, decisions..
Labour raising income tax at all levels would be a manifesto betrayal on a par with Clegg's betrayal of his manifesto commitment on tuition fees and we all remember how that ended for the LDs in 2015, 86% of LD MPs lost their seats
I was invited by the very active and quite impressive Catalan investment board to a reception at the Shard to celebrate their winning some sort of global cuisine award. 2 Michelin starred chefs showing off their oeuvre. Speeches etc.
As I have an early flight tomorrow this is the sort of thing I would usually duck out of and get an early night, but the promise of Catalan molecular cuisine was too tempting. 2 hours into the event and the amount of food I’d managed to get hold of was truly molecular. At my hunger nadir I stood through 10 minutes of the chef from one of the restaurants, a place called Miramar, doing a demo of how he dabs tiny blobs of lemon juice on to a very delicious starter, before getting roughly 12 calories of the stuff. I probably burned more off waiting than I consumed.
Maybe they’re just Iberian and the feast will all come out at 11pm. But whatever, I’ve downed a couple of cavas and am now on the way home to eat some leftover pizza from the fridge.
A 1% increase in income tax across all bands raises £10bn pa. Reducing employees NI by 1% loses £4bn of that. I'm not sure she will want to give that away.
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
And probably sends Labour to fifth in the polls behind Reform, The Tories, The Greens and LDs...decisions, decisions..
How many of the people who are currently sticking with Labour are really going to leave because of a tax rise? I just don't see it, the impact is it makes some of the people who have already left harder/impossible to win back but equally some of the people flirting with the Greens or Corbyn's latest fiasco happier, they want to see spending protected and even grow.
It is a Westminster talking point based on old two party ideas, not when Labour are already sub 20%.
RIP Dick Cheney. Whatever you think of his views he was one of the dominant US politicians of the last 50 years. Chief of Staff to President Ford, Defence Secretary under President Bush 41 in the Gulf War and most famously VP to President George W Bush when he was leader of the neocons with Rumsfeld and led the response to 9/11 and orchestrated to War on Terror and invasion of Iraq that removed Saddam. He also was a vocal opponent of Trump and one of the few Republicans brave enough to openly say they were voting for Harris last year
He very slightly redeemed himself with his principled opposition to Trump, he clearly cared about his country and correctly identified Trump as a real danger to the American republic. But he was probably the main architect of the disaster of the Iraq war, and that is an awful lot of deaths on the other side of the ledger.
Even the Iraq War doesn't now look so bad in restrospect. Iraq is now Saddam free and has an elected government. Syria is also now free of Assad as a knock on effect and Libya free of Gaddaffi.
Afghanistan though is back in the hands of the Taliban after Biden withdrew, even if Bin Laden was killed it was in Pakistan
No the Iraq war still looks really bad.
It doesn't, in retrospect it was more successful than the Afghanistan war as I said
Siri, show me what the lowest bar imaginable looks like.
In terms of achieving its objectives, the Iraq War largely did
Indeed, there aren't any chemical weapons now in Iraq. Mission accomplished.
A 1% increase in income tax across all bands raises £10bn pa. Reducing employees NI by 1% loses £4bn of that. I'm not sure she will want to give that away.
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
And probably sends Labour to fifth in the polls behind Reform, The Tories, The Greens and LDs...decisions, decisions..
How many of the people who are currently sticking with Labour are really going to leave because of a tax rise? I just don't see it, the impact is it makes some of the people who have already left harder/impossible to win back but equally some of the people flirting with the Greens or Corbyn's latest fiasco happier, they want to see spending protected and even grow.
It is a Westminster talking point based on old two party ideas, not when Labour are already sub 20%.
I expect centrist Labour voters would be furious the income tax pledge was broken and would go LD or Tory, leftwing Labour voters on average or below incomes would be appalled they have been hit when they want the rich and wealthy City workers hammered with tax not them and would go for Polanski's Greens instead.
Would the last Labour voter left then please turn out the lights!
A 1% increase in income tax across all bands raises £10bn pa. Reducing employees NI by 1% loses £4bn of that. I'm not sure she will want to give that away.
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
What about next years inevitable £20bn 'black hole' though?
"As of 3 p.m. ET, nearly 1.5 million people had voted in New York City’s mayoral election, according to the city’s Board of Elections. With six hours still to go until the polls close, the turnout had already surpassed the total votes cast in any city mayoral election in the past 20 years."
My guess is that this favours Mamdani with lots of voters who don't normally bother turning out but who knows?
With each passing second, I am more bullish on Zohran Mamdani exceeding 55%. Manhattan and Brooklyn continue to turn out in droves, with lines reported across base neighborhoods. We’re pacing for a record number of votes.
The vibes are screaming landslide.
How long before Trump sends in a federalised National Guard to clear those pesty lines?
A 1% increase in income tax across all bands raises £10bn pa. Reducing employees NI by 1% loses £4bn of that. I'm not sure she will want to give that away.
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
What about next years inevitable £20bn 'black hole' though?
Maybe by then Labour could reform Planning to stop people from preventing growth, so there wouldn't be any black hole?
A 1% increase in income tax across all bands raises £10bn pa. Reducing employees NI by 1% loses £4bn of that. I'm not sure she will want to give that away.
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
Yes. The everyone must do their bit stuff is the interesting one.
I think they’d just about get away - with a lot of grumbling - with a raise combined with a cut in NI. I think a rise without a corresponding cut will, frankly, doom them. Very difficult to come back from such a straightforward breach of one of the flagship manifesto pledges.
A 1% increase in income tax across all bands raises £10bn pa. Reducing employees NI by 1% loses £4bn of that. I'm not sure she will want to give that away.
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
Yes. The everyone must do their bit stuff is the interesting one.
I think they’d just about get away - with a lot of grumbling - with a raise combined with a cut in NI. I think a rise without a corresponding cut will, frankly, doom them. Very difficult to come back from such a straightforward breach of one of the flagship manifesto pledges.
I wonder if we will see a 3% rise in income tax combined with a slight drop in NI - say 2%.
A 1% increase in income tax across all bands raises £10bn pa. Reducing employees NI by 1% loses £4bn of that. I'm not sure she will want to give that away.
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
And probably sends Labour to fifth in the polls behind Reform, The Tories, The Greens and LDs...decisions, decisions..
How many of the people who are currently sticking with Labour are really going to leave because of a tax rise? I just don't see it, the impact is it makes some of the people who have already left harder/impossible to win back but equally some of the people flirting with the Greens or Corbyn's latest fiasco happier, they want to see spending protected and even grow.
It is a Westminster talking point based on old two party ideas, not when Labour are already sub 20%.
I expect centrist Labour voters would be furious the income tax pledge was broken and would go LD or Tory, leftwing Labour voters on average or below incomes would be appalled they have been hit when they want the rich and wealthy City workers hammered with tax not them and would go for Polanski's Greens instead.
Would the last Labour voter left then please turn out the lights!
You are wrong, I'm a centrist non Labour voter and think it is bleeding obvious they need to do this. Why would I view it negatively? Lots of other things they have done I do view negatively.
A 1% increase in income tax across all bands raises £10bn pa. Reducing employees NI by 1% loses £4bn of that. I'm not sure she will want to give that away.
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
And probably sends Labour to fifth in the polls behind Reform, The Tories, The Greens and LDs...decisions, decisions..
How many of the people who are currently sticking with Labour are really going to leave because of a tax rise? I just don't see it, the impact is it makes some of the people who have already left harder/impossible to win back but equally some of the people flirting with the Greens or Corbyn's latest fiasco happier, they want to see spending protected and even grow.
It is a Westminster talking point based on old two party ideas, not when Labour are already sub 20%.
Hmm… more or less the only people that Labour haven’t managed to annoy so far are the middle class well-meaning professional set who have increasingly found the politics of the right distasteful and the politics of the left (particularly on social issues) more attractive.
They are potentially just about to test how much that voter class is willing to stick with them.
Having had a think about it today I believe the government are going to raise income tax by 2% in each bracket to 22%, 42% and 47% but at the same time cut NI by 2% to 6% and drop the 2% rate for higher threshold earners.
That maintains the manifesto commitment to not raise tax on working people but it does raise about £8-10bn per two points. If they were to phase NI down to 0% by 2029 that raises £30-35bn per year which I think will appeal to them since landlords and old people aren't going to vote Labour anyway. It will give them a solid pre-election warchest to pump up public spending, benefits and other payroll voters to buy back enough votes to avoid a wipeout.
It will be presented as tax neutral for working people and therefore not technically break the manifesto pledge just as they said the NI rise didn't. I'm not sure that the public will buy it but it keeps the plates spinning for the government and avoids a very costly tax rise like VAT or raising tax on business which will cause a slowdown in the economy. Indeed raising income tax will probably cause a drop in inflation allowing interest rates and bond yields to drop faster.
It has the added benefit of moving us ever closer to the rationalisation of at least part of our tax system by merging NI into IT. It will catch a lot more unearned income which is no bad thing at all.
I would argue that there is some value in having a token amount of employee NI - say 3%
But if we get to 2028 with 25% income tax and 3% NI that isn't a bad position for working people...
What value?
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
The value in a tax that could be increased later if required - yes it's not what you want to hear but having options gives flexability later. Which is why I would expect a little bit to remain...
Merge the two and Income Tax could be increased later if required, giving that flexibility.
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
No, NIC should be ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and some social care
Ah, one of the quaint traditions of "British" politics, like the King's Champion and the Chiltern Hundreds.
Yes, HYUFD is one of the ornamental elements of the British Constitution.
A 1% increase in income tax across all bands raises £10bn pa. Reducing employees NI by 1% loses £4bn of that. I'm not sure she will want to give that away.
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
Yes. The everyone must do their bit stuff is the interesting one.
I think they’d just about get away - with a lot of grumbling - with a raise combined with a cut in NI. I think a rise without a corresponding cut will, frankly, doom them. Very difficult to come back from such a straightforward breach of one of the flagship manifesto pledges.
I wonder if we will see a 3% rise in income tax combined with a slight drop in NI - say 2%.
Or possibly 2% income tax increase all bands but with a 1% reduction in NI at the basic 8% level only. I think it is unlikely that the 2% higher rate NI will be reduced or scrapped.
Setting the income tax and Nat Ins rates should be more than an accounting exercise. If raising or lowering the rates would bring in more money then why was the rate not already set at the point of maximising revenue? The answer must be that maximising revenue is tempered by the wider effects that such changes might have – importantly effects on output, employment, growth, income distribution etc. If we assume that the government bears all of this in mind when setting tax rates then shouldn't we be focussing on those wider consequences of changing the rates? In other words we should be asking what are the social opportunity costs of changing the tax rates given that they are being changed by financial pressure of circumstances
A 1% increase in income tax across all bands raises £10bn pa. Reducing employees NI by 1% loses £4bn of that. I'm not sure she will want to give that away.
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
And probably sends Labour to fifth in the polls behind Reform, The Tories, The Greens and LDs...decisions, decisions..
How many of the people who are currently sticking with Labour are really going to leave because of a tax rise? I just don't see it, the impact is it makes some of the people who have already left harder/impossible to win back but equally some of the people flirting with the Greens or Corbyn's latest fiasco happier, they want to see spending protected and even grow.
It is a Westminster talking point based on old two party ideas, not when Labour are already sub 20%.
I expect centrist Labour voters would be furious the income tax pledge was broken and would go LD or Tory, leftwing Labour voters on average or below incomes would be appalled they have been hit when they want the rich and wealthy City workers hammered with tax not them and would go for Polanski's Greens instead.
Would the last Labour voter left then please turn out the lights!
You are wrong, I'm a centrist non Labour voter and think it is bleeding obvious they need to do this. Why would I view it negatively? Lots of other things they have done I do view negatively.
Thinking of the Labour types I know - I could imagine some might be upset by a rise in the basic rate of income tax. A bit. "Hitting the ordinary workers" etc.
I can't see them changing their vote based on that, though.
And given what they say about Starmer & Co. - they might end up seeing it as actually taking a fucking "tough decision" at long last.
A 1% increase in income tax across all bands raises £10bn pa. Reducing employees NI by 1% loses £4bn of that. I'm not sure she will want to give that away.
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
And probably sends Labour to fifth in the polls behind Reform, The Tories, The Greens and LDs...decisions, decisions..
How many of the people who are currently sticking with Labour are really going to leave because of a tax rise? I just don't see it, the impact is it makes some of the people who have already left harder/impossible to win back but equally some of the people flirting with the Greens or Corbyn's latest fiasco happier, they want to see spending protected and even grow.
It is a Westminster talking point based on old two party ideas, not when Labour are already sub 20%.
I expect centrist Labour voters would be furious the income tax pledge was broken and would go LD or Tory, leftwing Labour voters on average or below incomes would be appalled they have been hit when they want the rich and wealthy City workers hammered with tax not them and would go for Polanski's Greens instead.
Would the last Labour voter left then please turn out the lights!
You are wrong, I'm a centrist non Labour voter and think it is bleeding obvious they need to do this. Why would I view it negatively? Lots of other things they have done I do view negatively.
So you are a centrist NON Labour voter, what might attract you to Reeves committing electoral suicide raising income tax from basic rate and above with no compensating tax cut?
Voters can be ruthless if a party betrays a clear manifesto pledge, as the LDs discovered in 2015. There is no automatic reason even for those still voting Labour to do so, centrists can go LD, leftwingers can go Green or YP, Labour isn't even the party of labour and the working class now, most working class voters now vote Reform.
Indeed Reeves likely wouldn't get such a Budget through, there would be a big enough rebellion from Labour MPs as there was over the welfare bills to force a humiliating u turn before Sir Keir likely does a Major to Lamont and sacks her
Any views on Council tax changes? One idea to increase Council tax on Band G and H properties by 100% seems a little heavy handed. Maybe a moderate increase for G and H now with a commitment to do a national Council tax revaluation within 3 years with extra bands at the top at the end
The multipliers for bands G and H v Band D in England is currently 1.75 and 2.00 respectively . This could be moved closer to those which now apply in Scotland which are 2.00 and 2.40 ISH respectively, to raise some revenue now
A 1% increase in income tax across all bands raises £10bn pa. Reducing employees NI by 1% loses £4bn of that. I'm not sure she will want to give that away.
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
And probably sends Labour to fifth in the polls behind Reform, The Tories, The Greens and LDs...decisions, decisions..
How many of the people who are currently sticking with Labour are really going to leave because of a tax rise? I just don't see it, the impact is it makes some of the people who have already left harder/impossible to win back but equally some of the people flirting with the Greens or Corbyn's latest fiasco happier, they want to see spending protected and even grow.
It is a Westminster talking point based on old two party ideas, not when Labour are already sub 20%.
I expect centrist Labour voters would be furious the income tax pledge was broken and would go LD or Tory, leftwing Labour voters on average or below incomes would be appalled they have been hit when they want the rich and wealthy City workers hammered with tax not them and would go for Polanski's Greens instead.
Would the last Labour voter left then please turn out the lights!
You are wrong, I'm a centrist non Labour voter and think it is bleeding obvious they need to do this. Why would I view it negatively? Lots of other things they have done I do view negatively.
So you are a centrist NON Labour voter, what might attract you to Reeves committing electoral suicide raising income tax from basic rate and above with no compensating tax cut?
Voters can be ruthless if a party betrays a clear manifesto pledge, as the LDs discovered in 2015. There is no automatic reason even for those still voting Labour to do so, centrists can go LD, leftwingers can go Green or YP, Labour isn't even the party of labour and the working class now, most working class voters now vote Reform
Voters didn’t desert the Lib Dems because of tuition fees. That was just the casus belli. They deserted us on the left because of the original sin of going into coalition with the Tories, and on the right because Cameron convinced them we were going to prop up an SNP coalition.
A 1% increase in income tax across all bands raises £10bn pa. Reducing employees NI by 1% loses £4bn of that. I'm not sure she will want to give that away.
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
And probably sends Labour to fifth in the polls behind Reform, The Tories, The Greens and LDs...decisions, decisions..
How many of the people who are currently sticking with Labour are really going to leave because of a tax rise? I just don't see it, the impact is it makes some of the people who have already left harder/impossible to win back but equally some of the people flirting with the Greens or Corbyn's latest fiasco happier, they want to see spending protected and even grow.
It is a Westminster talking point based on old two party ideas, not when Labour are already sub 20%.
I expect centrist Labour voters would be furious the income tax pledge was broken and would go LD or Tory, leftwing Labour voters on average or below incomes would be appalled they have been hit when they want the rich and wealthy City workers hammered with tax not them and would go for Polanski's Greens instead.
Would the last Labour voter left then please turn out the lights!
You are wrong, I'm a centrist non Labour voter and think it is bleeding obvious they need to do this. Why would I view it negatively? Lots of other things they have done I do view negatively.
Thinking of the Labour types I know - I could imagine some might be upset by a rise in the basic rate of income tax. A bit. "Hitting the ordinary workers" etc.
I can't see them changing their vote based on that, though.
And given what they say about Starmer & Co. - they might end up seeing it as actually taking a fucking "tough decision" at long last.
Yes, Starmers and this governments biggest issue is they are too timid. Raising tax would be a (long overdue) step in actually trying something.
I was invited by the very active and quite impressive Catalan investment board to a reception at the Shard to celebrate their winning some sort of global cuisine award. 2 Michelin starred chefs showing off their oeuvre. Speeches etc.
As I have an early flight tomorrow this is the sort of thing I would usually duck out of and get an early night, but the promise of Catalan molecular cuisine was too tempting. 2 hours into the event and the amount of food I’d managed to get hold of was truly molecular. At my hunger nadir I stood through 10 minutes of the chef from one of the restaurants, a place called Miramar, doing a demo of how he dabs tiny blobs of lemon juice on to a very delicious starter, before getting roughly 12 calories of the stuff. I probably burned more off waiting than I consumed.
Maybe they’re just Iberian and the feast will all come out at 11pm. But whatever, I’ve downed a couple of cavas and am now on the way home to eat some leftover pizza from the fridge.
Thoughts are with you at this difficult time etc. etc.
A 1% increase in income tax across all bands raises £10bn pa. Reducing employees NI by 1% loses £4bn of that. I'm not sure she will want to give that away.
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
And probably sends Labour to fifth in the polls behind Reform, The Tories, The Greens and LDs...decisions, decisions..
How many of the people who are currently sticking with Labour are really going to leave because of a tax rise? I just don't see it, the impact is it makes some of the people who have already left harder/impossible to win back but equally some of the people flirting with the Greens or Corbyn's latest fiasco happier, they want to see spending protected and even grow.
It is a Westminster talking point based on old two party ideas, not when Labour are already sub 20%.
I expect centrist Labour voters would be furious the income tax pledge was broken and would go LD or Tory, leftwing Labour voters on average or below incomes would be appalled they have been hit when they want the rich and wealthy City workers hammered with tax not them and would go for Polanski's Greens instead.
Would the last Labour voter left then please turn out the lights!
You are wrong, I'm a centrist non Labour voter and think it is bleeding obvious they need to do this. Why would I view it negatively? Lots of other things they have done I do view negatively.
So you are a centrist NON Labour voter, what might attract you to Reeves committing electoral suicide raising income tax from basic rate and above with no compensating tax cut?
Voters can be ruthless if a party betrays a clear manifesto pledge, as the LDs discovered in 2015. There is no automatic reason even for those still voting Labour to do so, centrists can go LD, leftwingers can go Green or YP, Labour isn't even the party of labour and the working class now, most working class voters now vote Reform
Voters didn’t desert the Lib Dems because of tuition fees. That was just the casus belli. They deserted us on the left because of the original sin of going into coalition with the Tories, and on the right because Cameron convinced them we were going to prop up an SNP coalition.
The tuition fees betrayal though was the biggest reason leftwing LDs abandoned the party for Ed Miliband Labour.
My forecast remains, if Reeves proposes a budget that raises income tax at all levels we will soon have polls with Labour 5th.
Though as I also said Labour MPs would likely prevent such a budget being passed as they voted down the welfare cuts and Starmer would do a Major to Lamont and soon sack her
Any views on Council tax changes? One idea to increase Council tax on Band G and H properties by 100% seems a little heavy handed. Maybe a moderate increase for G and H now with a commitment to do a national Council tax revaluation within 3 years with extra bands at the top at the end
The multipliers for bands G and H v Band D in England is currently 1.75 and 2.00 respectively . This could be moved closer to those which now apply in Scotland which are 2.00 and 2.40 ISH respectively, to raise some revenue now
Shall we just say that a council tax rebanding would be an incredibly brave thing to do at the moment
A separate issue is that any rebanding now is going to hit in 2029 which is not the best time for it... if a rebanding can't be done by 2027 they need to delay it until 2030....
A 1% increase in income tax across all bands raises £10bn pa. Reducing employees NI by 1% loses £4bn of that. I'm not sure she will want to give that away.
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
And probably sends Labour to fifth in the polls behind Reform, The Tories, The Greens and LDs...decisions, decisions..
How many of the people who are currently sticking with Labour are really going to leave because of a tax rise? I just don't see it, the impact is it makes some of the people who have already left harder/impossible to win back but equally some of the people flirting with the Greens or Corbyn's latest fiasco happier, they want to see spending protected and even grow.
It is a Westminster talking point based on old two party ideas, not when Labour are already sub 20%.
I expect centrist Labour voters would be furious the income tax pledge was broken and would go LD or Tory, leftwing Labour voters on average or below incomes would be appalled they have been hit when they want the rich and wealthy City workers hammered with tax not them and would go for Polanski's Greens instead.
Would the last Labour voter left then please turn out the lights!
I think you know a lot about Tory (or erstwhile Tory) voters but clearly not that much about centrist Labour voters.
A 1% increase in income tax across all bands raises £10bn pa. Reducing employees NI by 1% loses £4bn of that. I'm not sure she will want to give that away.
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
What about next years inevitable £20bn 'black hole' though?
Maybe by then Labour could reform Planning to stop people from preventing growth, so there wouldn't be any black hole?
Yeah, right.
I doubt they will be indulging your desire to concrete over the entire country tbh.
I was invited by the very active and quite impressive Catalan investment board to a reception at the Shard to celebrate their winning some sort of global cuisine award. 2 Michelin starred chefs showing off their oeuvre. Speeches etc.
As I have an early flight tomorrow this is the sort of thing I would usually duck out of and get an early night, but the promise of Catalan molecular cuisine was too tempting. 2 hours into the event and the amount of food I’d managed to get hold of was truly molecular. At my hunger nadir I stood through 10 minutes of the chef from one of the restaurants, a place called Miramar, doing a demo of how he dabs tiny blobs of lemon juice on to a very delicious starter, before getting roughly 12 calories of the stuff. I probably burned more off waiting than I consumed.
Maybe they’re just Iberian and the feast will all come out at 11pm. But whatever, I’ve downed a couple of cavas and am now on the way home to eat some leftover pizza from the fridge.
Thoughts are with you at this difficult time etc. etc.
Lack of lateral thinking.
Sainsburys is selling whole legs of Ibericco ham at the moment, IIRC. Complete with stand - again IIRC
Get one of the grocery delivery outfits to buy one for you and deliver to the event. There's a bunch that offer this as a service - 30 min or less
I was invited by the very active and quite impressive Catalan investment board to a reception at the Shard to celebrate their winning some sort of global cuisine award. 2 Michelin starred chefs showing off their oeuvre. Speeches etc.
As I have an early flight tomorrow this is the sort of thing I would usually duck out of and get an early night, but the promise of Catalan molecular cuisine was too tempting. 2 hours into the event and the amount of food I’d managed to get hold of was truly molecular. At my hunger nadir I stood through 10 minutes of the chef from one of the restaurants, a place called Miramar, doing a demo of how he dabs tiny blobs of lemon juice on to a very delicious starter, before getting roughly 12 calories of the stuff. I probably burned more off waiting than I consumed.
Maybe they’re just Iberian and the feast will all come out at 11pm. But whatever, I’ve downed a couple of cavas and am now on the way home to eat some leftover pizza from the fridge.
I had a similar experience this evening. Went to an am-dram production that was well acted and quite intriguing, but during the interval at 8.20 I happened to notice the second act was due to end at 10.30. "No effing way" I cried inwardly. A clear breach of the unwritten convention that the second half of an entertainment must be shorter than the first. Pity the poor bloody audience, especially if they haven't had dinner yet.
Sainsburys is selling whole legs of Ibericco ham at the moment, IIRC. Complete with stand - again IIRC
Get one of the grocery delivery outfits to buy one for you and deliver to the event. There's a bunch that offer this as a service - 30 min or less
Start hacking it up in front of the chefs....
I bought one of those from Waitrose a few years ago. Around 70 quid as I recall. It was good fun at Christmas, but I am not sure I would do it again. There is a guy at Winchester Christmas market that sells 'proper' ones. They are several hundred quid each.
Sainsburys is selling whole legs of Ibericco ham at the moment, IIRC. Complete with stand - again IIRC
Get one of the grocery delivery outfits to buy one for you and deliver to the event. There's a bunch that offer this as a service - 30 min or less
Start hacking it up in front of the chefs....
I bought one of those from Waitrose a few years ago. Around 70 quid as I recall. It was good fun at Christmas, but I am not sure I would do it again. There is a guy at Winchester Christmas market that sells 'proper' ones. They are several hundred quid each.
Given a choice between starvation....
A friend brings the Real Deal back from Spain. Just chucks a couple in a suitcase and checks it as luggage.
A 1% increase in income tax across all bands raises £10bn pa. Reducing employees NI by 1% loses £4bn of that. I'm not sure she will want to give that away.
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
And probably sends Labour to fifth in the polls behind Reform, The Tories, The Greens and LDs...decisions, decisions..
How many of the people who are currently sticking with Labour are really going to leave because of a tax rise? I just don't see it, the impact is it makes some of the people who have already left harder/impossible to win back but equally some of the people flirting with the Greens or Corbyn's latest fiasco happier, they want to see spending protected and even grow.
It is a Westminster talking point based on old two party ideas, not when Labour are already sub 20%.
I expect centrist Labour voters would be furious the income tax pledge was broken and would go LD or Tory, leftwing Labour voters on average or below incomes would be appalled they have been hit when they want the rich and wealthy City workers hammered with tax not them and would go for Polanski's Greens instead.
Would the last Labour voter left then please turn out the lights!
You are wrong, I'm a centrist non Labour voter and think it is bleeding obvious they need to do this. Why would I view it negatively? Lots of other things they have done I do view negatively.
So you are a centrist NON Labour voter, what might attract you to Reeves committing electoral suicide raising income tax from basic rate and above with no compensating tax cut?
Voters can be ruthless if a party betrays a clear manifesto pledge, as the LDs discovered in 2015. There is no automatic reason even for those still voting Labour to do so, centrists can go LD, leftwingers can go Green or YP, Labour isn't even the party of labour and the working class now, most working class voters now vote Reform
Voters didn’t desert the Lib Dems because of tuition fees. That was just the casus belli. They deserted us on the left because of the original sin of going into coalition with the Tories, and on the right because Cameron convinced them we were going to prop up an SNP coalition.
Yes, things got worse for them afterwards, but the support had already dropped significantly before even waiting to see if the benefits of coalition might outweigh the costs.
Setting the income tax and Nat Ins rates should be more than an accounting exercise. If raising or lowering the rates would bring in more money then why was the rate not already set at the point of maximising revenue? The answer must be that maximising revenue is tempered by the wider effects that such changes might have – importantly effects on output, employment, growth, income distribution etc. If we assume that the government bears all of this in mind when setting tax rates then shouldn't we be focussing on those wider consequences of changing the rates? In other words we should be asking what are the social opportunity costs of changing the tax rates given that they are being changed by financial pressure of circumstances
A 1% increase in income tax across all bands raises £10bn pa. Reducing employees NI by 1% loses £4bn of that. I'm not sure she will want to give that away.
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
And probably sends Labour to fifth in the polls behind Reform, The Tories, The Greens and LDs...decisions, decisions..
How many of the people who are currently sticking with Labour are really going to leave because of a tax rise? I just don't see it, the impact is it makes some of the people who have already left harder/impossible to win back but equally some of the people flirting with the Greens or Corbyn's latest fiasco happier, they want to see spending protected and even grow.
It is a Westminster talking point based on old two party ideas, not when Labour are already sub 20%.
I expect centrist Labour voters would be furious the income tax pledge was broken and would go LD or Tory, leftwing Labour voters on average or below incomes would be appalled they have been hit when they want the rich and wealthy City workers hammered with tax not them and would go for Polanski's Greens instead.
Would the last Labour voter left then please turn out the lights!
I think you know a lot about Tory (or erstwhile Tory) voters but clearly not that much about centrist Labour voters.
There will be a few centrist current Labour voters who voted Conservative in at least one of the 2019, 2017 or 2015 GEs or LD in 2010.
My prediction remains, if Reeves raises income tax at all levels, Labour will be 5th in some polls after the Budget
RIP Dick Cheney. Whatever you think of his views he was one of the dominant US politicians of the last 50 years. Chief of Staff to President Ford, Defence Secretary under President Bush 41 in the Gulf War and most famously VP to President George W Bush when he was leader of the neocons with Rumsfeld and led the response to 9/11 and orchestrated to War on Terror and invasion of Iraq that removed Saddam. He also was a vocal opponent of Trump and one of the few Republicans brave enough to openly say they were voting for Harris last year
He very slightly redeemed himself with his principled opposition to Trump, he clearly cared about his country and correctly identified Trump as a real danger to the American republic. But he was probably the main architect of the disaster of the Iraq war, and that is an awful lot of deaths on the other side of the ledger.
Even the Iraq War doesn't now look so bad in restrospect. Iraq is now Saddam free and has an elected government. Syria is also now free of Assad as a knock on effect and Libya free of Gaddaffi.
Afghanistan though is back in the hands of the Taliban after Biden withdrew, even if Bin Laden was killed it was in Pakistan
Comments
Why not have 28 and 0?
Or even better, 27 and 0?
... seriously, it's quite possible that an increase in the IT rate will lead to a fall in receipts to the govt
I can't watch it until after the game has finished as I don't have a TV licence, so I'd better avoid all media for a while...
PAYE would result in the same money being paid - it's just switched from NI to Income Tax. Those working aged over 66 will be paying more (so it's a slight increase)
Landlords will be paying 2% more.
Pensioners will be paying 2% more and will be extracting money from pensions because they don't want the money in their pension pot when they die after last years changes.
I don't see much of a downside.
Here’s new @CBSNews Chief Bari Weiss in attendance at the @60Minutes interview yucking it up with Trump, who praised her on camera — no wonder @NorahODonnell seemed like she was in a hostage video. The boss was there to keep her from pushing back on the lies.
#RIPCBS
https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3m4tcunl2ts2z
And a lot of pensioners don't have access to their pension pots at all.
A coalition of sanity ticket in 2028 might be Dem Candidate-Cheney???
Afghanistan though is back in the hands of the Taliban after Biden withdrew, even if Bin Laden was killed it was in Pakistan
Given that ICT raises more than NIC per 1%, and given that taxes on employment are the most damaging to the economy, why would you not prefer that anyway?
Higher turnout would have normally helped Cuomo given the current circumstances but Trumps and Musks endorsement might have backfired.
While very conservative and right wing he also was willing to leave office gracefully when Obama won in 2008 and was appalled when Trump tried to overturn his 2020 defeat
People already get NIC contributions when paying 0% anyway today, as you have been told many times.
In 2012, based on Laffer curve arguments, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback greatly reduced state tax rates in what has been called the Kansas experiment.[42][43][44] Laffer was paid $75,000 to advise in the creation of Brownback's tax cut plan, and gave Brownback his full endorsement, stating that what Brownback was doing was "truly revolutionary."[42] The state, which had previously had a budget surplus, experienced a budget deficit of about $200 million in 2012. Drastic cuts to state funding for education and infrastructure followed[45] before the tax cut was repealed in 2017 by a bipartisan super majority in the Kansas legislature.[42
Which isn't illogical, but in the days when the vast majority of the population pays income tax is also anachronistic. Ever since PAYE was brought in in 1943, we've had the mechanism to abolish NI and roll the principle of it into income tax. We could very easily transfer the qualifying for benefits/pension aspect of NI to income tax and run with that.
NI is also a tax on employment and a serious complication in payroll. Both of which are Bad Things and Not Memorable.
I'll lose out if it goes because of the way my income is structured, but given the choice I'd have no hesitation in saying 'get rid.' I don't suppose we will, at least immediately (Osborne looked at it and did a Trump) but even steps in the right direction are to be welcomed.
Working people get NIC contributions at 0% too.
Again, you've been told this many, many, many times.
Working people get NI contributions at 0% with no credits.
As an immediate means of increasing tax revenue or giving working people a tax cut it's just about the only game in town beyond VAT..
It's only because of the squealing form those who would lose out that it hasn't been.
Now off to bed, though I wonder who will win the Barty-HYUFD contest for the more immovable arguer.
No reason why we can't ringfence that 0% and extend it beyond, while keeping every bit of "contributions" we already have today.
Just announce the balancing billion.
Watching the extreme Nits arguing that a no-strings billion that didn’t have to be given was somehow an attack on Scotland would be worth every penny.
As I also said NI credits should be scrapped
"As of 3 p.m. ET, nearly 1.5 million people had voted in New York City’s mayoral election, according to the city’s Board of Elections. With six hours still to go until the polls close, the turnout had already surpassed the total votes cast in any city mayoral election in the past 20 years."
My guess is that this favours Mamdani with lots of voters who don't normally bother turning out but who knows?
What would be wrong with having ringfenced NI contributions at 0% for everyone on Basic Rate tax, it would keep every single element of contributions we have today. Could scrap NI credits while you're at it.
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/employment/full-time-and-part-time-employment/latest/#:~:text=Summary of Full time and,and 24% worked part time
It is people on Basic Rate tax we most need to self fund their State Pensions and JSA and some of their social care
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5e723qv0no
As Rachel says 'we must each do our bit'. This suggests that she is willing to increase tax on workers too.
2% on income tax at all bands plus threshold freeze to 2030 raises £30bn.
With each passing second, I am more bullish on Zohran Mamdani exceeding 55%. Manhattan and Brooklyn continue to turn out in droves, with lines reported across base neighborhoods. We’re pacing for a record number of votes.
The vibes are screaming landslide.
@dell.bsky.social
New: The FBI is quietly urging ICE agents to properly ID themselves in the field.
In a bulletin to law enforcement last month, it warned of criminals posing as ICE to rob, rape, kidnap—a problem it says now demands national coordination to confront.
https://bsky.app/profile/dell.bsky.social/post/3m4tbqczcs22p
Labour raising income tax at all levels would be a manifesto betrayal on a par with Clegg's betrayal of his manifesto commitment on tuition fees and we all remember how that ended for the LDs in 2015, 86% of LD MPs lost their seats
I was invited by the very active and quite impressive Catalan investment board to a reception at the Shard to celebrate their winning some sort of global cuisine award. 2 Michelin starred chefs showing off their oeuvre. Speeches etc.
As I have an early flight tomorrow this is the sort of thing I would usually duck out of and get an early night, but the promise of Catalan molecular cuisine was too tempting. 2 hours into the event and the amount of food I’d managed to get hold of was truly molecular. At my hunger nadir I stood through 10 minutes of the chef from one of the restaurants, a place called Miramar, doing a demo of how he dabs tiny blobs of lemon juice on to a very delicious starter, before getting roughly 12 calories of the stuff. I probably burned more off waiting than I consumed.
Maybe they’re just Iberian and the feast will all come out at 11pm. But whatever, I’ve downed a couple of cavas and am now on the way home to eat some leftover pizza from the fridge.
It is a Westminster talking point based on old two party ideas, not when Labour are already sub 20%.
Would the last Labour voter left then please turn out the lights!
Yeah, right.
I think they’d just about get away - with a lot of grumbling - with a raise combined with a cut in NI. I think a rise without a corresponding cut will, frankly, doom them. Very difficult to come back from such a straightforward breach of one of the flagship manifesto pledges.
They are potentially just about to test how much that voter class is willing to stick with them.
If raising or lowering the rates would bring in more money then why was the rate not already set at the point of maximising revenue? The answer must be that maximising revenue is tempered by the wider effects that such changes might have – importantly effects on output, employment, growth, income distribution etc. If we assume that the government bears all of this in mind when setting tax rates then shouldn't we be focussing on those wider consequences of changing the rates? In other words we should be asking what are the social opportunity costs of changing the tax rates given that they are being changed by financial pressure of circumstances
I can't see them changing their vote based on that, though.
And given what they say about Starmer & Co. - they might end up seeing it as actually taking a fucking "tough decision" at long last.
Voters can be ruthless if a party betrays a clear manifesto pledge, as the LDs discovered in 2015. There is no automatic reason even for those still voting Labour to do so, centrists can go LD, leftwingers can go Green or YP, Labour isn't even the party of labour and the working class now, most working class voters now vote Reform.
Indeed Reeves likely wouldn't get such a Budget through, there would be a big enough rebellion from Labour MPs as there was over the welfare bills to force a humiliating u turn before Sir Keir likely does a Major to Lamont and sacks her
The multipliers for bands G and H v Band D in England is currently 1.75 and 2.00 respectively . This could be moved closer to those which now apply in Scotland which are 2.00 and 2.40 ISH respectively, to raise some revenue now
My forecast remains, if Reeves proposes a budget that raises income tax at all levels we will soon have polls with Labour 5th.
Though as I also said Labour MPs would likely prevent such a budget being passed as they voted down the welfare cuts and Starmer would do a Major to Lamont and soon sack her
A separate issue is that any rebanding now is going to hit in 2029 which is not the best time for it... if a rebanding can't be done by 2027 they need to delay it until 2030....
Sainsburys is selling whole legs of Ibericco ham at the moment, IIRC. Complete with stand - again IIRC
Get one of the grocery delivery outfits to buy one for you and deliver to the event. There's a bunch that offer this as a service - 30 min or less
Start hacking it up in front of the chefs....
A friend brings the Real Deal back from Spain. Just chucks a couple in a suitcase and checks it as luggage.
George Lucas buys £40m London home. Is he fleeing Trump’s empire?
https://x.com/thetimes/status/1985823113896997036
My prediction remains, if Reeves raises income tax at all levels, Labour will be 5th in some polls after the Budget
@AndrewDesiderio
NEWS — All Republican senators have been invited to the White House tomorrow for a breakfast with Trump
EDIT - sorry Heritage Club!
Sorry but....
😂😂😂
Know, but...
😂😂😂