politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why we won’t be hearing much from the Tories this summer

Danny565 said:

I am now so close to giving Jezza a "fuck it, what's the worst that can happen?" vote.

TheKrakenAwakes said:

"Your calculation of the effective marginal tax rate is correct: this results from the basic income tax rate of 20% plus the main National Insurance Contribution rate of 12% plus the tax credit taper rate of 48%."

You have no idea what a time-bomb Osborne has planted - next April it will go off.

Tissue_Price said:

Danny565 said:

I am now so close to giving Jezza a "fuck it, what's the worst that can happen?" vote.

Michael Foot elected Leader of the Opposition: 1980
Tony Blair elected Prime Minister: 1997

1997 - 1980 = 17

Sandpit said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).

We are paying benefits out to people earning £32,000 a year? What the....!

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Sandpit said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).

We are paying benefits out to people earning £32,000 a year? What the....!

Couples with a combined income of £32,000. Hey...did you not realise that we pay benefits to couples on joint income of £75,000+ - it's called Child Benefit. Furthermore we pay benefits to millionaires too - it's called winter fuel payments. Welcome to the real world!

Slackbladder said:

Just to point out... the hashtag #imhardleft is trending...and not in an ironic way.

I have a feeling in my bones Corbyn's going to do it.

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Sandpit said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).

We are paying benefits out to people earning £32,000 a year? What the....!

Couples with a combined income of £32,000. Hey...did you not realise that we pay benefits to couples on joint income of £75,000+ - it's called Child Benefit. Furthermore we pay benefits to millionaires too - it's called winter fuel payments. Welcome to the real world!

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Tissue_Price said:

Danny565 said:

I am now so close to giving Jezza a "fuck it, what's the worst that can happen?" vote.

Michael Foot elected Leader of the Opposition: 1980
Tony Blair elected Prime Minister: 1997

1997 - 1980 = 17

Forgot to mention - fantastic Tory Propaganda piece yesterday, Tissue_Price!

Mortimer said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Sandpit said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).

We are paying benefits out to people earning £32,000 a year? What the....!

Couples with a combined income of £32,000. Hey...did you not realise that we pay benefits to couples on joint income of £75,000+ - it's called Child Benefit. Furthermore we pay benefits to millionaires too - it's called winter fuel payments. Welcome to the real world!

And you defend all of that?

Why we can't just give people with children/the elderly a different tax code with a higher personal allowance baffles me....

Edit: and it could be called a discretionary circumstances allowance

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Mortimer said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Sandpit said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).

We are paying benefits out to people earning £32,000 a year? What the....!

Couples with a combined income of £32,000. Hey...did you not realise that we pay benefits to couples on joint income of £75,000+ - it's called Child Benefit. Furthermore we pay benefits to millionaires too - it's called winter fuel payments. Welcome to the real world!

And you defend all of that?

Why we can't just give people with children/the elderly a different tax code with a higher personal allowance baffles me....

Edit: and it could be called a discretionary circumstances allowance

I don't defend the paying of winter fuel payments to millionaires and I don't agree that a couple earning between them £75,000 to £90,000 should be getting child benefit. George Osborne defends it - not for moral or fiscal reasons but for POLITICAL reasons.

Tax credits have become a crutch for many families and it does need to be reduced but you cannot simply knock that crutch away in this way. Freezing the rates for 5 years would have been fairer and would have given working families a chance.

Osborne bemoans the increase in the cost of Tax Credits but when you create a low-pay economy where income for the low paid is more likely to have dropped rather than increased in the past 5 years then then this is the result...it's not the fault of the poor that they are low paid. Hammering them with a marginal rate of tax of 80% will achieve nothing.

Philip_Thompson said:

dr_spyn said:

blackburn63 said:

The conservative party is a ruthless, calculating machine. To some degree or other labour, libs and ukip are in a state of flux, the tories have no need to say or do anything remotely controversial, better to stay silent and let others mess around.

Frustrating but effective.

1991-2010 it played catch up. For some reason it couldn't adapt quickly enough to deal with Blair's New Labour.

I'd suggest they played catch up until about 2008. From then on they've been ahead and although there's a been few wobbles along the way I wouldn't mark the end of the period at 2010 anymore than I'd say 1997 for the start of the period.

felix said:

You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).

"Your calculation of the effective marginal tax rate is correct: this results from the basic income tax rate of 20% plus the main National Insurance Contribution rate of 12% plus the tax credit taper rate of 48%."

You have no idea what a time-bomb Osborne has planted - next April it will go off.

DaemonBarber said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Mortimer said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Sandpit said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).

We are paying benefits out to people earning £32,000 a year? What the....!

Couples with a combined income of £32,000. Hey...did you not realise that we pay benefits to couples on joint income of £75,000+ - it's called Child Benefit. Furthermore we pay benefits to millionaires too - it's called winter fuel payments. Welcome to the real world!

And you defend all of that?

Why we can't just give people with children/the elderly a different tax code with a higher personal allowance baffles me....

Edit: and it could be called a discretionary circumstances allowance

I don't defend the paying of winter fuel payments to millionaires and I don't agree that a couple earning between them £75,000 to £90,000 should be getting child benefit. George Osborne defends it - not for moral or fiscal reasons but for POLITICAL reasons.

Tax credits have become a crutch for many families and it does need to be reduced but you cannot simply knock that crutch away in this way. Freezing the rates for 5 years would have been fairer and would have given working families a chance.

Osborne bemoans the increase in the cost of Tax Credits but when you create a low-pay economy where income for the low paid is more likely to have dropped rather than increased in the past 5 years then then this is the result...it's not the fault of the poor that they are low paid. Hammering them with a marginal rate of tax of 80% will achieve nothing.

How wide is the 79% marginal rate?

TGOHF said:

Worst evil Tory tax rate is when a poor child has the temerity to grow up and become old.

One minute they are growing up and BAM it's their birthday and on their actual birthday George O hammers you with an evil £2,400 a year TAX BOMBSHELL !

Evil Tories and their child birthday tax.

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Mortimer said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Sandpit said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).

We are paying benefits out to people earning £32,000 a year? What the....!

Couples with a combined income of £32,000. Hey...did you not realise that we pay benefits to couples on joint income of £75,000+ - it's called Child Benefit. Furthermore we pay benefits to millionaires too - it's called winter fuel payments. Welcome to the real world!

And you defend all of that?

Why we can't just give people with children/the elderly a different tax code with a higher personal allowance baffles me....

Edit: and it could be called a discretionary circumstances allowance

I don't defend the paying of winter fuel payments to millionaires and I don't agree that a couple earning between them £75,000 to £90,000 should be getting child benefit. George Osborne defends it - not for moral or fiscal reasons but for POLITICAL reasons.

Tax credits have become a crutch for many families and it does need to be reduced but you cannot simply knock that crutch away in this way. Freezing the rates for 5 years would have been fairer and would have given working families a chance.

Osborne bemoans the increase in the cost of Tax Credits but when you create a low-pay economy where income for the low paid is more likely to have dropped rather than increased in the past 5 years then then this is the result...it's not the fault of the poor that they are low paid. Hammering them with a marginal rate of tax of 80% will achieve nothing.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

DaemonBarber said:

Slackbladder said:

Just to point out... the hashtag #imhardleft is trending...and not in an ironic way.

I have a feeling in my bones Corbyn's going to do it.

When is the actual ballot? How long does JC need to surf the wave, so to speak?

14th August to 10th September. Result 12th September

DaemonBarber said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

DaemonBarber said:

Slackbladder said:

Just to point out... the hashtag #imhardleft is trending...and not in an ironic way.

I have a feeling in my bones Corbyn's going to do it.

When is the actual ballot? How long does JC need to surf the wave, so to speak?

14th August to 10th September. Result 12th September

https://twitter.com/sunil_p2/status/598513837869015040

Thanks Mr P...

So nearly 3 weeks to go until until start of voting, then almost another month for votes to be cast. That's insane.

antifrank said:

Here's a Labour supporter who is very definitely not happy right now:

http://publicpolicypast.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/how-on-earth-did-labour-sink-so-low.html

David Cameron is a deeply disingenuous and lucky leader

TheKrakenAwakes said:

. How the hell does that reward work. If you don't believe me here is conformation from the IFS who emailed me this morning

"Your calculation of the effective marginal tax rate is correct: this results from the basic income tax rate of 20% plus the main National Insurance Contribution rate of 12% plus the tax credit taper rate of 48%."

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.

The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.

Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?

EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.

Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.

Politically, cutting benefits is viewed as popular by workers- whether it will be viewed as quite so popular when they realise that it's them who are taking the hit we will have to see.

The other thing we will have to see is what effect these cuts will have on the economy as a whole. By reducing spending power to this extent MUST have an impact on the economy particularly as these are the demographic who spend the most.

The_Apocalypse said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.

The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.

Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?

EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.

Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.

Politically, cutting benefits is viewed as popular by workers- whether it will be viewed as quite so popular when they realise that it's them who are taking the hit we will have to see.

The other thing we will have to see is what effect these cuts will have on the economy as a whole. By reducing spending power to this extent MUST have an impact on the economy particularly as these are the demographic who spend the most.

It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.

The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.

Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?

EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.

Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.

Politically, cutting benefits is viewed as popular by workers- whether it will be viewed as quite so popular when they realise that it's them who are taking the hit we will have to see.

The other thing we will have to see is what effect these cuts will have on the economy as a whole. By reducing spending power to this extent MUST have an impact on the economy particularly as these are the demographic who spend the most.

Charles said:

Plato said:

Luckiness isn't a random event - you have to work pretty hard to make it happen again and again.

Making it look effortless is really rather rare.

The_Apocalypse said:

To a degree Cameron is lucky. He appears quite detached from the actual details of politics, a large amount of the Conservative operation is run by Osborne. Cameron is just the affable front-man for it. The interesting this, the Tories at their heart appear uninterested in the modernising agenda. They are arguably just as right-wing as they were before.

Samuel Goldwyn:

I find the harder I work the luckier I get

The_Apocalypse said:

To a degree Cameron is lucky. He appears quite detached from the actual details of politics, a large amount of the Conservative operation is run by Osborne. Cameron is just the affable front-man for it. The interesting this, the Tories at their heart appear uninterested in the modernising agenda. They are arguably just as right-wing as they were before.

DaemonBarber said:

So you're saying that to get the Tories to have policies designed to help you, that you need to vote Tory?

;-)

The_Apocalypse said:

Tissue_Price said:

The_Apocalypse said:

It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.

Um, that's precisely what he did. You're entitled to your own argument but not your own facts.

Hmmm, not quite. There was a loophole:
You might have heard a lot about the changes to child benefit in recent months and the main reason why some people are angry is that eligibility for child benefit is being assessed on individual incomes, rather than on household incomes – and in some cases, this loophole seems somewhat unfair.

For example, in Household 1, only one person works, and they earn £60,000 – so child benefit will be cut completely. But in Household 2, both partners work, and they each earn £49,900 (giving a total of £99,800) – but because neither of them earns more than £50,000 individually, they keep all of their child benefit.

Philip_Thompson said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.

The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.

Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?

EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.

Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.

Politically, cutting benefits is viewed as popular by workers- whether it will be viewed as quite so popular when they realise that it's them who are taking the hit we will have to see.

The other thing we will have to see is what effect these cuts will have on the economy as a whole. By reducing spending power to this extent MUST have an impact on the economy particularly as these are the demographic who spend the most.

What you have to realise is that these marginal tax rates have existed for as long as tax credits have existed and were a poverty trap that meant that 16 hours were viewed as a cap and not a starting point to work under Gordon Brown's byzantine mess.

Osborne started the process of fixing this mess years ago raising the threshold repeatedly cutting the tax on the poorest. The fact that you blame George Osborne for Gordon Brown's tax rates shows you to be either disingenuous or ignorant.

Now Osborne is finishing the job trying to move people out of tax credits altogether and onto wages instead. That is a far simpler system and a far fairer system for the poorest. Once out of tax credits you have zero marginal tax on them and the marginal tax rates are lower under Osborne now.

The_Apocalypse said:

To a degree Cameron is lucky. He appears quite detached from the actual details of politics, a large amount of the Conservative operation is run by Osborne. Cameron is just the affable front-man for it. The interesting this, the Tories at their heart appear uninterested in the modernising agenda. They are arguably just as right-wing as they were before.

Tissue_Price said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Tissue_Price said:

The_Apocalypse said:

It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.

Um, that's precisely what he did. You're entitled to your own argument but not your own facts.

Hmmm, not quite. There was a loophole:
You might have heard a lot about the changes to child benefit in recent months and the main reason why some people are angry is that eligibility for child benefit is being assessed on individual incomes, rather than on household incomes – and in some cases, this loophole seems somewhat unfair.

For example, in Household 1, only one person works, and they earn £60,000 – so child benefit will be cut completely. But in Household 2, both partners work, and they each earn £49,900 (giving a total of £99,800) – but because neither of them earns more than £50,000 individually, they keep all of their child benefit.

That's not a loophole: it's by design. Household 1 has one partner enjoying a work-free week. Or "working" for the household doing jobs - cleaning, gardening, childcare that Household 2 may have to pay for out of their joint post-tax income.

And regardless, Osborne still got rid of child benefit for the well off. And reduced pension relief for the very well off. And made stamp duty more onerous on the extremely well off. But keep peddling your memes.

Tissue_Price said:

taffys said:

I feel a bit sorry for Apocalypse getting ganged up on a bit here..

Sure - but the lesson is: don't make up "facts" that aren't supported by history! That was one thing tim was very good for (at least for me!) - if he was on a thread (and when wasn't he?) then you'd better have made sure your argument rested on solid foundations.

Tissue_Price said:

taffys said:

I feel a bit sorry for Apocalypse getting ganged up on a bit here..

Sure - but the lesson is: don't make up "facts" that aren't supported by history! That was one thing tim was very good for (at least for me!) - if he was on a thread (and when wasn't he?) then you'd better have made sure your argument rested on solid foundations.

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Philip_Thompson said:

What you have to realise is that these marginal tax rates have existed for as long as tax credits have existed and were a poverty trap that meant that 16 hours were viewed as a cap and not a starting point to work under Gordon Brown's byzantine mess.

Osborne started the process of fixing this mess years ago raising the threshold repeatedly cutting the tax on the poorest. The fact that you blame George Osborne for Gordon Brown's tax rates shows you to be either disingenuous or ignorant.

Now Osborne is finishing the job trying to move people out of tax credits altogether and onto wages instead. That is a far simpler system and a far fairer system for the poorest. Once out of tax credits you have zero marginal tax on them and the marginal tax rates are lower under Osborne now.

You do not live in the real world Phillip...