politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Don’t expect anything to come of the GOP’s establishment ef

AlastairMeeks said:

George Osborne made a bad mistake trailing his pension changes so far in advance. It gave people time to spot what he was doing. In a Parliament with a tiny majority only a few fainthearts on the Conservative backbenches could kill the idea.

Jonathan said:

Osborne looks more like Brown with every passing day.

JackW said:

JohnLoony said:

Interesting statistics:

63% of white men voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980
63% of white men voted for George Bush snr. in 1988
62% of white men voted for George W. Bush in 2004
62% of white men voted for Mitt Romney in 2012

Hashtag diminishing demographic

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699?utm_content=buffered237&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#ixzz41vy43OHg

A very useful article for PBers.

Additionally the hispanic demographic is unsurprisingly proving difficult for Trump. Romney secured 27% of their vote in 12, presently the best estimate is that Trump is managing only 15% of this increasingly important bloc that is vital in a number of swing states.

nigel4england said:

Roger said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Roger said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Roger said:

Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.

The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for

Yet labour kept it for all 13 years... No brainer?

I know and every year it was suggested then put away again as the vested interests made a noise and it didn't happen. It was the same with MIRAS which was even more unfair until someone finally plucked up the courage.

Higher rate pension tax relief is vey reasonable, as pension contributions are deferred income, and it is in the governments interest for people to save for their own retirement.

It only became a problem (or tax dodge) when Labour took the ceiling off the maximum contributions as a percentage of income, and it became possible to make large one off payments.

But the incentive is much greater for a higher rate taxpayer and the amount saved by higher rate taxpayers is significantly greater. As for 'deferring' income it's very possible to make sure that on retirement you no longer come into that bracket not forgetting the 25% tax free lump sum. It's really just a gift to those who prefer to avoid paying higher rate tax

For once I agree with Roger!

Higher rate tax relief is grossly unfair (and I receive it) the flat rate proposed is a much better idea.

NickPalmer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The level at which you don't pay 20% tax on "the rest" of your earnings above the personal threshold is where the 40% threshold kicks in. IIRC around 44k currently. The level at which you begin to lose your Personal Allowance is if I recall correctly 100k.

Yes, happening to me this year as translation is going well - you lose £1 personal allowance for every £2 income over £100K. So your marginal tax rate for 100-120 is the usual 40% plus half the 40% that you're losing, i.e. 60%. I'm philosophical about it as I don't mind paying tax, and indeed voted for the measure back in the day, but it's a bit illogical that the marginal rate goes 40-60-40-45 as you move up the scale. A flat 42-43 rate in the 100-150 range would be more logical.

OllyT said:

nigel4england said:

Roger said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Roger said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Roger said:

Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.

The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for

Yet labour kept it for all 13 years... No brainer?

I know and every year it was suggested then put away again as the vested interests made a noise and it didn't happen. It was the same with MIRAS which was even more unfair until someone finally plucked up the courage.

Higher rate pension tax relief is vey reasonable, as pension contributions are deferred income, and it is in the governments interest for people to save for their own retirement.

It only became a problem (or tax dodge) when Labour took the ceiling off the maximum contributions as a percentage of income, and it became possible to make large one off payments.

But the incentive is much greater for a higher rate taxpayer and the amount saved by higher rate taxpayers is significantly greater. As for 'deferring' income it's very possible to make sure that on retirement you no longer come into that bracket not forgetting the 25% tax free lump sum. It's really just a gift to those who prefer to avoid paying higher rate tax

For once I agree with Roger!

Higher rate tax relief is grossly unfair (and I receive it) the flat rate proposed is a much better idea.

It is unfair and I find it comical that those who are most vocal in urging Osborn to cut the deficit scream like stuck pigs the moment he does anything that affects them personally!

nigel4england said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OllyT said:

nigel4england said:

Roger said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Roger said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Roger said:

Funny thing but flicking through the last few threads it occurs to me that had Labour chosen ANY of the four other lacklustre candidates they would now more than likely be enjoying seriously large leads in the polls.

The Tories seem to be imploding to no one's advantage. Osborne's plan to remove top rate tax relief on pension contributions is so eminently fair to make it a no brainer yet he cant even get it through. Corbyn and his backers have a lot to answer for

Yet labour kept it for all 13 years... No brainer?

I know and every year it was suggested then put away again as the vested interests made a noise and it didn't happen. It was the same with MIRAS which was even more unfair until someone finally plucked up the courage.

Higher rate pension tax relief is vey reasonable, as pension contributions are deferred income, and it is in the governments interest for people to save for their own retirement.

It only became a problem (or tax dodge) when Labour took the ceiling off the maximum contributions as a percentage of income, and it became possible to make large one off payments.

But the incentive is much greater for a higher rate taxpayer and the amount saved by higher rate taxpayers is significantly greater. As for 'deferring' income it's very possible to make sure that on retirement you no longer come into that bracket not forgetting the 25% tax free lump sum. It's really just a gift to those who prefer to avoid paying higher rate tax

For once I agree with Roger!

Higher rate tax relief is grossly unfair (and I receive it) the flat rate proposed is a much better idea.

It is unfair and I find it comical that those who are most vocal in urging Osborn to cut the deficit scream like stuck pigs the moment he does anything that affects them personally!

Foxinsoxuk's dictum: fair taxes are those paid by other people :-)

Anythough on Spurs vs the Arsenal? Looks nailed on for Spurs to me. Arsenal are pisspoor at present.

Cards. Lots of them.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

NickPalmer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The level at which you don't pay 20% tax on "the rest" of your earnings above the personal threshold is where the 40% threshold kicks in. IIRC around 44k currently. The level at which you begin to lose your Personal Allowance is if I recall correctly 100k.

Yes, happening to me this year as translation is going well - you lose £1 personal allowance for every £2 income over £100K. So your marginal tax rate for 100-120 is the usual 40% plus half the 40% that you're losing, i.e. 60%. I'm philosophical about it as I don't mind paying tax, and indeed voted for the measure back in the day, but it's a bit illogical that the marginal rate goes 40-60-40-45 as you move up the scale. A flat 42-43 rate in the 100-150 range would be more logical.

Correct.

Richard_Tyndall said:

I don't say this as a criticism of Osborne as such, just a personal observation.

Government spending is, in my opinion, far too high. Looking at the figures over the last 30 years we should be aiming for well below 40% of GDP as the absolute maximum of spending (which we achieved in 2000) and preferably down below 35% as a norm in the long term.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

NickPalmer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The level at which you don't pay 20% tax on "the rest" of your earnings above the personal threshold is where the 40% threshold kicks in. IIRC around 44k currently. The level at which you begin to lose your Personal Allowance is if I recall correctly 100k.

Yes, happening to me this year as translation is going well - you lose £1 personal allowance for every £2 income over £100K. So your marginal tax rate for 100-120 is the usual 40% plus half the 40% that you're losing, i.e. 60%. I'm philosophical about it as I don't mind paying tax, and indeed voted for the measure back in the day, but it's a bit illogical that the marginal rate goes 40-60-40-45 as you move up the scale. A flat 42-43 rate in the 100-150 range would be more logical.

Correct.

The problem here is that income tax rates + surrender of the personal allowance is only that start of it.

Between £0 and £50,000 all sorts of benefits and entitlements are phased out. Then child benefit. And NI - different for class IV.

Universal credit is supposed to help with some of this stuff. While I express no particular confidence in it, let's hope so.

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Scott_P said:

CarlottaVance said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

shiney2 said:

An unexpected pro-brexit.

The (financial) times are a changing..

https://tinyurl.com/hjyqx95

(clear your cache if the paywall appears).

Interesting argument against the 'received wisdom':

Scotland. Voting Brexit seems to me to be the best chance we have to save the union. The SNP is threatening to hold another referendum if we vote out. I suspect they don’t really want to (they do good threats). But their members may force them into it and Westminster may allow it (it isn’t a devolved issue). If they do, they won’t win.

The falling oil price has destroyed an already ropey economic case. And the way the timing works, the UK would already be out of the EU before Scotland was out of the UK — leaving it stranded in the North Sea while it reapplied — in the full knowledge that it would have to take the euro and the EU’s fiscal limits with no UK-style federal transfers. Who would vote for that? Quite. And another decisive loss really would be the end of the matter. Vote Brexit to save the union.

A second democratic mandate for the Union in almost as many years?

Which is why Nicola really doesn't want to hold it.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/?cartoon=12178377&cc=12181295

I see the Scotland hating Chuckle brothers are busy on the thread, was the Scottish London Sockpuppet Conservative Conference that bad

So you're all for SINDYREF2 in the event of BREXIT?

At least someone will have answered your currency question for you......

I would be happy to have it tomorrow, every country in the world has a currency

Do you think Nicola will have the courage of your convictions?

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

NickPalmer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The level at which you don't pay 20% tax on "the rest" of your earnings above the personal threshold is where the 40% threshold kicks in. IIRC around 44k currently. The level at which you begin to lose your Personal Allowance is if I recall correctly 100k.

Yes, happening to me this year as translation is going well - you lose £1 personal allowance for every £2 income over £100K. So your marginal tax rate for 100-120 is the usual 40% plus half the 40% that you're losing, i.e. 60%. I'm philosophical about it as I don't mind paying tax, and indeed voted for the measure back in the day, but it's a bit illogical that the marginal rate goes 40-60-40-45 as you move up the scale. A flat 42-43 rate in the 100-150 range would be more logical.

Correct.

The problem here is that income tax rates + surrender of the personal allowance is only that start of it.

Between £0 and £50,000 all sorts of benefits and entitlements are phased out. Then child benefit. And NI - different for class IV.

Universal credit is supposed to help with some of this stuff. While I express no particular confidence in it, let's hope so.

Again I have to ask why anyone earning £50K a year should get any sort of benefit or entitlement?

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

shiney2 said:

An unexpected pro-brexit.

The (financial) times are a changing..

https://tinyurl.com/hjyqx95

(clear your cache if the paywall appears).

I'm a big fan of Merryn's, of Brexit, and of her second point in that piece.

I'm less a believer in point one. Why? Because, however you cut it, private sector debt levels are simply lower in the Eurozone. The St Louis Federal Reserve has a website devoted to economic data (called, wonderfully, FRED) which can be found here: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/

In it they have fabulously detailed data on debts by country. And while the Eurozone has many, many problems, debt is simply not one of them. In the UK, household debt is (what) 170% of GDP. It's more than 100% in a whole bunch of major economies. In Italy, France and Germany, it's barely more than 50%. This doesn't mean these economies are all in great shape (obviously), but it means expecting that the next Eurozone crisis will emerge from over indebted consumers on the continent is a classic example of recency bias (the UK and the US has housing debt crises therefore...), rather than any kind of sensible analysis of the data.

No household debt is half that, 85% of GDP and has been falling for years: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/households-debt-to-gdp

For some reason that FRED site is actually reporting our household debt to income ratio which is how the UK typically measures debt ratios but is not the international standard, debt to GDP is.

Actually, the OECD agrees with me too.
And I trust the OECD and St Louis Fed more than I trust Trading Economics.

Here is the OECD data on household debt to GDP:

Australia   205.5
Sweden      173.4
UK          156.2
Spain       127.3
USA         113.4
France      104.7
Germany      93.6
Italy        90.1
Austria      89.1

We're not the worst, I agree. But we're not in that great a shape.

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

shiney2 said:

An unexpected pro-brexit.

The (financial) times are a changing..

https://tinyurl.com/hjyqx95

(clear your cache if the paywall appears).

I'm a big fan of Merryn's, of Brexit, and of her second point in that piece.

I'm less a believer in point one. Why? Because, however you cut it, private sector debt levels are simply lower in the Eurozone. The St Louis Federal Reserve has a website devoted to economic data (called, wonderfully, FRED) which can be found here: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/

In it they have fabulously detailed data on debts by country. And while the Eurozone has many, many problems, debt is simply not one of them. In the UK, household debt is (what) 170% of GDP. It's more than 100% in a whole bunch of major economies. In Italy, France and Germany, it's barely more than 50%. This doesn't mean these economies are all in great shape (obviously), but it means expecting that the next Eurozone crisis will emerge from over indebted consumers on the continent is a classic example of recency bias (the UK and the US has housing debt crises therefore...), rather than any kind of sensible analysis of the data.

No household debt is half that, 85% of GDP and has been falling for years: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/households-debt-to-gdp

For some reason that FRED site is actually reporting our household debt to income ratio which is how the UK typically measures debt ratios but is not the international standard, debt to GDP is.

Actually, the OECD agrees with me too.
And I trust the OECD and St Louis Fed more than I trust Trading Economics.

Here is the OECD data on household debt to GDP:

Australia   205.5
Sweden      173.4
UK          156.2
Spain       127.3
USA         113.4
France      104.7
Germany      93.6
Italy        90.1
Austria      89.1

We're not the worst, I agree. But we're not in that great a shape.

Housing bubbles. Wonderful aren't they.

Scott_P said:

malcolmg said:

I see the Scotland hating Chuckle brothers are busy on the thread

Oh dear, Malky, are you not even allowed to look at a cartoon featuring the prophet Nicola now?

Remember, it's not a cult...

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I don't say this as a criticism of Osborne as such, just a personal observation.

Government spending is, in my opinion, far too high. Looking at the figures over the last 30 years we should be aiming for well below 40% of GDP as the absolute maximum of spending (which we achieved in 2000) and preferably down below 35% as a norm in the long term.

Which is fine but if you want to cut more than £100bn from annual government spending then you need to say where it's coming from because that implies some pretty big changes about what government does.

Absolutely. But that is what we need. As I have said before I would return the benefits system to a safety net only system. Cut out all benefits for those earning a reasonable wage (which can be argued about of course) and stop using the tax and benefits system as a means of bribing certain sections of society - like the pensioners. It won't go all the way but it will certainly be a start at cutting into Government spending.

Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I don't say this as a criticism of Osborne as such, just a personal observation.

Government spending is, in my opinion, far too high. Looking at the figures over the last 30 years we should be aiming for well below 40% of GDP as the absolute maximum of spending (which we achieved in 2000) and preferably down below 35% as a norm in the long term.

Which is fine but if you want to cut more than £100bn from annual government spending then you need to say where it's coming from because that implies some pretty big changes about what government does.

Absolutely. But that is what we need. As I have said before I would return the benefits system to a safety net only system. Cut out all benefits for those earning a reasonable wage (which can be argued about of course) and stop using the tax and benefits system as a means of bribing certain sections of society - like the pensioners. It won't go all the way but it will certainly be a start at cutting into Government spending.

Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.

david_herdson said:

OllyT said:

JackW said:

JohnLoony said:

Interesting statistics:

63% of white men voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980
63% of white men voted for George Bush snr. in 1988
62% of white men voted for George W. Bush in 2004
62% of white men voted for Mitt Romney in 2012

Hashtag diminishing demographic

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699?utm_content=buffered237&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#ixzz41vy43OHg

A very useful article for PBers.

Additionally the hispanic demographic is unsurprisingly proving difficult for Trump. Romney secured 27% of their vote in 12, presently the best estimate is that Trump is managing only 15% of this increasingly important bloc that is vital in a number of swing states.

Interesting that in the exit polls for the primaries so far only 49% of Republicans would be happy if Trump was the candidate. By comparison 63% were happy with Romney in 2012 and 77% happy with McCain in 2008.

79% of democrats would be happy with Hilary.

Attacks like Romney's will not affect the core-trump vote but will put of independents and floaters. Bear in mind that amidst all the Trump razzmatazz he has only polled 34% of the votes in the Republican primaries (admittedly with a large field) If he is going to win POTUS he is going to have to expand his coalition fast but I can't see which groups he is going to do it with. There are not enough "mad as hell" non-college educated white males to take him to the White House.

They might not be happy with Trump but I can't see the Cruz and Rubio supporters jumping ship to Hillary.

david_herdson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I don't say this as a criticism of Osborne as such, just a personal observation.

Government spending is, in my opinion, far too high. Looking at the figures over the last 30 years we should be aiming for well below 40% of GDP as the absolute maximum of spending (which we achieved in 2000) and preferably down below 35% as a norm in the long term.

Which is fine but if you want to cut more than £100bn from annual government spending then you need to say where it's coming from because that implies some pretty big changes about what government does.

Absolutely. But that is what we need. As I have said before I would return the benefits system to a safety net only system. Cut out all benefits for those earning a reasonable wage (which can be argued about of course) and stop using the tax and benefits system as a means of bribing certain sections of society - like the pensioners. It won't go all the way but it will certainly be a start at cutting into Government spending.

Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.

As a campaigning point, that's a fair start. I'll give you a cut in international development aid as another easy win but even so, as you accept, that wouldn't go all the way but would kick up the mother of all protests.

It might be deliverable in an economic crisis when there's an acceptance that cuts need to be made but I don't think any parliament in the near future would go near accepting that scale of reductions.

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I don't say this as a criticism of Osborne as such, just a personal observation.

Government spending is, in my opinion, far too high. Looking at the figures over the last 30 years we should be aiming for well below 40% of GDP as the absolute maximum of spending (which we achieved in 2000) and preferably down below 35% as a norm in the long term.

Which is fine but if you want to cut more than £100bn from annual government spending then you need to say where it's coming from because that implies some pretty big changes about what government does.

Absolutely. But that is what we need. As I have said before I would return the benefits system to a safety net only system. Cut out all benefits for those earning a reasonable wage (which can be argued about of course) and stop using the tax and benefits system as a means of bribing certain sections of society - like the pensioners. It won't go all the way but it will certainly be a start at cutting into Government spending.

Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.

At least 10%. I wish people would stop using the net number.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I don't say this as a criticism of Osborne as such, just a personal observation.

Government spending is, in my opinion, far too high. Looking at the figures over the last 30 years we should be aiming for well below 40% of GDP as the absolute maximum of spending (which we achieved in 2000) and preferably down below 35% as a norm in the long term.

Which is fine but if you want to cut more than £100bn from annual government spending then you need to say where it's coming from because that implies some pretty big changes about what government does.

Absolutely. But that is what we need. As I have said before I would return the benefits system to a safety net only system. Cut out all benefits for those earning a reasonable wage (which can be argued about of course) and stop using the tax and benefits system as a means of bribing certain sections of society - like the pensioners. It won't go all the way but it will certainly be a start at cutting into Government spending.

Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.

At least 10%. I wish people would stop using the net number.

Well, if you want it gross then you should deduct what EU spending we would replicate. That's fair enough of course; there will be areas we won't match.

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I don't say this as a criticism of Osborne as such, just a personal observation.

Government spending is, in my opinion, far too high. Looking at the figures over the last 30 years we should be aiming for well below 40% of GDP as the absolute maximum of spending (which we achieved in 2000) and preferably down below 35% as a norm in the long term.

Which is fine but if you want to cut more than £100bn from annual government spending then you need to say where it's coming from because that implies some pretty big changes about what government does.

Absolutely. But that is what we need. As I have said before I would return the benefits system to a safety net only system. Cut out all benefits for those earning a reasonable wage (which can be argued about of course) and stop using the tax and benefits system as a means of bribing certain sections of society - like the pensioners. It won't go all the way but it will certainly be a start at cutting into Government spending.

Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.

At least 10%. I wish people would stop using the net number.

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I don't say this as a criticism of Osborne as such, just a personal observation.

Government spending is, in my opinion, far too high. Looking at the figures over the last 30 years we should be aiming for well below 40% of GDP as the absolute maximum of spending (which we achieved in 2000) and preferably down below 35% as a norm in the long term.

Which is fine but if you want to cut more than £100bn from annual government spending then you need to say where it's coming from because that implies some pretty big changes about what government does.

Absolutely. But that is what we need. As I have said before I would return the benefits system to a safety net only system. Cut out all benefits for those earning a reasonable wage (which can be argued about of course) and stop using the tax and benefits system as a means of bribing certain sections of society - like the pensioners. It won't go all the way but it will certainly be a start at cutting into Government spending.

Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.

At least 10%. I wish people would stop using the net number.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I am very perplexed at the moment as I am genuinely undecided and can see advantages on both sides. However, the ‘project fear’ and instant dismissal of the issues by leave is creating a climate of distrust among the voters, and frustration, as I am convinced most voters, like myself, want to come to a considered fact based decision on this very important matter. I believe a truce should be called by both sides until April when one of the leave’s campaigns is confirmed as the official one and real fact based debates can begin with Boris, Gove, IDS, Kate Hoey, and campaigners from both sides answering, under intense scrutiny, the many questions voters are genuinely seeking answers to. I do have worries over a lot of the print media who are so biased for leave that most if not all their articles are so prejudiced they lack authenticity. This really frustrates and may turn out to be counter productive as I am sure that many readers want a sensible balanced view.

david_herdson said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

NickPalmer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The level at which you don't pay 20% tax on "the rest" of your earnings above the personal threshold is where the 40% threshold kicks in. IIRC around 44k currently. The level at which you begin to lose your Personal Allowance is if I recall correctly 100k.

Yes, happening to me this year as translation is going well - you lose £1 personal allowance for every £2 income over £100K. So your marginal tax rate for 100-120 is the usual 40% plus half the 40% that you're losing, i.e. 60%. I'm philosophical about it as I don't mind paying tax, and indeed voted for the measure back in the day, but it's a bit illogical that the marginal rate goes 40-60-40-45 as you move up the scale. A flat 42-43 rate in the 100-150 range would be more logical.

Correct.

Three different rates, at 40 / 42 / 45 is just silly. You'd be better having the 45% rate kick in at a lower threshold.

david_herdson said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

NickPalmer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The level at which you don't pay 20% tax on "the rest" of your earnings above the personal threshold is where the 40% threshold kicks in. IIRC around 44k currently. The level at which you begin to lose your Personal Allowance is if I recall correctly 100k.

Yes, happening to me this year as translation is going well - you lose £1 personal allowance for every £2 income over £100K. So your marginal tax rate for 100-120 is the usual 40% plus half the 40% that you're losing, i.e. 60%. I'm philosophical about it as I don't mind paying tax, and indeed voted for the measure back in the day, but it's a bit illogical that the marginal rate goes 40-60-40-45 as you move up the scale. A flat 42-43 rate in the 100-150 range would be more logical.

Correct.

Three different rates, at 40 / 42 / 45 is just silly. You'd be better having the 45% rate kick in at a lower threshold.

OllyT said:

david_herdson said:

They might not be happy with Trump but I can't see the Cruz and Rubio supporters jumping ship to Hillary.

Possibly not many though some, particularly, neocons like Robert Kagan who think Trump's Foreign Policy is insane, have said they will vote for Clinton.

EPG said:

Lots of rich Republicans will cross over to Hillary compared to when Romney/McCain were in the field
Not many poor Democrats will cross over to Trump compared to when Obama was running
Thus I see Hillary upside and am reluctant to bet on Trump beyond the convention

MyBurningEars said:

david_herdson said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

NickPalmer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The level at which you don't pay 20% tax on "the rest" of your earnings above the personal threshold is where the 40% threshold kicks in. IIRC around 44k currently. The level at which you begin to lose your Personal Allowance is if I recall correctly 100k.

Yes, happening to me this year as translation is going well - you lose £1 personal allowance for every £2 income over £100K. So your marginal tax rate for 100-120 is the usual 40% plus half the 40% that you're losing, i.e. 60%. I'm philosophical about it as I don't mind paying tax, and indeed voted for the measure back in the day, but it's a bit illogical that the marginal rate goes 40-60-40-45 as you move up the scale. A flat 42-43 rate in the 100-150 range would be more logical.

Correct.

Three different rates, at 40 / 42 / 45 is just silly. You'd be better having the 45% rate kick in at a lower threshold.

If you ever make a run for parliament, I'll put you down for the "Tories for taxing the rich" party ;-)

But, yep. Far more sensible.

david_herdson said:

EPG said:

Lots of rich Republicans will cross over to Hillary compared to when Romney/McCain were in the field
Not many poor Democrats will cross over to Trump compared to when Obama was running
Thus I see Hillary upside and am reluctant to bet on Trump beyond the convention

Quite a lot of poor Democrats won't vote for Hillary either. The key question may not be swing voters so much as GOTV.

SouthamObserver said:

Putting the final result (Arsenal win) to one side, I see two things happening at WHL today:
1. Arsenal will score inside the last five minutes of the game.
2. Harry Kane will miss a penalty.
I have been a Spurs fan for long enough to know we just don't do well in games like this. Changes of guard, new dawns etc - not a chance. It's not the Tottenham way.

Pulpstar said:

Who should be the better favourite at this point:

Donald GOP Nom

Clinton POTUS

Odds are almost identical.

malcolmg said:

what drives you to denigrate Scotland 24x7

ydoethur said:

david_herdson said:

EPG said:

Lots of rich Republicans will cross over to Hillary compared to when Romney/McCain were in the field
Not many poor Democrats will cross over to Trump compared to when Obama was running
Thus I see Hillary upside and am reluctant to bet on Trump beyond the convention

Quite a lot of poor Democrats won't vote for Hillary either. The key question may not be swing voters so much as GOTV.

Bernie Sanders and Trump have both been claiming they can win by appealing to non-voters. But as was pointed out to Corbyn's admirers on these threads a few months ago, the problem is that non-voters don't vote. Indeed, it's more or less a requirement to be called a non-voter.

The difference is that Trump is set to be the candidate and Sanders is not. He will get support from those who then fail to vote. But that's not where or how elections are won. Accepting what you say upthread about Clinton's mistakes and weaknesses, this alone should make her favourite.

She should therefore hope the FBI get a move on. It would not look good if she entered the election as the first president since 1972* to be under criminal investigation during the campaign, particularly given the Clintons' public image. That's surely where her greatest danger lies.

*I don't think Iran-Contra was being investigated in 1984, although I could be wrong.

david_herdson said:

EPG said:

Lots of rich Republicans will cross over to Hillary compared to when Romney/McCain were in the field
Not many poor Democrats will cross over to Trump compared to when Obama was running
Thus I see Hillary upside and am reluctant to bet on Trump beyond the convention

Quite a lot of poor Democrats won't vote for Hillary either. The key question may not be swing voters so much as GOTV.

No_Offence_Alan said:

david_herdson said:

EPG said:

Lots of rich Republicans will cross over to Hillary compared to when Romney/McCain were in the field
Not many poor Democrats will cross over to Trump compared to when Obama was running
Thus I see Hillary upside and am reluctant to bet on Trump beyond the convention

Quite a lot of poor Democrats won't vote for Hillary either. The key question may not be swing voters so much as GOTV.

Trump as GOP candidate will be a massive boost to Democrats' GOTV.

LondonBob said:

JackW said:

tlg86 said:

JackW said:

JohnLoony said:

Interesting statistics:

63% of white men voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980
63% of white men voted for George Bush snr. in 1988
62% of white men voted for George W. Bush in 2004
62% of white men voted for Mitt Romney in 2012

Hashtag diminishing demographic

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699?utm_content=buffered237&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#ixzz41vy43OHg

A very useful article for PBers.

Additionally the hispanic demographic is unsurprisingly proving difficult for Trump. Romney secured 27% of their vote in 12, presently the best estimate is that Trump is managing only 15% of this increasingly important bloc that is vital in a number of swing states.

Jack, do you think it will ever be possible again for a white male to win the White House as the Republican candidate?

Yes. Hovever the GOP need to to heed their own advice after the 2012 defeat when they realised that alienating vast swathes of the electorate wasn't the route to the White House given the demographic changes and the need to appeal to swing voters.

The question is how many times they will lose before the dime finally drops?

Seems it has with those rallying round Trump. Romney got a pathetic share of the historically low turnout of the white vote in 2012. Continuing to run with pro Iraq War and pro amnesty candidates is a recipe for disaster, Trump gives them a chance before immigration turns America into California, a no hope for the GOP. A long way off though as Hispanics remain less than 10% of the vote with it mostly concentrated in states that don't swing, Texas and California. Florida is Trump's second home state and is in the bag already.

rogerh said:

Is ridicule a powerful weapon.?
Nicknaming him as Donald trumpet might have some mileage.
Describing him as elephant trump might be damaging elephants after all do trump and cause a lot of damage.
I'm reminded of the song Nellie the elephant some words from the song ." Nellie the elephnat phant packed her trunk and said goodbye to the circus.And of course we have elephants on parade from the jungle book with Donald as the colonel elephant.
The other line of attack is exposing any financial scandals in his business dealings.