jambalaya – Member

JY, I think we both know there is little chance of you coming up with an explanation of why Alex Salmond has been hidden away to counter my assertion he’s electoral poison.

Mostly, the reason he’s not been such a big part of the SNP campaign is that the succession to Sturgeon’s been a huge success. Having old leaders hanging around tends to distract from the new person as they take over, nothing unusual there. (you may recall lots of people predicting that she’d be stuck in his shadow, and that’d be exactly the story you’d probably be pushing if he was playing a bigger part)

But yep, I reckon it’s also a simple matter of good tactics- it’s helped counter the rabid anti-SNP madness from the Tories and their press. They’ve had years to make Salmond into their Carthage but that stuff’s worked far less well against Sturgeon.

Just because Miliband always plays along with Tory party strategy doesn’t mean the SNP have to 😉

The Mash nails it again on the whole ‘economic recovery’ thing

😆

I think we both know there is little chance of you coming up with an explanation of why Alex Salmond has been hidden away to counter my assertion he’s electoral poison.

I planned to just repeat my view, say you had no chance to beat me and then declare myself the winner even though I was contradicting myself . IIRC this is what passes for debate 🙄

I have to say your approach to “debate” has made me smile [ as did the critique of AS for doing what you [ and THM] support and defend on here].

The politics threads are getting a wee bit strange as we all just fling mud, argue poorly/incoherently/inconsistently and debate very little.
I am almost tired of them tbh

JY you old sensitive soul, have some tea and biscuits. Take a rest from the chat forum,, like me I am sure you won’t be able to stay away for long 😉

On AS’s tax planning its just the irony of wanting to introduce a higher 50p tax rate which nails those on PAYE whilst someone like him who can plan does so as to avoid it

Northwind in the spirit of good debate, thanks for your post. Sturgeon has continued in the same messaging vein as AS and its proving very successful, I think it helps a lot she is a woman as it differentiates the SNP further from the 3/4 main parties.

The politics threads are getting a wee bit strange as we all just fling mud, argue poorly/incoherently/inconsistently and debate very little.
I am almost tired of them tbh

Hold on have I missed something? Isn’t this what we see from the leaders of all the political parties at every opportunity. The AM show on Sunday was a classic example….no wonder people are disilloushoned!(sic) Its actually getting worse and worse…no one answers questions, they sit for hours being briefed by Spin Doctors before any interview/debate. I have to give credit to Ernie on here for trying his best, but he’s a bit of a lone voice.

On the IFS Report here

The report is very interesting, didn’t realise the Tories have some nasty pension policies too.

A few snippets – this I think we all know / agree with – more taxes whoever wins

Conclusion
With significant deficit reduction still to come, households can expect the tax and benefit
changes implemented over the next parliament to reduce their incomes, on average.
There are large differences between the Conservatives, Labour Party and Liberal
Democrats in how they propose to do this. But they share a lack of willingness to be clear
about the details, and an inability to resist the urge for piecemeal changes which make
the overall system less efficient and coherent.

Absurd reforms proposed by all, see the portion of adults who pay tax has fallen substantially, further on in the document it also speaks of how many more of us will pay the higher rate by 2020 whoever wins

There is also a shared lack of any attempt to paint a coherent strategy
for tax reform, a shared desire to impose further, often absurd, complications to the tax
system, and a shared lack of willingness to set out specific benefit measures which chime
with the parties’ rhetoric.
Only 56% of adults now pay income tax, down from 61% in 2010–11

Finally, assuming you haven’t died of boredowm and stopped reading is the bit on the 50% rate – the £100 figure comes from the HMRC in terms of how much the cut from 50% to 45% cost. As TMH and I post frequently this is a common effect of reducing higher rates of tax, the actual tax lost is small or indeed the tax take can rise.

The proposed reintroduction of the 50% additional rate of income tax would clearly leave
those with annual incomes over £150,000 worse off. The extent to which it would raise
any additional revenue is unclear. HM Revenue and Customs’ central estimate, signed off
as reasonable by the OBR, was that cutting the additional rate from 50% to 45% would
cost just £100 million. Raising it again might raise this much, it might raise substantially
more, or it might actually cost the exchequer revenue. We genuinely cannot be sure. The
policy should be seen more as a way to reduce the highest taxable incomes rather than a
way to increase revenue significantly.

See the last point – the introduction of a 50% income band will reduce incomes as people who have a choice will stop being paid that way. Generally those at the top of income scale have that choice as they own their own business or they are in senior management positions or they just move abroad.

Anyone else think the Milliband and Russell Brand thing weird, who ever advises him on PR is nuts.

@dragon, yes me, courting someone who has advised people not to vote in madness. Brand would have more credibility if he stood as an MP, even if he didn’t win (and I doubt he could hack it if he did) he would have a proper platform to air his views (Youtube does pay much more though). We have had independent MPs before. The best thing Brand could do would be to encourage the young to be heard by registering to vote.

“A spokesperson from the Labour party said Miliband went to Brand’s property, where the comedian runs his satirical YouTube channel The Trews, to record an interview.”

He was not courting him he was being interviewed by him.

Jambas, careful you will getting people frothy. What the IFS actually said was that

the proposed reintroduction of the 50% rate if income tax would clearly leave those with annual incomes over £150,000 worse off. The extent to which it would raise any additional revenue is unclear….it might raise this much (the £100m), it might raise substantially more, or it might actually cost the exchequer revenue. we cannot be genuinely sure. The policy should be seen more as a way to reduce the highest taxable incomes rather than a way to increase revenue significantly.

The key is estimates vary in the mid 40s as to where the tipping point is in terms of tax income elasticity.

And guess what they conclude that

with significant deficit reduction still to come (!!) households can expect the tax and benefit changes implemented over the next parliament to reduce their incomes, on average. There are large differences between the Conservatives, Labour Party and Liberal Democrats in how they propose to do this. But they share a lack of willingness to be clear about the details, and an inability to resist the urge for piecemeal changes which make the overall system less efficient and coherent.

Tinker, tinker

Brand would have more credibility if he stood as an MP, even if he didn’t win

If only you would apply that to yourself.

Oops cross post.

Hmm, question.

“HM Revenue and Customs’ central estimate, signed off as reasonable by the OBR, was that cutting the additional rate from 50% to 45% would cost just £100 million. Raising it again might raise this much”

Presumably it should be possible to review that estimate and see if it was proved correct? Or is it still too fast?

The IFS to their credit are pretty clear it’s all projections and maybes, so saying it shows that it “will reduce incomes” seems pretty far out. Or in fact saying that they’ve concluded that it “will raise £100m” when the part you’ve quoted says anything but.

NW there is lots of debate and time spent in trying to calculate the figures both ways – not surprisingly as the tipping point is widely viewed as being somewhere in the mid 40s but is it 42, 45, 48, who knows? Hence as the IFS conclude forget the bit about raising revenue or not and accept that it’s just a way to reduce peoples income – from a libertarian perspective, that is enough!!! 😉

A simpleton’s view (mine) – 50% definitely a tipping – it’s half which most will just say is “wrong”

At 40% you keep £60 and pay £40 – so you keep 50% more than you pay

So 45% you keep £55 and pay £45 – that’s starting to look and feel like 50/50 – also you have 10% less money (approx) vs 40% which impacts spending etc

48% is £52/£48 so that is as good as 50

As the percentages increase the numbers get closer quickly psychologically and numbers wise.

Also actual top rate now is 45+2 NI = 47

@Northwind – yes I think there is enough time for the government to have looked at it. Not sure the IFS have all the data though. Also there are so many moving parts, do you really know whether people have done better/worse in their business or whether they have shifted money about in ways they are not obliged to say ? It is ferociously complicated, it why non-dom has been left for so long as people really don’t know how much it would raise/lose to change it.

Lets face it unless we increase taxes or reduce spending in the end the UK will end up like Greece.

But the government who ever wins should do a top to bottom review of all taxes with the aim of simplifying them all. And while they are at it scrap National Insurance it’s a joke.

One thing I’d do if I were in power is to put up the VED on diesels, why they are seen as the ‘green’ option is daft. Lets get back to flatter rates of VED on cars.

Brand would have more credibility if he stood as an MP

If that’s really your view then you really don’t understand what he’s been talking about these last couple of years. I don’t for one second think Miliband is daft enough to ‘court’ Brand. He’s daft enough to be photographed leaving his house though which doesn’t look particularly good. You wonder what his advisors are upto. As with his photoshoot holding the s*n, and the bacon sarnie thing it’s almost like they have a hidden agenda to make him look stupid.

Lets face it unless we increase taxes or reduce spending in the end the UK will end up like Greece.

🙄 Please lets not start on the national credit card rubbish. If you must go do it on the Greece thread.

A simpleton’s view (mine) – 50% definitely a tipping – it’s half which most will just say is “wrong”

As you said before, there’s stacks of research into what that number is, and as far as I can see there’s a consensus that it’s between 20% and 70%. Lucky we can rely on economists for sound guidance, eh?

Are they 100% correct as well?

jambalaya – Member

@Northwind – yes I think there is enough time for the government to have looked at it. Not sure the IFS have all the data though.

Cynical people might suggest that if the government has hard figures and they supported their argument, they’d be releasing them 😉

But you seem to be swinging one second from saying it’ll only gain £100 million, to the next saying it will reduce incomes, and now to admitting we don’t know.

His next move is to use evidence, he does not believe, to prove he was right all along 😛

@dazh – I do understand what Brand is saying but if you want change you achieve through our political process

@Northwind it’s all related, I believe higher top rates of tax (certainly above 45 and probably above 40) have a negative impact on the economy. One impact as the IFS points out is change of behaviour by people paying themselves less, ie reducing income, they find different ways to get the money or its benefit to themselves. One way is to delay paying it for example doing what the Labour windpower guy did – he lent himself £3m resulting in £60k tax versus close to £2m he would have paid had it been a bonus via PAYE. HMRC pointed out the 50% to 45% cut cost only £100m in lost revenues, with respect to taxation that’s a bit of a rounding error.

We don’t know for sure but you can make educated guesses which is what the IFS etc do. What’s clear is that talking of 50% taxes (or 75% like the French did) is good for getting votes if you are a left sided party. The fact it then turns into less tax revenue you just ignore and borrow some more with the most important thing being you got elected.

I do understand what Brand is saying but if you want change you achieve through our political process

I don’t think you do. You don’t achieve revolutionary political change through the existing political system. The two things are mutually exclusive. Saying he should stand for parliament is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as saying that standing for parliament is the only way to achieve change.

jambalaya – Member

HMRC pointed out estimated the 50% to 45% would cut cost only £100m in lost revenues

According to your own IFS quotes.

jambalaya – Member

The fact it then turns into less more tax revenue

According to your own IFS quotes, and also according to you, elsewhere in this same post.

Is there any chance you could go and have an argument with yourself and come back when you know what you think?

Northwind £100m in terms of the overall tax take is tiny, its very hard to control for all the variables which change year to year when trying to make a comparison, £100m is like a statistical error. The big take-away is that it’s not many billions and the IFS data shows that.

Plus you have to incorporate the economic effect, if people elect not to pay themselves (eg by putting more into their pensions) then there is a potentially large negative impact on economic activity.

VAT on food as they have in France, Germany, Spain etc etc is a much more effective way to raise tax revenue but its politically impossible here. However, the longer we stay in the EU the more inevitable that becomes. The EU has already pushed us on low rates of VAT on energy bills and other zero rated exemptions like childrens clothes.

What I think is you cannot just keep going back to the higher rate tax payers / “the rich” and expect it to work out as a winning policy longer term. It will be a policy which turns into less revenue not more.

But you seem to be swinging one second from saying it’ll only gain £100 million, to the next saying it will reduce incomes, and now to admitting we don’t know.

And that’s before we get onto the issue of whether that gain or loss in tax revenue leads to more or less economic growth, which gives you an even bigger set of unknowns.

Rather than trying to judge the parties on which one can steer the economy better – which is a bit like trying to decide which of two gnats can better steer a camel – maybe it’s a better idea to decide which party has values which correspond more closely to your own.

DrJ – Member
A simpleton’s view (mine) – 50% definitely a tipping – it’s half which most will just say is “wrong”
As you said before, there’s stacks of research into what that number is, and as far as I can see there’s a consensus that it’s between 20% and 70%. Lucky we can rely on economists for sound guidance, eh?

Sarcasm aside, yes it is but its is a very difficult thing to measure. Economists understand the drivers – the income and substitution effect – the challenge is quantifying them when the variables themselves are unstable and separate taxes have different TIEs. On the consensus, it is (as I have said before in the mid 40s) – one reason why labour were smart enough not to increase it before other than as the trap to leave the Tories to fall into and from which they have still to climb out.

jambalaya – Member

The big take-away is that it’s not many billions and the IFS data shows that.

That must be what they meant when they said

“it might raise this much (the £100m), it might raise substantially more, or it might actually cost the exchequer revenue. we cannot be genuinely sure.”

Nobody thinks it’s many billions- the highest number I’ve seen (which you’re aware of, because you posted it) is £3.6bn. The HMRC estimate which you keep reporting as fact, is £100m. The IFS conclusion is that they haven’t got a scooby but you keep using that to simultaneously argue that it raises and lowers tax take.

As Brand believes that people shouldn’t vote, perhaps he’s advising The Millibanana to stand down and get a “job” as a media “personality” instead of trying to be a politician.

Sarcasm aside, yes it is but its is a very difficult thing to measure. Economists understand the drivers – the income and substitution effect – the challenge is quantifying them when the variables themselves are unstable and separate taxes have different TIEs.

Well, yes – but that’s the point isn’t it? We can say that, in isolation, x may lead to y, but things never are in isolation and the system is grossly non-linear. Hence it’s not a useful predictive tool.

@Northwind the £3.6bn estimate came from the Labour party (that’s what I read)

@DrJ but you have to have some tools, best to estimate a few different ways and compare, in order to set government policy. You can’t pay for things with “values”, you need money. That’s the fundamental argument from the Tories, without a thriving economy and thus money you can’t afford a welfare state.

4:21 and a minute late but we’ll give him that 🙂

Yes the tories want a thriving economy [ and low taxes] so they can afford the welfare state
I am sure we can all agree that you just nailed the Tory raison d’etre
😀
I genuinely cannot tell if you are just pulling everyones leg on here or if you believe the stuff you write.

Am I alone in this respect ?

Yes the tories want a thriving economy [ and low taxes] so they can afford the welfare state
I am sure we can all agree that you just nailed the Tory raison d’etre

LOL. A couple more years of Little Lord Cameron and it’ll feel like we’re living in Denmark!

JY the best way to increase tax revenue is to grow the economy and have more people in work. That will have a far bigger impact than tweaking tax rates. That is the foundation of Tory party policy which is quite far to the left of the US Democrats for example.

There was a priceless moment on Question Time when Natalie Bennett said the Greens would create lots of new Government/state jobs and IDS pointed out that those have to be paid for by private sector taxes or borrowing. Of course NB went to the gifts that always keep on giving, a banker bonus tax and tax avoidance etc etc. The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

JY here is one example. The Tories protect the NHS budget and spend £130bn pa. The Labour party say the Tories are destroying the NHS and are going to save it and spend £131.5bn. Oh those uncaring Tories.

Now the argument has moved on with the Tories saying they will deliver the £8bn pa extra the NHS has said they will need by 2020 whilst Labour have promised £2.5bn (note this will be paid for by the Mansion tax which the IFS piece I linked to says is very unclear what the amount raised would actually be)

Politics is all about spin but the black/white comparisons between Labor and Tory are overdone in many areas.

There was a priceless moment on Question Time when Natalie Bennett said the Greens would create lots of new Government/state jobs and IDS pointed out that those have to be paid for by private sector taxes or borrowing made the usual witless lazy knee-jerk response that totally misses the point.

FTFY

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/28/uk-economic-growth-slows-ahead-of-general-election

Another piece of marvellous spin from the tories. The economy isn’t as healthy as they’d claimed, growth is weak and deflation is looming. This however is proof that labour can’t be trusted, rather than proof that the centrepiece of their campaign – their management of the economy – isn’t as effective as they’d claimed.

@dazh, fair enough but the UK is still out-performing Europe quite comfortably and there is a strong argument about relative performance vs Labour given their likely policies.