but as the Tories are being punished for not actually being right wing.
I do think it’s brilliant that that’s the conclusion most Tories seem to have already reached, bless ‘em
The political wilderness beckons…..
" Labour will win, but inherit a shit show which they can’t resolve within 4 years even if they had brave, excellent ideas"
Labour don't have to resolve things within 4 years but they do have to show they have started resolving them and the world will be a better place if they're allowed to continue doing so. If they don't, they'll let the Tories, or someone worse, in for another 14 years...
I’ve always been amused by what different people have in mind when wanting to tax “rich” people.
A lot of people seem to consider it to mean anyone whose yearly income is more than a couple of their own monthly paychecks, or whose lifestyle they can relate to but see that it’s a bit better than their own. So you have even 27k salaries and 7 year old Golfs being viewed as rich by some.
Whenever I've had a discussion on tax with someone - they almost alway agree that wealthier people should pay more. And usually think that the threshold for that is a little above the salary they hope to one day get themselves! In otherwords - people who earn more than me should pay more. if you you a fairly new teacher or nurse on £30K then perhaps that threshold in your head is £40something - becuase you can see how to progress to that without a major promotion. If you are an experienced teacher or nurse already on £45K - then you think you should be able to be promoted to deputy head / very senior nurse without getting punished! So probably think 60k! Ask a 35 yr old software developer on £60K and they'll say its really the six figures people who should pay more! Ask the guy on minimum wage - anyone getting £27K is rich...
I'm always surprised that we really just have two rates of tax ~ 20% and ~ 40%. Its quite a dramatic jump. Personally I think it should probably be taxed as a household income though. Two people on 45K pa are paying less tax that a couple with one earner on 90K and one on nothing. If they've got a couple of kids that will be even more obvious.
Two people on 45K pa are paying less tax that a couple with one earner on 90K and one on nothing. If they’ve got a couple of kids that will be even more obvious
I’d agree, however not sure how practical that would be to administer. The arguement could also be made that if one of the family choose* to stay at home it brings its own benefits, both financially (ie child care) and otherwise.
For example, In Scotland a couple on 30k each would be 5k better off than if only one of them worked on 60k. Obviously some if not all of that would be offset depending on circumstances (child care savings, not having to travel etc)
* not everyone is able to work
I’m always surprised that we really just have two rates of tax ~ 20% and ~ 40%. Its quite a dramatic jump.
It's not because of how marginal tax rates work. If you were earning right up to the 20% limit and get a pay rise of £1000 then you'll pay £400 more tax and take home £600.
(Not saying this is you btw, but) Too many people think a 20% rate up to £50k and 40% above that would mean if you earn £50k you pay 20% of that, so £10k in tax, and if you earn £50,001 you pay 40% of that, so £20k in tax. When in reality at £50,001 you'd pay 40p more tax on the £1 extra and take home an extra 60p.
The thing is - tax is an emotive topic. As most are saying, there is an acknowledgement that the wealthier should shoulder a bigger burden "as they can afford it". But we have no agreement on where that boundary is. It's also not as simple as deciding that those who have a lot of wealth in, say property, should be taxed on that wealth because, in a lot of cases, it's only paper wealth. It could be a substantial property that, perhaps, they inherited. Or that they bought in better times and were lucky. But that wealth does nothing for them day-to-day. They aren't earning money from it - as they aren't selling it. I am fortunate in that I currently earn a reasonable salary. My wife is on a zero hours contract and earns little more than pocket money. For me personally, while I believe we should have better (make that functioning) public services and that I am ok with the principle that those who earn more should pay more I also feel that I'm already doing that. I despair at the waste of public money through either inefficiency, stupidity, dogmatism, the general failure to find good administration or a combination of all of them. It's easy for those on lower incomes to say that those on a higher salary should pay a higher proportion because, like most situations like that, they know it doesn't affect them. It's someone else paying it. We do need a complete overhaul of the taxation system to make it simpler, more efficient and fairer. I don't know exactly what that looks like though!
I also pine for the days when having an ageing Volvo estate with moss round the windows and tartan rugs in the back was a signifier of proper breeding too.
I'm afraid those days are gone now and little Crysanthemum's school drop-off is now marred by people driving those frightfully garish Teslas.
Yesterday I was happy to see someone keeping up the tradition of antique dealers/French polishers/fine carpenters driving ancient Volvo estates.
The other factor is that at £50k your NI contribution goes down to 2%. So combined tax and NI of 42%.
Which was a change introduced not all that long ago IIRC. Previously, once you got to the higher rate tax band you didn't pay any NI on the additional earnings
I think a bigger problem than tax is where the money flows. For example (MMT fans close your ears) we use tax money to give to poor people to pay their rent, but that goes straight into the pocket of rich people directly and/or when they ultimately sell the property they've invested in. The ability to buy a house to let means you are taking poor people's money, and the ability to do that means that house then becomes more valuable to other rich people, making it harder for those poor people to buy their own houses and get out of the trap they're in.
When you think about it, that's pretty ****ed up.
Grant Shapps says a super-majority would be bad for accountability.
It's nonsense to be honest.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1800790479644324339
Ian Dunt has written a very good book on Westminster...
a super-majority would be bad for accountability.
That claim was made on this thread about a week ago.
However big the Labour majority the government will still be accountable to parliament in the first instance and then ultimately to the electorate.
The Tory Party does not have some sort of indispensable role in the democratic process.
Given Starmer's propensity for sacking off socialists and installing dubious placemen (sic), he'd probably regard a large majority as strengthening his hand and carry on accordingly.
The Tory Party does not have some sort of indispensable role in the democratic process.
Well put. Opposition, within parties and between parties, is key. But the Tories don't need to be at the centre of anything. Other parties can grow or be built. Remember, there was a time when we had no Labour party.
ffs you'd thought the leave campaign had achieved a supermajority the way they imposed the most damaging brexit possible on us, going by that if he ends up with a 400 seat majority he could abolish the royal family with the house of lords if he wanted and the right would have shit all to say about it.
Can we have Ed Davey pictured riding a mountain bike please?Even better get him an instructor for a couple of hours to teach him to jump first.
And can we get Cathro to both coach and ask a few choice questions? It could be called 'Between the [s]Tapes[/s] Left and Right'.
When you think about it, that’s pretty **** up
Absolutely spot on. I think the vast majority of decent people wouldn’t begrudge higher taxes if the end result was better social equality and services. But it doesn’t, taxes continually go up and the only people that seem to benefit are those at the top of the tree
The tory hate press will hold any labour government to accountability
Jeezus that might be exactly what they want their readers to believe but I don't think that telling lies and distorting the truth in one sided "debates" in their publications amounts to holding the government to account!
I would rather that the government be held accountable from the floor of the House of Commons and House of Commons Select Committees, as well as other venues suitable for balanced debates.
Asked if he had ever gone without something, the PM told ITV: "Yes, I mean, my family emigrated here with very little. And that's how I was raised. I was raised with the values of hard work."
Mr Sunak's father was a GP, while his mother ran her own pharmacy.
Asked what sort of things had to be sacrificed, he said: "Lots of things."
Pressed for an example, he said: "All sorts of things like lots of people.
Wow - didn't know his family were mass murderers...
When you think about it, that’s pretty **** up
True.
And it seems most of the home owners of the UK are happy to increase that process to keep themselves feeling wealthy and the peasants from buying on their street.
Wasn't the favored car of the country estate class a Subaru Forrester?
Although that assumes that the engines didn't grenade themselves.
I think a bigger problem than tax is where the money flows. For example (MMT fans close your ears) we use tax money to give to poor people to pay their rent, but that goes straight into the pocket of rich people directly and/or when they ultimately sell the property they’ve invested in. The ability to buy a house to let means you are taking poor people’s money, and the ability to do that means that house then becomes more valuable to other rich people, making it harder for those poor people to buy their own houses and get out of the trap they’re in.
When you think about it, that’s pretty **** up.
That also hold true from an MMT perspective.
Just think of tax and interest rates as two different ways of taking money out of the economy.
Low interest rates drive up house prices (bad for poorer people).
Low interest rates make acquiring more assets cheap (good for rich people). E.g. I definitely wouldn't have a stocks and shares ISA if my mortgage wasn't fixes at a pre-Truss rate! Alternatively I could have put that money into BTL or just outbidding someone on a house pushing the prices up either way.
Long term house prices are going to be limited by affordability, they can't keep going up as a multiple of income, we've maxed out the sensible loan terms, and we've gone from 1 income per household to two. If rates stay in the 4-5% region and we build a few hundred thousand more of them to equalize supply and demand so there's less pressure, then house prices will probably just stagnate because unless we build houses people don't actually want then people will always spend as much as they can afford on the nicest house they can afford.
MMT doesn't give you a free lunch, it just explains there are more ways to pay for it than just the HMRC current account.
I think the vast majority of decent people wouldn’t begrudge higher taxes if the end result was better social equality and services. But it doesn’t, taxes continually go up and the only people that seem to benefit are those at the top of the tree
But the taxes aren't the thing you should begrudge, it's the other policies. The taxes are still needed.
but as the Tories are being punished for not actually being right wing.
I do think it’s brilliant that that’s the conclusion most Tories seem to have already reached, bless ‘em
It's not an entirely unreasonable position. They're being punished for being incompetent and not following through on what they say. Record tax and immigration levels are hardly traditional right wing policies.
I'm amused by the disjointed messages!
Shapps, 'we are done for, give us your pity vote. '
Lil' Rishi, 'this election isn't over!'
😅😂
It’s ironic that Europe is increasingly voting to the Right, but as the Tories are being punished for not actually being right wing, Britain will lurch in the opposite direction as the only alternative option are Reform who are too new to get a foothold in parliament
If this government are not right wing then I don't know what is. What sort of policies do you propose? We've had a period of right wing government and decided we don't like it. Perhaps we're just a few years ahead on Europe (for a change).
Personally I think it should probably be taxed as a household income though. Two people on 45K pa are paying less tax that a couple with one earner on 90K and one on nothing.
"Married man's tax allowance" was abolished in 1990 in favour independent taxation which was considered fairer to married women.
Record tax and immigration levels are hardly traditional right wing policies.
Yeah but they aren't being punished for that. Otherwise it would be Reform UK that would be expected to win a landslide, not Labour.
As you say, low tax and immigration levels are hardly right wing policies, so why are almost half of the electorate saying that they intend voting Labour?
Are Labour now considered to be to the right of the Tories?
Regarding taxation being too high...
Regarding taxation being too high…
I reckon those making the claim would regard all those countries above the UK as socialist, if not practically communist - see grimep's earlier hilarious faux confusion between the Greens and communists.
They would then point to the United States and provide it as an example of a socialist free and advanced democracy.
if they raise tax then fair enough, but its not justified imo until they go after all the tax dodgers, folks who have wealth without earning it (ie inherited), fat cats, and companies and corporations that make huge profits for shareholders at the expense of the rest of society
This. I earn over 50k. When all the billionaires and Uber-millionaires pay the same proportion (or more) of their ‘income’ on tax as I do they can come and ask me for more and I’ll be happy to pay it. Until then they can f*** off quite frankly.
I wonder if Craig Williams has had a little flutter on losing his own seat.
Yeah but they aren’t being punished for that. Otherwise it would be Reform UK that would be expected to win a landslide, not Labour.
They're predicted to lose a lot of their voters to reform and labour but I expect even more will just stay at home. The Tories aren't trusted by plenty on the right to deliver on their promises and Farage only appeals to a poorly educated subset. The token performative policies like Rawanda which even if it stopped "illegal" migration entirely wouldn't make a difference to legal visas which they could have controlled but haven't.
As you say, low tax and immigration levels are hardly right wing policies, so why are almost half of the electorate saying that they intend voting Labour?
Labour aren't really promising any major changes to current policies on tax or immigration, just more competence and less dishonesty.
I'm off fir an evening ride but sounds like the debate might be spicy!
https://twitter.com/petercardwell/status/1800945015872479391?t=aIvaFbhUwxoHzsmX_3HS7Q&s=19
Farage only appeals to a poorly educated subset.
Rubbish. Plenty of public school educated right-wingers with professional backgrounds are massive supporters of Nigel Farage, the Tory Party for a start is full of them.
So the question remains if the Tories are going to lose the general election because they aren't right-wing enough why is it Labour which is expected to win a landslide not Reform UK?
Whatever your views of the current Labour Party no sane person believes that they are now more right-wing than the Tories.
Rishi: English schools are the best in the UK.
Plenty of public school educated right-wingers with professional backgrounds
Probably some of our Nige’s old classmates in that description.
