Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LC0112G]

I couldn't agree more.
And are they really going to put VAT up to over 20 % ?
Growth and realistic public spending is the only answer.

But how are you going to cover the short term shortfall? Growth (even at 2-3%) won't cover a 10% overspend this year, or next year or the year after, and there is no realistic prospect of real public spending cuts either.

Education is 11% of current spending. Are you really proposing to close all the schools and sack all the teachers? Or pensions - 28% of spending, so cut current state pensions from £155p/w to £100 p/w? Or scrap all defence (8% of public spending)?.

There is no realistic way of balancing the books without increasing taxes.

[LC0112G]

I'm surprised at this, just 15% of the working population pays the 40% band? 

Grauniad figures from 2014 :

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/27/how-many-pay-top-rate-of-income-tax-uk

[tunnie]

I'm surprised at this, just 15% of the working population pays the 40% band? 

Grauniad figures from 2014 :

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/27/how-many-pay-top-rate-of-income-tax-uk

Amazing how London distorts the picture I guess, I have 6 people in my team, all of which are on the 40% band. I'm one of 180 in the department under a Head Of - Fairly sure every single one is in 40% band, along with around 3 or 4 in the 1%.

[Andy B]

I'm surprised at this, just 15% of the working population pays the 40% band? 

Likewise ...... lies, damned lies & statistics I suspect. 

[Mister Rog]

Strikes me that this is just an attempt at blatant bribery.

Over the decades various governments have bribed the electorate with give aways, which is why we have built up such an impractical and unaffordable benefits system, but this one smacks of desperation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39682388

[TheBoy]

I'm surprised at this, just 15% of the working population pays the 40% band? 

Grauniad figures from 2014 :

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/27/how-many-pay-top-rate-of-income-tax-uk

Amazing how London distorts the picture I guess, I have 6 people in my team, all of which are on the 40% band. I'm one of 180 in the department under a Head Of - Fairly sure every single one is in 40% band, along with around 3 or 4 in the 1%.

I'd suggest that even in Londonium, the vast, vast majority of people are standard rate tax payers.

You're seeing a skewed view because what you currently do is specialist, new(ish) and in an area where the company believes investing in - much like our network contractors 15yrs ago, commanding £80-100ph. Every car in the carpark was new, fast and semi exotic. Then it became more mainstream, so they  became lest valuable. Much less valuable.


Remember, the average salary remains at mid twenties K.  So for all those higher rate tax payers earning £20k over the average, there has to be 4 £20k pa workers.

[STEMO]

Harking back to my post about tax rises if the tories are re-elected, I don't think you saw my point. I might agree that things have to be paid for, but the real question here is one of trust. As I said in an even earlier post, there are people who will see the calling of a snap election as an excuse to renege on earlier promises of keeping the triple lock and no rises in tax till 2020, (along with a cabinet clearout by the sound of things), hidden behind a smokescreen of brexit.
I'm starting to see it as opportunism, thinking that the present showing in the polls gives them the chance to get in with a sizeable majority, even with unpopular policies.

[tunnie]

Also banks her in for 5 years, with potentially 3 years post brexit to get things sorted for another term. It's a brave move, with high risk. But I cannot see huge amounts of Tory consistiancies switchig to Labour.

I think in England she will loose a few to Lib Dems, but gain a few in Scotland.

There is also the point of do Labour MP's want to win? This is their chance to get rid of Corbyn, which they have been trying to do ever since he was elected as leader.

[RobG]

the calling of a snap election as an excuse to renege on earlier promises of keeping the triple lock and no rises in tax till 2020

Nail on the head Steve, can`t see any other reason

[Doctor Gollum]

Labours position is somewhat ironic given that they elected the cod faced loon into the position

[LC0112G]

Harking back to my post about tax rises if the tories are re-elected, I don't think you saw my point. I might agree that things have to be paid for, but the real question here is one of trust. As I said in an even earlier post, there are people who will see the calling of a snap election as an excuse to renege on earlier promises of keeping the triple lock and no rises in tax till 2020, (along with a cabinet clearout by the sound of things), hidden behind a smokescreen of brexit.
I'm starting to see it as opportunism, thinking that the present showing in the polls gives them the chance to get in with a sizeable majority, even with unpopular policies.

But, all those promises were in the Conservative 2015 manifesto. Thats in the past. We're yet to see any of the parties 2017 manifestos, but it's those that we'll be voting on. You can argue that the current govt have realised that the 2015 commitments are unsustainable, and are seeking public approval (via a general election) to change them. What could be more democratic?

If no tax rises and maintaining the triple lock are the most important things to you, then vote for a party with those things in their 2017 manifesto. However I suspect it'll have to be someone like the Monster Raving Loony party, because they're the only ones who think such policies are sustainable.

[STEMO]

So...a whole two years ago...when remaining was certainty. I still think it's opportunistic, and an election would not have been called if the polls were closer. But we can discuss it to death on here, the proof of the pudding will be in seven weeks, and a lot can happen in seven weeks.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

I think the major reason she called this election is the fact that quite a few Tory MP,s are close to being prosecuted for electoral fraud.
This story has been bubbling since a few days after the last election, mainly due to it being  utterly blatant in Thanet south,but looks like it will come to a head soon.
It could easily leave her with no commons majority and the embarrassment of a dozen or more of her MP,s standing trial, or at least having to resign and standing in by elections.
If they win their seats fair and square this time around, the establishment may well sweep the whole thing under the carpet as it will no longer be in the public interest to proceed with it.

[STEMO]

But, as the beast of Bolsover said, they shouldn't be allowed to stand. Election fraud is a criminal offence, not something to be 'swept under the carpet'.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Very true in principal, but when did the establishment let principal get in the way of them making sure their boat doesn't get seriously rocked. In fact, that's pretty much how they got themselves into this problem in the first place.
The electoral commission have been told over and over again that this was happening for quite a few years now, but they completely ignored it until things got so bad and so obvious at the last election that it couldn't be ignored any longer.