Blair punks Red Ed

DonDaddyD

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danho ... ry-debate/

Tory's are gonna win the next election aren't they?

Koncordski

DonDaddyD wrote:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100211660/tony-blairs-critique-of-ed-miliband-is-harsh-but-accurate-labour-has-left-itself-on-the-wrong-side-of-every-debate/

Tory's are gonna win the next election aren't they?

I hope so, I'd rather have the 'nasty' party with a slight grip on fiscal reality than Ed Balls and a blank chequebook. :roll:

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

Tory's are gonna win the next election aren't they?

No. But they'll still be in power.

Imagine the Grand National if every horse were to fall. That's the next election.

DonDaddyD

If the choice is between:

5% reduction in tax for top earners and the removal of benefits for disabled people.

And

Labour or Lib Dem

And the former is the preferred choice followed worryingly by an even more right wing party in UKIP. Then would the last person out please turn off the lights?

Paul E

DonDaddyD wrote:

If the choice is between:

5% reduction in tax for top earners and the removal of benefits for disabled people.

Over simplified and misleading...

The Rookie

DonDaddyD wrote:

If the choice is between:

5% reduction in tax for top earners and the removal of benefits for disabled people.

And

Labour or Lib Dem

And the former is the preferred choice followed worryingly by an even more right wing party in UKIP. Then would the last person out please turn off the lights?

No need, I'm staying.

However if the 'spend spend spend' party get in (New Labour, Old Labour spending habits), I'll leave you to pay the bills for the next 50 years.....

DonDaddyD

The Beginner wrote:

No need, I'm staying.

However if the 'spend spend spend' party get in (New Labour, Old Labour spending habits), I'll leave you to pay the bills for the next 50 years.....

Its a tough one and I am yet again torn. Its unthinkable to vote Labour and f*ck the Lib Dems, they sold out for a speck of power...

The Country needs a cultural shift, yes. The Tories appear hell bent on driving that, good thing.

However, many of the decisions taken by the Tories/coalition seem flawed, rushed, ill-thought out and frankly lazy. Means tested disability for example: So a diabled person is deemed fit to work and loses their (or part of their) disability allowance. It doesn't take into consideration that employers are going to actually employ a disabled person, what with having to (supposedly) having to make special dispensation for their disabilities. It doesn't acknowledge the stigma they face in the working World from colleagues and employers.

Or, how about child benefit favouring households where both parents earn a combined income of over £50,000 whereas a household with one parent earning £50,000 loses out.

Housing cap in London [which has led to people being shipped to the wastelands of the North] should have been followed by a rent cap for major cities to ward off property greed.

Then there is legal aid - everyone should have a right to legal representation, right? Only if you can afford it. The Tories removed access to legal aid in most cases.

Yes the Country needs changes to its culture, and my right leaning views have been well documented, but I don't agree with the changes this Government has made thus far. This doesn't mean I am not Labour, I could, for example, vote Boris...

As for the party formerly known as Labour, they really do stand for nothing anymore. I can't even comment on their deficit reduction plan or any other policy fo that matter. Honestly, what does Labour stand for? Unions, young people, ethnic minorities, small business, what!? Where the f*ck are the socialist/liberal parties? It's actually amazing how sh*t they have become.

BigJimmyB

DonDaddyD wrote:

Means tested disability for example: So a diabled person is deemed fit to work and loses their (or part of their) disability allowance. It doesn't take into consideration that employers are going to actually employ a disabled person, what with having to (supposedly) having to make special dispensation for their disabilities. It doesn't acknowledge the stigma they face in the working World from colleagues and employers.

Might not be too scathing. I have a friend who lost all toes on one foot. He's not 'disabled' really, apart from suffering in the damp and cold with scar tissue. Compared to a wheelchair user.....

So I think it should be means tested.

BTW - he works and has done since he was able to, about 6 months after the op (a large machine bounced out of it's support and landed on his foot, then slid and pulled his toes off - ouch!)

DonDaddyD wrote:

Or, how about child benefit favouring households where both parents earn a combined income of over £50,000 whereas a household with one parent earning £50,000 loses out.

I've fallen foul of this myself.

Although I earn over the cap, my wife earns nothing (stay at home mum, to work would just about pay for childcare, so we agreed it would be better for our 3yo twins to have mum at home rather than go to a childminder).

Two of my friends and their wives earn about £500 below the cap each, so joint income is WAY higher than ours. And they've kept it.

That said, we're not on the streets so I'm peeved but if helps us (UK) out of the mire, so be it.

TheStone

DonDaddyD wrote:

Or, how about child benefit favouring households where both parents earn a combined income of over £50,000 whereas a household with one parent earning £50,000 loses out.

They should have just scrapped it. Add it back into tax credits for those that need it.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Housing cap in London [which has led to people being shipped to the wastelands of the North] should have been followed by a rent cap for major cities to ward off property greed.

40% of the rental market in London is housing benefit. It's a benefit for landlords and needed to be cut. It was a Labour policy too.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Then there is legal aid - everyone should have a right to legal representation, right? Only if you can afford it. The Tories removed access to legal aid in most cases.

LawyerAid. I was shocked to learn it was available for civil cases too!!!


None of them are worth voting for. Country needs a major shake up and the current choices are not going to do it.

CiB

DonDaddyD wrote:

Or, how about child benefit favouring households where both parents earn a combined income of over £50,000 whereas a household with one parent earning £50,000 loses out.

You really do have to question whether a household with an income around £50000 really does need the extra bit of state-aid called CB. It's the welfare state, not a top-up, and there's no money left - Labour admitted it when they were blown out.

Losing out? Family income exceeds £50k and dropping £15 a week is 'losing out'?

<Wanders off again...>

DonDaddyD

BigJimmyB wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Means tested disability for example: So a diabled person is deemed fit to work and loses their (or part of their) disability allowance. It doesn't take into consideration that employers are going to actually employ a disabled person, what with having to (supposedly) having to make special dispensation for their disabilities. It doesn't acknowledge the stigma they face in the working World from colleagues and employers.

Might not be too scathing. I have a friend who lost all toes on one foot. He's not 'disabled' really, apart from suffering in the damp and cold with scar tissue. Compared to a wheelchair user.....

So I think it should be means tested.

BTW - he works and has done since he was able to, about 6 months after the op (a large machine bounced out of it's support and landed on his foot, then slid and pulled his toes off - ouch!)

And what of those whose disabilities are visible, and are often overlooked regardless of ability, for an able bodied person. Just ask yourself this, how many visibly diabled people are in your office, your building right now? How many do you encounter while they are at work. Many of them would work but face prejudice when applying for work. There are, for example, a lot more disabled people working for charities regardless of whether the charity relates to them directly or not.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be means tested, it should. However, what I am saying is that enough isn't being done to fight the stigma around employing a disabled person, and this is indicative of the Governments ill-thought out policies that clearly haven't been thought all the way through.

I've fallen foul of this myself.

Although I earn over the cap, my wife earns nothing (stay at home mum, to work would just about pay for childcare, so we agreed it would be better for our 3yo twins to have mum at home rather than go to a childminder).

Two of my friends and their wives earn about £500 below the cap each, so joint income is WAY higher than ours. And they've kept it.

That said, we're not on the streets so I'm peeved but if helps us (UK) out of the mire, so be it.

Your last sentenced is besides the point. The point is that if you are going to enforce a policy it should be watertight and not so obviously and illegitimately disadvantage a large proportion of people.

Don't get me started on legal aid or the wasteful £2billion NHS reform. It basically changed commissioning into a more complex structure that functions almost exactly like the system it replaced.

But more annoying than the above is the inept buffoons in opposition who can't seem to defend their socialist/liberal beliefs by mounting a well reasoned challenge, argument or point in the face of these watered down Tories. Honestly, they're taking themselves to task.

On the way to punching Osborne in the face I'd kick Ed Balls in the fanny.

tailwindhome

CiB wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Or, how about child benefit favouring households where both parents earn a combined income of over £50,000 whereas a household with one parent earning £50,000 loses out.

You really do have to question whether a household with an income around £50000 really does need the extra bit of state-aid called CB. It's the welfare state, not a top-up, and there's no money left - Labour admitted it when they were blown out.

Losing out? Family income exceeds £50k and dropping £15 a week is 'losing out'?

<Wanders off again...>

Meh! It's a clumsy tax adjustment for those with kids and the extra expense that entails.

Need is irrelevant.

Do you 'need' your personal allowance?

DonDaddyD

TheStone wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Or, how about child benefit favouring households where both parents earn a combined income of over £50,000 whereas a household with one parent earning £50,000 loses out.

They should have just scrapped it. Add it back into tax credits for those that need it.

I agree, the decision they fell upon, which is moronic, is more annoying than anything else.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Housing cap in London [which has led to people being shipped to the wastelands of the North] should have been followed by a rent cap for major cities to ward off property greed.

40% of the rental market in London is housing benefit. It's a benefit for landlords and needed to be cut. It was a Labour policy too.

But with a rent cap dependant on the size/number of bedrooms, then the Government could have exerted some measure of control over the amount it would need to give each housing benefit claimant, while giving assurances that the housing benefit money was enough (or a percentage of) the rent that person would need.

A rent cap might have stabalized property prices. This is needed for new small businesses unable to start up because of extortionate rent prices. It could have acted as a deterrent from foreign investors, by to-let greed as well.

By having it unmanaged the rental market in high demand areas is open to insane and extortionate rises. (The house next door to me is being rented at £3,500 a month.

LawyerAid. I was shocked to learn it was available for civil cases too!!!

One word, disgusting. I can't believe there wasn't more protesting about this. Watch our civil courts get clogged up with cases where people try to represent themselves, going in thinking its all Ally McBeal. What worries me is that on one had the Government are saying no NHS cover-ups, what do you think will happen when cases of clinical failure are taken to court and the victim or their family cannot afford the legal costs or fight the well seasoned might of the NHS lawyers.

CiB wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Or, how about child benefit favouring households where both parents earn a combined income of over £50,000 whereas a household with one parent earning £50,000 loses out.

You really do have to question whether a household with an income around £50000 really does need the extra bit of state-aid called CB. It's the welfare state, not a top-up, and there's no money left - Labour admitted it when they were blown out.

Losing out? Family income exceeds £50k and dropping £15 a week is 'losing out'?

<Wanders off again...>

The point isn't about losing it or keeping it. I'm pointing out that the policy itself is flawed and I think we should expect more from our Government.

TheStone

DonDaddyD wrote:

But with a rent cap dependant on the size/number of bedrooms, then the Government could have exerted some measure of control over the amount it would need to give each housing benefit claimant, while giving assurances that the housing benefit money was enough (or a percentage of) the rent that person would need.

A rent cap might have stabalized property prices. This is needed for new small businesses unable to start up because of extortionate rent prices. It could have acted as a deterrent from foreign investors, by to-let greed as well.

By having it unmanaged the rental market in high demand areas is open to insane and extortionate rises. (The house next door to me is being rented at £3,500 a month.

Rent caps are bad. They lead to a lack of properties available and the standard drops considerably as there's no point making your place better.

Rents also have very little correlation to property prices (as can be seen over the last 15 years in London). Property prices correlate to amount of money available to borrow. This government and the last are doing everything possible to keep that increasing!!

bigmat

CiB wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Or, how about child benefit favouring households where both parents earn a combined income of over £50,000 whereas a household with one parent earning £50,000 loses out.

You really do have to question whether a household with an income around £50000 really does need the extra bit of state-aid called CB. It's the welfare state, not a top-up, and there's no money left - Labour admitted it when they were blown out.

Losing out? Family income exceeds £50k and dropping £15 a week is 'losing out'?

<Wanders off again...>

I think the concern about this is the cack-handed manner it has been dealt with, doesn't inspire confidence in the bigger decisions.

TheStone

BigMat wrote:

I think the concern about this is the cack-handed manner it has been dealt with, doesn't inspire confidence in the bigger decisions.

The way they've dealt with everything has been poor.
Likewise the last government.

Somehow, a great big pile of idiots have got control of both (all three) sides of politics.
I present Gideon and Balls as my main evidence.

davmaggs

TheStone wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

But with a rent cap dependant on the size/number of bedrooms, then the Government could have exerted some measure of control over the amount it would need to give each housing benefit claimant, while giving assurances that the housing benefit money was enough (or a percentage of) the rent that person would need.

A rent cap might have stabalized property prices. This is needed for new small businesses unable to start up because of extortionate rent prices. It could have acted as a deterrent from foreign investors, by to-let greed as well.

By having it unmanaged the rental market in high demand areas is open to insane and extortionate rises. (The house next door to me is being rented at £3,500 a month.

Rent caps are bad. They lead to a lack of properties available and the standard drops considerably as there's no point making your place better.

Rents also have very little correlation to property prices (as can be seen over the last 15 years in London). Property prices correlate to amount of money available to borrow. This government and the last are doing everything possible to keep that increasing!!

There's already a booming trade in benefit recipients sub-letting (see recent Southwark investigations). Rent controls simply mean that the people who got a tenancy at a certain time or through connections are set for life (Oxo tower and flats around the west end are like this), and everybody who comes after them pays for it.

Koncordski

DonDaddyD wrote:

If the choice is between:

5% reduction in tax for top earners and the removal of benefits for disabled people.

If you genuinely and i mean genuinely believe that cutting the top rate of tax is a bad thing for the country and tax revenues then you need to do some research. The higher you make the top rate, the less money you will recover as more people will simply practice legal avoidance.

Dropping the rate will increase revenues and prevent future avoidance. Look at the 75% rate that Hollande is determined to implement in France, will that raise more money for the french treasury, no it will raise far less than at present.

It's cheap ideological posturing, it allows those on the left a soundbite to use on news bulletins and that's about it. What worries me is that people like you are drinking the Kool-Aid. :shock:

CiB

Have a look at the Laffer Curve, which posits that there is an optimum tax rate that brings in the most income, before dismissing all tax cuts as evil and only for the benefit of toffs.

rjsterry

Koncordski wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

If the choice is between:

5% reduction in tax for top earners and the removal of benefits for disabled people.

If you genuinely and i mean genuinely believe that cutting the top rate of tax is a bad thing for the country and tax revenues then you need to do some research. The higher you make the top rate, the less money you will recover as more people will simply practice legal avoidance.

Dropping the rate will increase revenues and prevent future avoidance. Look at the 75% rate that Hollande is determined to implement in France, will that raise more money for the french treasury, no it will raise far less than at present.

It's cheap ideological posturing, it allows those on the left a soundbite to use on news bulletins and that's about it. What worries me is that people like you are drinking the Kool-Aid. :shock:

While rates need to be set such that people don't just find ways around them, it's not just posturing to balance that against calibrating the tax system in a proportionate way. As for soundbites, show me a politician that doesn't use them to push an agenda.

DonDaddyD

Koncordski wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

If the choice is between:

5% reduction in tax for top earners and the removal of benefits for disabled people.

If you genuinely and i mean genuinely believe that cutting the top rate of tax is a bad thing for the country and tax revenues then you need to do some research. The higher you make the top rate, the less money you will recover as more people will simply practice legal avoidance.

Dropping the rate will increase revenues and prevent future avoidance. Look at the 75% rate that Hollande is determined to implement in France, will that raise more money for the french treasury, no it will raise far less than at present.

It's cheap ideological posturing, it allows those on the left a soundbite to use on news bulletins and that's about it. What worries me is that people like you are drinking the Kool-Aid. :shock:

Any Government that seeks to take half or more than half of a persons taxable income is a Government I'm willing to b*tch slap. I think the lowering is a good thing.

However, it is about balance and this one is a little 'benefit the rich - heavy'. Where are the assissted places to get talented/brainy poor kids into private schooling? Balance the books.

Furthermore I don't agree with this Government's ideological march to punish the general populous for 13 years of Labour. The numbers and the rationale don't add up. I've already pointed out that I accepted things need to change and at this stage change is a good thing. Any-change, however, will not do and I grow tired of the ill-thought out, hamfisted lazy policies this Government has dealt out.

Disagreeing with this Coalition Government doesn't automatically make me a Red Ed fan.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

Koncordski wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

If the choice is between:

5% reduction in tax for top earners and the removal of benefits for disabled people.

If you genuinely and i mean genuinely believe that cutting the top rate of tax is a bad thing for the country and tax revenues then you need to do some research. The higher you make the top rate, the less money you will recover as more people will simply practice legal avoidance.

Dropping the rate will increase revenues and prevent future avoidance. Look at the 75% rate that Hollande is determined to implement in France, will that raise more money for the french treasury, no it will raise far less than at present.

It's cheap ideological posturing, it allows those on the left a soundbite to use on news bulletins and that's about it. What worries me is that people like you are drinking the Kool-Aid. :shock:

Any Government that seeks to take half or more than half of a persons taxable income is a Government I'm willing to b*tch slap. I think the lowering is a good thing.

However, it is about balance and this one is a little 'benefit the rich - heavy'. Where are the assissted places to get talented/brainy poor kids into private schooling? Balance the books.

Furthermore I don't agree with this Government's ideological march to punish the general populous for 13 years of Labour. The numbers and the rationale don't add up. I've already pointed out that I accepted things need to change and at this stage change is a good thing. Any-change, however, will not do and I grow tired of the ill-thought out, hamfisted lazy policies this Government has dealt out.

Disagreeing with this Coalition Government doesn't automatically make me a Red Ed fan.

OT, but if they are brainy, they don't really need to go to private school.

<pulls out pin and runs>

rick_chasey

Boom.

rjsterry

More of a phut, really

TheStone

DonDaddyD wrote:

Any Government that seeks to take half or more than half of a persons taxable income is a Government I'm willing to b*tch slap. I think the lowering is a good thing.

Where do you stop counting?
Income tax 45%, NI 2% and the employer has already been hit 13.8% ENI, which successive governments have been hiding income tax rises in.

Spend what's left on a vatable goods and 63.5% of what you employer has paid for you has gone to the state.
... plus council tax etc..

PBo

Some REALLY shoddy thinking and arguing going on here.....

1) laffer curve is a theoretical model, and whilst I don't think anyone disagrees with the notion that there is a point at which high tax rates lead to less revenue, there isn't a fixed tipping point. Recent paper cited, from 2009, suggests US/Europe to the left of the maximum! ie rates could be increased without loss. Not saying this is correct or not-just pointing out that if you want to toss laffer curve in the the debate, do so properly.

2) "more than 50% of taxable pay". Why taxable pay? What if tax allowances where really high but tax rates were high too? 30k tax free and 60% rate is the same tax as 10k and 20% for those on 40k. I suggest that all income should be included. Also, that 50% figure is based on nothing other than a gut feeling that its the right one. If state was much more efficient, and people didn't need to buy private education/health services etc., and lets say that utilities were state owned and subsidised, so our energy bills where lower...would 50 still be the magic number?

3) "63.5%" really? How did you get this? Can you really count ENI? You do not spend even close to what's left on VATable goods. 45 is only marginal. Even on about 70k effective rate is much less....

4) the 50k child benefit thing brings equality/fairness into play. It's not whether people need it or not that causes irritation, it's the 2x40 get it, the 1x50 doesn't that's the issue. That's more important than what the actual rates are. I see your laffer curve and raise you the Gini index. Before taxes, as an example, uk income is more evenly distributed than say France, Germany and Spain, but after tax less so. I don't have any references, but I'm pretty sure I've read in the past that studies show inequality causes more resentment than the actual tax rates. I think this is important from a government that used the catch phrase " we're all in this together" before spending a lot of money on the funeral of someone who UNDENIABLY polarised the country, irrespective of which side one sits on.

So, I'm not even arguing one way or the other, just pointing out some weak arguments.

TheStone

PBo wrote:

3) "63.5%" really? How did you get this? Can you really count ENI? You do not spend even close to what's left on VATable goods. 45 is only marginal. Even on about 70k effective rate is much less....

My 63.5% example is marginal and an extreme example.
But ENI should definitely be included. It really is just income tax. The fact that your employer pays it before you see it is why the government have enjoyed using it so much. It's the same cheque to the same place.

tailwindhome

PBo wrote:

Some REALLY shoddy thinking and arguing going on here......

JESUS NO! AND ON THE INTERNET TOO!!!

bigmat

PBo wrote:

Some REALLY shoddy thinking and arguing going on here.....

1) laffer curve is a theoretical model, and whilst I don't think anyone disagrees with the notion that there is a point at which high tax rates lead to less revenue, there isn't a fixed tipping point. Recent paper cited, from 2009, suggests US/Europe to the left of the maximum! ie rates could be increased without loss. Not saying this is correct or not-just pointing out that if you want to toss laffer curve in the the debate, do so properly.

2) "more than 50% of taxable pay". Why taxable pay? What if tax allowances where really high but tax rates were high too? 30k tax free and 60% rate is the same tax as 10k and 20% for those on 40k. I suggest that all income should be included. Also, that 50% figure is based on nothing other than a gut feeling that its the right one. If state was much more efficient, and people didn't need to buy private education/health services etc., and lets say that utilities were state owned and subsidised, so our energy bills where lower...would 50 still be the magic number?

3) "63.5%" really? How did you get this? Can you really count ENI? You do not spend even close to what's left on VATable goods. 45 is only marginal. Even on about 70k effective rate is much less....

4) the 50k child benefit thing brings equality/fairness into play. It's not whether people need it or not that causes irritation, it's the 2x40 get it, the 1x50 doesn't that's the issue. That's more important than what the actual rates are. I see your laffer curve and raise you the Gini index. Before taxes, as an example, uk income is more evenly distributed than say France, Germany and Spain, but after tax less so. I don't have any references, but I'm pretty sure I've read in the past that studies show inequality causes more resentment than the actual tax rates. I think this is important from a government that used the catch phrase " we're all in this together" before spending a lot of money on the funeral of someone who UNDENIABLY polarised the country, irrespective of which side one sits on.

So, I'm not even arguing one way or the other, just pointing out some weak arguments.

Good post.

bigmat

TheStone wrote:

PBo wrote:

3) "63.5%" really? How did you get this? Can you really count ENI? You do not spend even close to what's left on VATable goods. 45 is only marginal. Even on about 70k effective rate is much less....

My 63.5% example is marginal and an extreme example.
But ENI should definitely be included. It really is just income tax. The fact that your employer pays it before you see it is why the government have enjoyed using it so much. It's the same cheque to the same place.

Its not really a tax on you though, its a tax on your employer. Otherwise you could list all taxes your employer has to pay on the basis that this reduces the amount they have available to pay you with. If there was no / lower ENI I'm not convinced that cut would find its way into my pay packet!

TheStone

BigMat wrote:

Its not really a tax on you though, its a tax on your employer. Otherwise you could list all taxes your employer has to pay on the basis that this reduces the amount they have available to pay you with. If there was no / lower ENI I'm not convinced that cut would find its way into my pay packet!

They could half wages and make ENI 100% of those wages. Then we wouldn't have to pay any tax!
It's all the same thing, just hidden.

VAT is different as it's a sales/consumption tax
And corporation tax is on the profits left over after costs including employment, which is wages + ENI (and some other stuff)