LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Angrily agreeing is how I would put itkingstongraham said:
I think you're arguing against something that nobody has said.rjsterry said:
Sure, but that's inflation. You are still better off than notnot having the pay rise.kingstongraham said:
If you can't buy as much with the money you have, then you are worse off.rjsterry said:
What?! This is proper through the looking glass stuff.morstar said:
As someone who has been very critical of the freezing and who gets the implications I’m not sure your interpretation is fair.surrey_commuter said:
I increasingly think that the majority of people have no understanding of taxation. People write about the freezing of the tax allowance as moving them above the threshoold and them being worse off as if they pay tax on the full £12kbriantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Bit of a twitter graph. Why under 3s, it has been the case for 3 and 4 year olds for some time. Also, I don't think the subsidy can be £10k per child. It is around a 1000 and the government definitely doesn't pay £10 an hour.briantrumpet said:A lot of people latched onto Dan Neidle for who he dug into the detail on Zahawi, but I think his takes on tax in general are interesting, especially when talking about marginal tax rates, and things that end up with perverse results. Just as a for instance...
Also, it needs both parents to be in work to apply, so the reference to single earner is odd.
Nonetheless, a single parent with under 5s doesn't want to earn above £100k.
As a complete nincompoop about tax, I will defer to others' criticisms of his analyses, but he does seem to approach the subject with sensible questions, and isn't (as far as I can tell) approaching it with a partisan slant, but rather wanting to make the system work better by having fewer anomalies.
If I’m a low earner at 12,570 pa and struggling. Say inflation is 10% and I somehow wing a 10% wage increase.
Static tax bands have taken 32% of what was an inflation neutral rise.
My take home is higher but I am worse off.
Same logic applies at 40% band.
How is that not increasing the tax burden? It also disproportionately affects lower earners.
Your take home pay is the only bit that is yours.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
How many anecdotes does it take to become a fact?rjsterry said:A good time to remind everyone that the Laffer curve is a fundamentally useless theory and empirical evidence suggests the curve is much more lopsided than it's fans would like. Laffer himself received large payments to promote his theory from politicians.
Everybody on here discusses how to avoid paying 60% marginal tax and jumps through the necessary hoops. Why would the rest of the world not be thinking the same way?
How many doctors have to retire early becuase of high marginal tax rates for the laffer curve not to be a "fundamentally useless theory"
£40bn a year in pension contribution tax rebates suggests people actively mitigate high marginal tax rates.0 -
Ok, fair enough. Wasn’t getting that point from your post.surrey_commuter said:
I don't disagree with any of that but people talk and act like they will be worse off by falling into the higher tax category as if it is a slab like the old stamp duty.morstar said:
As someone who has been very critical of the freezing and who gets the implications I’m not sure your interpretation is fair.surrey_commuter said:
I increasingly think that the majority of people have no understanding of taxation. People write about the freezing of the tax allowance as moving them above the threshoold and them being worse off as if they pay tax on the full £12kbriantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Bit of a twitter graph. Why under 3s, it has been the case for 3 and 4 year olds for some time. Also, I don't think the subsidy can be £10k per child. It is around a 1000 and the government definitely doesn't pay £10 an hour.briantrumpet said:A lot of people latched onto Dan Neidle for who he dug into the detail on Zahawi, but I think his takes on tax in general are interesting, especially when talking about marginal tax rates, and things that end up with perverse results. Just as a for instance...
Also, it needs both parents to be in work to apply, so the reference to single earner is odd.
Nonetheless, a single parent with under 5s doesn't want to earn above £100k.
As a complete nincompoop about tax, I will defer to others' criticisms of his analyses, but he does seem to approach the subject with sensible questions, and isn't (as far as I can tell) approaching it with a partisan slant, but rather wanting to make the system work better by having fewer anomalies.
If I’m a low earner at 12,570 pa and struggling. Say inflation is 10% and I somehow wing a 10% wage increase.
Static tax bands have taken 32% of what was an inflation neutral rise.
My take home is higher but I am worse off.
Same logic applies at 40% band.
How is that not increasing the tax burden? It also disproportionately affects lower earners.0 -
Turns out that they could only find about 100 doctors who had retired early to avoid the tax thresholds.surrey_commuter said:
How many anecdotes does it take to become a fact?rjsterry said:A good time to remind everyone that the Laffer curve is a fundamentally useless theory and empirical evidence suggests the curve is much more lopsided than it's fans would like. Laffer himself received large payments to promote his theory from politicians.
Everybody on here discusses how to avoid paying 60% marginal tax and jumps through the necessary hoops. Why would the rest of the world not be thinking the same way?
How many doctors have to retire early becuase of high marginal tax rates for the laffer curve not to be a "fundamentally useless theory"
£40bn a year in pension contribution tax rebates suggests people actively mitigate high marginal tax rates.
What you have described is just people putting off paying taxes.
Of course, anomalies cause undesired effects and they should be removed but that's not really anything to do with there being a supposed optimum rate to maximise receipts, let alone being able to determine what that rate is.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yes, but inflation is why the static tax bands represent increasing taxation which disproportionately hurts low earners.rjsterry said:
Sure, but that's inflation. You are still better off than notnot having the pay rise.kingstongraham said:
If you can't buy as much with the money you have, then you are worse off.rjsterry said:
What?! This is proper through the looking glass stuff.morstar said:
As someone who has been very critical of the freezing and who gets the implications I’m not sure your interpretation is fair.surrey_commuter said:
I increasingly think that the majority of people have no understanding of taxation. People write about the freezing of the tax allowance as moving them above the threshoold and them being worse off as if they pay tax on the full £12kbriantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Bit of a twitter graph. Why under 3s, it has been the case for 3 and 4 year olds for some time. Also, I don't think the subsidy can be £10k per child. It is around a 1000 and the government definitely doesn't pay £10 an hour.briantrumpet said:A lot of people latched onto Dan Neidle for who he dug into the detail on Zahawi, but I think his takes on tax in general are interesting, especially when talking about marginal tax rates, and things that end up with perverse results. Just as a for instance...
Also, it needs both parents to be in work to apply, so the reference to single earner is odd.
Nonetheless, a single parent with under 5s doesn't want to earn above £100k.
As a complete nincompoop about tax, I will defer to others' criticisms of his analyses, but he does seem to approach the subject with sensible questions, and isn't (as far as I can tell) approaching it with a partisan slant, but rather wanting to make the system work better by having fewer anomalies.
If I’m a low earner at 12,570 pa and struggling. Say inflation is 10% and I somehow wing a 10% wage increase.
Static tax bands have taken 32% of what was an inflation neutral rise.
My take home is higher but I am worse off.
Same logic applies at 40% band.
How is that not increasing the tax burden? It also disproportionately affects lower earners.
Your take home pay is the only bit that is yours.0 -
I think the Tories need to recognise they also have an anti-Semitic problem0 -
Just listening in on the Bojo inquest on the radio. Blathering in circles as usual.0
-
Mainly a truth problem, as the answer to the question is no.rick_chasey said:
I think the Tories need to recognise they also have an anti-Semitic problem0 -
*If* you get a pay rise. If your pay doesn't go up, you feel the full force of inflation, but no extra tax is taken. If you do get a pay rise, you will feel slightly less effect from inflation, pay a little more tax, but still be better off than if you hadn't received the pay rise.morstar said:
Yes, but inflation is why the static tax bands represent increasing taxation which disproportionately hurts low earners.rjsterry said:
Sure, but that's inflation. You are still better off than notnot having the pay rise.kingstongraham said:
If you can't buy as much with the money you have, then you are worse off.rjsterry said:
What?! This is proper through the looking glass stuff.morstar said:
As someone who has been very critical of the freezing and who gets the implications I’m not sure your interpretation is fair.surrey_commuter said:
I increasingly think that the majority of people have no understanding of taxation. People write about the freezing of the tax allowance as moving them above the threshoold and them being worse off as if they pay tax on the full £12kbriantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Bit of a twitter graph. Why under 3s, it has been the case for 3 and 4 year olds for some time. Also, I don't think the subsidy can be £10k per child. It is around a 1000 and the government definitely doesn't pay £10 an hour.briantrumpet said:A lot of people latched onto Dan Neidle for who he dug into the detail on Zahawi, but I think his takes on tax in general are interesting, especially when talking about marginal tax rates, and things that end up with perverse results. Just as a for instance...
Also, it needs both parents to be in work to apply, so the reference to single earner is odd.
Nonetheless, a single parent with under 5s doesn't want to earn above £100k.
As a complete nincompoop about tax, I will defer to others' criticisms of his analyses, but he does seem to approach the subject with sensible questions, and isn't (as far as I can tell) approaching it with a partisan slant, but rather wanting to make the system work better by having fewer anomalies.
If I’m a low earner at 12,570 pa and struggling. Say inflation is 10% and I somehow wing a 10% wage increase.
Static tax bands have taken 32% of what was an inflation neutral rise.
My take home is higher but I am worse off.
Same logic applies at 40% band.
How is that not increasing the tax burden? It also disproportionately affects lower earners.
Your take home pay is the only bit that is yours.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Judge him as unreliable and slap the irons on him.secretsqirrel said:Just listening in on the Bojo inquest on the radio. Blathering in circles as usual.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
It seems no cake was eaten at the cake party.0
-
He's going to get himself tied up in knots and lose it.0
-
Have they ascertained that a party took place and that Boris was there?
I mean, surely this is the only requisite.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
It's all a bit of a farce in my view.kingstongraham said:He's going to get himself tied up in knots and lose it.
0 -
Thankfully, it's mainly about only having in person meetings when essential so far, and restricting attendance to those entirely necessary. He claims that leaving drinks where they didn't know who was going to be there complied.pinno said:Have they ascertained that a party took place and that Boris was there?
I mean, surely this is the only requisite.0 -
Just getting to the bit where he was ambushed by a cake.0
-
Couldn't have been expected to know that an event that was also attended by his interior designer could have been anything other than a normal workplace event. Quite telling.0
-
I don’t know what you’re arguing.rjsterry said:
*If* you get a pay rise. If your pay doesn't go up, you feel the full force of inflation, but no extra tax is taken. If you do get a pay rise, you will feel slightly less effect from inflation, pay a little more tax, but still be better off than if you hadn't received the pay rise.morstar said:
Yes, but inflation is why the static tax bands represent increasing taxation which disproportionately hurts low earners.rjsterry said:
Sure, but that's inflation. You are still better off than notnot having the pay rise.kingstongraham said:
If you can't buy as much with the money you have, then you are worse off.rjsterry said:
What?! This is proper through the looking glass stuff.morstar said:
As someone who has been very critical of the freezing and who gets the implications I’m not sure your interpretation is fair.surrey_commuter said:
I increasingly think that the majority of people have no understanding of taxation. People write about the freezing of the tax allowance as moving them above the threshoold and them being worse off as if they pay tax on the full £12kbriantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Bit of a twitter graph. Why under 3s, it has been the case for 3 and 4 year olds for some time. Also, I don't think the subsidy can be £10k per child. It is around a 1000 and the government definitely doesn't pay £10 an hour.briantrumpet said:A lot of people latched onto Dan Neidle for who he dug into the detail on Zahawi, but I think his takes on tax in general are interesting, especially when talking about marginal tax rates, and things that end up with perverse results. Just as a for instance...
Also, it needs both parents to be in work to apply, so the reference to single earner is odd.
Nonetheless, a single parent with under 5s doesn't want to earn above £100k.
As a complete nincompoop about tax, I will defer to others' criticisms of his analyses, but he does seem to approach the subject with sensible questions, and isn't (as far as I can tell) approaching it with a partisan slant, but rather wanting to make the system work better by having fewer anomalies.
If I’m a low earner at 12,570 pa and struggling. Say inflation is 10% and I somehow wing a 10% wage increase.
Static tax bands have taken 32% of what was an inflation neutral rise.
My take home is higher but I am worse off.
Same logic applies at 40% band.
How is that not increasing the tax burden? It also disproportionately affects lower earners.
Your take home pay is the only bit that is yours.
Pay rise is better than no pay rise. Agreed.
Static tax bands effectively increase taxation in an inflationary environment assuming you are fortunate enough to get a pay rise. They are not tax neutral is my point.
Do you disagree? Or am I missing the point you’re trying to make?
0 -
Literally the point of tax rises in an inflationary environment is to take some of your discretionary spending away in order to reduce demand.
*That's the point*0 -
The only tools a government has to help tame inflation is on the demand side, and all of them amount to reducing the amount people spend.
Whether that's making borrowing more expensive (so you are spending more of your money on servicing the debt) or by taxing you more (so you have less money after tax to go out and spend).
This is the rationale behind making rate rises an decision independent from the government, because no politician would be elected on a premise that they will tame inflation by making you poorer but that is what needs to happen.0 -
Ok, I seem to be stuck on this hill.rick_chasey said:Literally the point of tax rises in an inflationary environment is to take some of your discretionary spending away in order to reduce demand.
*That's the point*
The Tories are pretending the static tax bands aren’t a tax rise.
They are and they hurt the low earners disproportionately. Not really targeting discretionary spending.
It’s a bad policy in so many ways unless you are actively trying to remove the tax free allowance. Which is an argument they’re free to make but aren’t doing.0 -
Meanwhile Rees Smug gets screwed as the Windsor framework is voted in with a very clear majority.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
You seemed to state that a pay rise would make you worse off.morstar said:
I don’t know what you’re arguing.rjsterry said:
*If* you get a pay rise. If your pay doesn't go up, you feel the full force of inflation, but no extra tax is taken. If you do get a pay rise, you will feel slightly less effect from inflation, pay a little more tax, but still be better off than if you hadn't received the pay rise.morstar said:
Yes, but inflation is why the static tax bands represent increasing taxation which disproportionately hurts low earners.rjsterry said:
Sure, but that's inflation. You are still better off than notnot having the pay rise.kingstongraham said:
If you can't buy as much with the money you have, then you are worse off.rjsterry said:
What?! This is proper through the looking glass stuff.morstar said:
As someone who has been very critical of the freezing and who gets the implications I’m not sure your interpretation is fair.surrey_commuter said:
I increasingly think that the majority of people have no understanding of taxation. People write about the freezing of the tax allowance as moving them above the threshoold and them being worse off as if they pay tax on the full £12kbriantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Bit of a twitter graph. Why under 3s, it has been the case for 3 and 4 year olds for some time. Also, I don't think the subsidy can be £10k per child. It is around a 1000 and the government definitely doesn't pay £10 an hour.briantrumpet said:A lot of people latched onto Dan Neidle for who he dug into the detail on Zahawi, but I think his takes on tax in general are interesting, especially when talking about marginal tax rates, and things that end up with perverse results. Just as a for instance...
Also, it needs both parents to be in work to apply, so the reference to single earner is odd.
Nonetheless, a single parent with under 5s doesn't want to earn above £100k.
As a complete nincompoop about tax, I will defer to others' criticisms of his analyses, but he does seem to approach the subject with sensible questions, and isn't (as far as I can tell) approaching it with a partisan slant, but rather wanting to make the system work better by having fewer anomalies.
If I’m a low earner at 12,570 pa and struggling. Say inflation is 10% and I somehow wing a 10% wage increase.
Static tax bands have taken 32% of what was an inflation neutral rise.
My take home is higher but I am worse off.
Same logic applies at 40% band.
How is that not increasing the tax burden? It also disproportionately affects lower earners.
Your take home pay is the only bit that is yours.
Pay rise is better than no pay rise. Agreed.
Static tax bands effectively increase taxation in an inflationary environment assuming you are fortunate enough to get a pay rise. They are not tax neutral is my point.
Do you disagree? Or am I missing the point you’re trying to make?
I think it's pretty clear that inflation reduces government ability to procure services as well, so I don't really see a fundamental problem with them looking at ways to increase revenue - one of which is not raising thresholds. The feedback loop is so slow that all governments can do is pull a lever and hope.
Nobody ever seems to think they should be the one paying a bit more.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I mean they pretend that a six percentage point increase is a cut so I wouldn't pay attention to what they say.morstar said:
Ok, I seem to be stuck on this hill.rick_chasey said:Literally the point of tax rises in an inflationary environment is to take some of your discretionary spending away in order to reduce demand.
*That's the point*
The Tories are pretending the static tax bands aren’t a tax rise.
They are and they hurt the low earners disproportionately. Not really targeting discretionary spending.
It’s a bad policy in so many ways unless you are actively trying to remove the tax free allowance. Which is an argument they’re free to make but aren’t doing.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
They are out to establish whether he (knowingly) misled parliament.pinno said:Have they ascertained that a party took place and that Boris was there?
I mean, surely this is the only requisite.
Mr Johnson are you a liar, yes or no?
Yes = confirmed
No = liar.
Job done.2 -
If your pay goes up at the same rate as your spending, and tax goes up more, then you are worse off than you were.
Obviously you'd be worse off to a greater degree if tax went up and pay didn't go up, that's the kind of thing that doesn't need saying.0 -
Apparently notkingstongraham said:If your pay goes up at the same rate as your spending, and tax goes up more, then you are worse off than you were.
Obviously you'd be worse off to a greater degree if tax went up and pay didn't go up, that's the kind of thing that doesn't need saying.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Now his defence seems to be that nobody knew what was going on in number 10.0
-
He has paid the political price for that position by losing his job. That doesn't mean the statement is untrue.kingstongraham said:0
