UKC

Really? I mean, she can't possibly believe that, can she?

"Labour will defy the odds and win a general election “whenever” Theresa May decides it is time to go to the country, Diane Abbott has insisted."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diane-abbott-interview-labour...

In reply to Oceanrower:

Nick Cohen doesn't think so...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/19/jeremy-corbyn-labour-...

In reply to Oceanrower:


Irrespective of what I (or you) think about Abbott, I have never yet met a politician who goes into an election saying that they expect to lose it.

In reply to Oceanrower:

I don't understand politics any more.
I know Corbyns a problem but why are people voting tory? Does anyone think this is a well led country at the moment?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

True, but "to win this election, Labour needs to..." would sound a bit less like grandiose delusion.

In reply to stevieb:

because there is no credible alternative Im afraid.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

A bit unfair I think. Having now read that piece, her comments seem to me to be the usual stuff I'd expect from any politician. Note in particular that the quote above is not a direct quote from her; rather, it's from the reporter's account.

In reply to haworthjim:


This is it. I would never, ever consider voting Tory, but on the other hand Labour absolutely could not govern competently. Since Cameron recklessly destroyed the country - and largely accidentally: not just Brexit but most of the austerity programme was based on a gamble that he'd be in coalition in 2015 and needed to put in a high anchoring bid for cuts - we're in a bit of pickle, aren't we?

I'm going to put in some sort of protest vote at the next election, and spend the next couple of decades pretending it's not happening. I've got the luxury, I'm in a safe job, homeowner, flexible, etc and I could just emigrate if the UK - or England - just doesn't offer the quality of life and type of society I'm looking for. But that's not how things are for most people.

In reply to haworthjim:

Yeah, I know why you're saying that, but since they escaped the coalition, then Tories have been out of control too. They are anything but a safe pair of hands

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Where are you thinking of going?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Canada.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Consider New Zealand too.

In reply to MG:

Aye!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I've got optometry contacts in Canada if you're interested.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I'll respond by PM to try to get the thread back on track...

In reply to stevieb:


I am with you on that. They are wrecking this country. I see in the Grauniad that something like sixty nine percent of people think that income tax for those earning over £150000 should go back up to 50%. and used to support the NHS and other infrastructure. Even a majority of Tories believe this.
Corbyn is certainly not the answer and needs to go for the benefit of all. We need a strong opposition.

In reply to stevieb:

I completely agree and feel absolutely frustrated by the situation.

In reply to Root1:

Isn't the issue with the top rate whether or not it does generate income. I'm all for raising tax revenue for better services, but after a long debate on here I ended up much less convinced that the 50p rate is much more than symbolic - there are probably much better ways to tax those who can afford it (and who aren't paying their "fair share", i.e. they pay a lower rate overall than those who earn/own much less).

Edit: This is a good example of where "dislike" is totally meaningless. Do you mean:

1. Don't agree with raising taxes for higher earners for NHS/infrastructure
2. Don't agree that 50% rate is dubious - this is the best way and should be done
3. Don't like the idea of not being sure whether 50% is a good policy, and changing my mind after discussion
4. Don't like Jon Stewart and click buttons like a 3 year old would

In reply to Root1:
To pay for the kind of NHS and education then I think it needs to be 50% on £50k plus. Then perhaps 60% on pop star level incomes. Also slow whittling down of the zero rate tax threshold. The idea that people can enjoy fantastic service whilst paying almost no tax is the stuff of dreams. That's why public services are in their current mess, there is still an annual deficit and masses of debt. The country has been living beyond its means for several decades.

In reply to Root1:

And what percentage of those 69% are currently paying the 45% rate and would then find themselves paying at 50%?

If it's not zero I'll eat my hat!!

In reply to BnB:

I'm sure you're right, but so what!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I could trot out the perfectly valid argument that the wealthy already pay disproportionately more tax. I could refer you to the Laffer curve which suggests a journey into the 50s will hit takings and deter entrepreneurship. But I don't need to, the statistic speaks for itself about human nature.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Truth, truth and more truth.

I voted Corbyn in 2015, but he has to go. He's letting an undemocratic and hard right Tory government do untold damage to our nation. Truly the Nasty Party, risen from the ashes of Cameron's "compassionate conservatism". Surely even he can see the truth of it?

In reply to BnB:

The Laffer curve is a repeatedly discredited propaganda tool designed to give the underlying ideology scientific veneer.

CB

In reply to BnB:
Let's untangle this.

I acknowledge the Laffer curve argument and I'm for this reason I've agnostic about the 50p rate. I agree with what you're saying in those practical terms, but that's only relevant under assumption that those liable for 50p simply will not pay it - it would come in for all intents and purposes as a voluntary request. This could be right, but you've made an unstated jump from "don't support" to "would avoid". You may see tax as voluntary in essence and take this as read anyway I suppose...


Again, so what? Does that make it *morally* wrong to put up the top rate to 50p because the wealthy already pay "too much"? Or are you just underlining the Laffer issue that we should be grateful we (the public, service users) get as much as we do because whenever they want, the wealthy can just decide to withdraw their generous contribution?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

If you think that increasing the tax rate on those earning more than £150k is gong to make a difference to the funding of the NHS then you are in for a shock. It would be a drop in the ocean .barely scratches the surface.

In reply to neilh:

As I said at least twice, I'm not convinced the 50p rate would generate much, if anything.

Just to avoid any further confusion: I'm agnostic about the 50p rate.

In reply to BnB:


The wealthy pay almost exactly the same proportion of their income in tax as anyone else. Total tax take from all income levels is between 30-40% and it is highest for the poorest.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-graph-that-shows-how-the-...

Clearly the absolute amount is higher, and they generally get less back in benefits but they are not paying a significantly higher proportion.

In reply to Oceanrower:


That's optimistic.

In reply to Oceanrower:

I think the wealthy may pay too little. But, for the kind of aspirations the UK has, everyone pays too little. If you want expensive healthcare, minimal waiting times, free uni, smaller classes, improved national infrastructure etc. Then everyone has to chip in more.

One end of society will always blame the other for a countrys woes.

In reply to stevieb:

I do agree with the assertion that the poorest are hit disproportionately hard by indirect taxes like those on fuel, tobacco, alcohol and probably VAT although I'm slightly dubious about that one since VAT on cars only hits new car buyers. However you're picking the wrong figures to make your point. The group of 45p taxpayers is tiny. 1% of taxpayers, not the 20% in your study, and it's interesting to see just how much tax they contribute, a third of the whole take (and rising by the way, although that could be viewed two ways):

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/2...

Now, if we home in on that 1% you are basically talking about a few professional groups:

Bankers (typically Investment) and Accounting & Legal Professionals (Partner level)
Directors of plcs
Business Owners

There are plenty of NHS consultants, and I dare say administrators in the category as well but their incomes sneak over the line. Professional footballers too and if you want to point the finger at some tax cheats then start there. However the ways in which UK income tax liability can be mitigated by avoidance measures are almost wholly legislated away for the groups I've identified. These taxpayers aren't paying the 34% in your linked article. They're paying an average close to the 45% because it applies across a substantial proportion of their income.

Look again at the mobility of the incomes in the first two categories and for want of a better phrase the (mostly) constructive bloody-mindedness of the latter group. None of these groups will necessarily seek to avoid paying the 50p rate, they'll simply not bother earning it, whether that just be in the UK, or at all.

When Labour raised the rate to 50p, every business owner of my acquaintance simply put dividend payments on hold, or took a necessary minimum. When the rate was cut to 45p, the dividends restarted. Sod the Laffer curve, let's call it the goldilocks level.

Given the challenges set for the City by Brexit, and with generous personal tax breaks on offer in Paris to woo firms and their talent, what benefits will UK plc accrue by raising taxes on the highest contributors if it is at the expense of our most productive industry?

It's not fair that certain groups and individuals not only enjoy greater financial success but also benefit from greater freedoms to pick and choose where and when they pay their taxes. But pay them they do today. Meddle at our communal peril.

In reply to summo:

"To pay for the kind of NHS and education then I think it needs to be 50% on £50k plus. Then perhaps 60% on pop star level incomes. "

Eliminate the personal tax allowance and a lot more money would be raised, millions pay ZERO tax on their earnings

In reply to BnB:

So, we have achieved 'tax nirvana' then, and it is simply impossible to raise a penny more whether through different rates or improved enforcement/tightening loopholes? Those pointy-heads at HMT and of course our last couple of Chancellors must be intellectually super-human, then. Guess what, I remain skeptical!

But anyway, yes Dianne Abbott is about as sane as a huge shipping container bursting with enormous angry frogs.

In reply to summo:


Not when you've got foreigners to blame instead!

In reply to kmhphoto:


As someone at the other end of income scale who's just argued the case for the most fortunate, can I just say what a terrible idea it would be to extend the tax load disproportionately on the least well off. I'm happy paying my share in tax to support society and particularly the expansion of the personal allowance. Well done the Lib Dems!!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Not really, Darling put it too high after it had sat a tad too low for decades. Of all people Osborne got it right but only by splitting the difference in order not to appear too generous to the rich. I'm pretty sure we both believe he'd rather have reversed the rate to 40p.

Edited to add: And yes, Abbot is truly nuts!!

In reply to BnB:

Fair enough, if we're talking purely about the top rate of income tax then I can believe the level is correct. But across income tax and then more generally, I think an awful lot could be done to increase redistributive taxation.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Unfortunately as shown in the last week or so it's virtually impossible to increase tax rates even where it is justifiable.,

Politicians are no longer brave enough .

In reply to neilh:


I couldn't agree more. I wasn't happy to see the self-employed singled out for a tax rise but even more so at the furore which precipitated the u-turn. The press were merciless in their condemnation.

In reply to Root1:

By 'strong opposition', do you mean effectively becoming 'tory lite'?

If no, then what would an effective opposition look like to you?

In reply to AllanMac:


It could take number of forms but actually opposing and showing an alternative is essential. Currently we have Labour either supporting (hard brexit) or ignoring (NI u-turn) everything the government does. Useless.

In reply to kmhphoto:


I'm not suggesting doing it in one go, but this creeping increase of zero threshold hasn't helped. Better for companies to pay their lowest paid more, so they can work and feel they are contributing to society, than not tax them but attempt to tax companies more to offset the loss of tax revenue.

Personally I think the tax system is buggered. Too many years of low tax election promises, under paying by companies topped up with tax credits and people not making the connection tax and public services.

In reply to neilh:


It's an odd situation where even with no opposition, the govt can't get a pretty innocuous policy past the barrier of the right-wing press. I don't see why May and Hammond couldn't have told the backbenchers to shove it up their arse, it's not like such a division is going to have any impact on their ability to govern.

what would people Corbyn rather did?

I constantly hear this second hand about how he's useless and bumbling etc etc

But whenever I listen to him speak it's empassionate, it's eloquent and I think he sounds strong

I'm actually starting to lean towards this idea that there is a smear/media campaign against him

In reply to Kemics:

Last time I heard him speak was his response to the budget, and it wasn't anywhere near good enough. The things he said were true (as far as I could tell), but there was no direct, detailed response to the measures Hammond announced. It was crap.

I agree that he's in an impossible position, backed by the party members but not the PLP; this and the media's treatment are big problems. But if he could counter that by actually being any good, it wouldn't be nearly so depressing.

In reply to Oceanrower:

I'm also confused as to why people continue to vote Tory:

1. We were told that the Tories are economically competent. But, after almost a decade of austerity, the economy is still stagnating and public debt is at a record high (see: https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2...

2. We were sold the lie that austerity was going to hurt in the short term, but was necessary in the long term. But, whilst it's been brutal - leading to lower wages, lower state support for ordinary people, massive underfunding of the NHS and other services - it's not been short term. It's still going on, and there's no end point in sight. Meanwhile, loads of money has been handed to big business in the form of tax breaks, to the royal family, and spent on the Olympics, Trident, etc.. So, I don't really see that it was necessary.

3. The Tories are obviously corrupt: massive scandals have shown how they were in bed with the media, police and big business; how they've facilitated tax avoidance; how they've lined their own pockets; how they've lined their friends' pockets; how they've covered up pedophilia; how Cameron had intercourse with a pig. So, they're hardly the party of 'morality' or friends of "the common man".

4. We're told that, unlike Corbyn, the Tories are smooth and competent political operators. But, the mismanagement and gaffery around Brexit shows how inept they are. Cameron and May wanted the UK to stay in the EU; gambled far more than they needed to, to smooth internal tensions within the party; completely fked up.

5. We're told that they're party of patriotism, compared to Corbyn who "doesn't respect the dead" (or whatever guff the Daily Hate is spinning), but it's the Tories who, with Brexit, are ensuring that the UK is on the edge of disintegration. No mistake: there's a good chance that the UK won't exist in 10 years.

6. We're told that the Tories are the party of honesty, but look at how they've lied and lied. Cameron promised no cuts to the NHS. It was a major election pledge. But, the NHS has been covertly cut to shreds, and bits of it sold off to private providers. The Brexiters stood by the pledge that leaving would secure more funding for the NHS. Look how quickly they abandoned it. You don't have to look far to see more barefaced lies and misinformation.

7. We're told that the Tories are the party of liberty, as opposed to the 'big state', but the Tories are extending surveillance powers under the guise of 'counter-terrorism'.

8. Conversely, we're told that the Tories are the party of law and order, but the police forces are strained and the prisons are in crisis, with riots and a drug economy.

9. We're told that the Tories are friends to ordinary people, but they've created a toxic environment where low wages, unemployment, rising prices, a housing crisis, an ascendant political right and increasing racism have had a terrible effect on people and on our social relations. In an atmosphere of scarcity, we're becoming more anxious, more paranoid, and less willing to help others.

10. We're told that the Tories are the party of stability and security, but they've brought us to the point where our collective future looks positively apocalyptic.

In reply to summo:

"Personally I think the tax system is buggered. Too many years of low tax election promises, under paying by companies topped up with tax credits and people not making the connection tax and public services."

I agree 100% that the system is buggered but taxing the minority at a much higher rate is not the way to fix it. If 1% are paying over 25% of the countries income tax revenue already wouldn't be reasonable to ask the other 99% to chip in a but more?

In reply to stevieb:



Corbyn may be made to look an unlikely PM but if labour won and he was PM the sun would still shine, the sky would not fall in, we wouldn't be overrun by hordes of immigrants, and the lights would stay on. Some things would get better. But we might still bomb a few people. The pound would still be a nightmare. The Tories would probably demand maintaining EU membership.

In reply to kmhphoto:

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that the top1% should be fleeced for everything, but let's be clear.
The top 1% pay 30% of all income tax (on 15% of all income) but they pay nothing like that proportion of all taxes.
In total it takes the top 10% pay 30% of all taxes.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/money/2017/mar/10/its-no...

In reply to kmhphoto:


Yes. I did say the zero rate threshold should be lowered slowly and a higher rate of tax for anyone earning over say £50k. I think it needs both ends tweeking .

In reply to Kemics:


There undoubtedly is a smear campaign against him. The problem is that he's also actually crap and so the smear campaign is riotously successful.

In reply to Kemics:

And the press are so polite about May, Boris, osbourne , Hammond etc...

In reply to summo:

So if I manage to work hard and earn 50 grand, I actually take home 25. Sounds like an awful idea to me. Much better staying in the high 30 grand bracket and stumping my willingness to progress.

In reply to elliott92:


Don't think you grasp you pay tax progressively as you pass through the lower threshold, the 40% bracket and then next. So if you earn £50k the 50% tax would only apply on earnings over roughly £40k etc..

In reply to elliott92:


You don't quite get how income tax works, do you?

In reply to summo:

Beat me to it

In reply to Ridge:


They'd cry if they came to Sweden!! Zero rate threshold is £1500, then it's 32% (ish), 62% on earnings over £50k... And higher again for those on pop star wages .... so would their boss, as what a person pays in income their employer matches!

But, if you want small school classes, free uni, to see a doctor tomorrow etc.. that's the kind of money it takes.

In reply to summo:


I know, but people seem to think you can get excellent public services together with low taxation.

In reply to summo:

Oh my god, you have 25% vat as well!
But uk income is usually taxed at about 32% too, it's just 12% is disguised.

In reply to stevieb:

The writer in your link not only admits that he or she doesn't know what proportion of the overall tax take is provided by the top 1% but also describes NI as regressive. This is certainly true of employee's NI but completely ignores that the vast majority of NI contributions come not from the low or middle waged, but from employers. Every penny paid in salaries across every level of income is taxed at 14% and that is paid out of the pockets (not the profits) of business owners and shareholders. And them alone. This much larger part of NI is the least regressive tax on the planet being a tax on enterprise and employment, not even on capital or profit. I do get where your article is coming from but the writer, given the qualifications, shows a remarkable lack of comprehension.

In reply to stevieb:


True to a degree although pension and unemployment are funded slightly differently here. Also the low threshold for zero rate means you pay 32% on nearly everything. Depending on what unemployment insurance or pension you want folk will pay a little extra on top.

And still, the health service here charges a nominal fee per visit. That's why the UKs nhs is actually quite good considering how little it's funded relatively.

In reply to Ridge:


Folk believe what they want to hear, even if it defies logic. Defying logic brings us right back to the thread and about 99% of what comes out of Diane Abbotts mouth.

In reply to BnB:

I don't think that's right. There's an upper earnings limit on NI. Something like the first £156 of weekly earnings is not subject to ENI.

So every penny paid in salaries is not taxed at 14%.

In reply to Gone for good:

You're correct. Although I think you mean the LEL, lower earnings limit. There is no upper earnings limit for employer's NI, unlike employees' NI which drops to very low levels in the higher tax brackets. I was glossing over the absolutely tiny proportion of UK overall income that is not subject to employer's NI. But as it also doesn't attract significant employee's NI it's pretty irrelevant to the statistics. All the more so because most people earn a lot more than that, thank goodness.

In reply to stevieb:


Was Corbyn leading labour at the last election?

The malaise runs deep.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Where, in your humble opinion, does Jon?

In reply to BnB:
Yes. £155 Is the LEL.
£827 per week is the ceiling on the 14% after which all earnings are employee NI d at 2% and remain at 13.8% for employers.

In reply to BnB:

Sorry, where do you get this from; employers NI is a cost of employing people and so is a valid business expense and therefore reduces profits and hence the taxable profit of the business. I don't see why you therefore say it comes out of the pockets of business owners and shareholders, except to the extent that it reduces the taxable profits that go into those pockets.

Edit: unless what you're complaining about is that the amount of employers NI paid is only related to the salary bill and totally unrelated to the underlying profitability of a business (except to the extent that paying lower salaries might make a business more profitable - or maybe less profitable if you end up with lower calibre staff).

In reply to Michael Hood:
If you look back at my post you'll see that all I'm complaining about is the description (in a link) of NI as a regressive tax (which it certainly is in certain respects) without the qualification that most of it isn't paid by people at all, but by shareholders.

And your edit is also what I alluded to earlier, i.e. it's not a tax on income or profit, but rather on employing people. A very odd (dis)incentive when you think about it. I'm not complaining about it per se however. Just highlighting the bizarre complexities of our tax system.

In reply to Oceanrower:
Oh lordy! Just clicked on that link and nearly fell off my scatter cushion.
Is that a woman? Really? You should've put a 'parental guidance' warning on that you old sea paddler.

In reply to Oceanrower:

More on Tory failings: http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/10-humiliating-tory-cock-up...

In reply to Oceanrower:

Abbot and Corbyn? Funnier than Abbot and Costelleo! Not a hope in hell of forming a government, ever!

In reply to Oceanrower:

It must have been fun for her in the grammar school debate....

"Abbott's decision in 2003 to send her son to the private City of London School after criticising colleagues for sending their children to selective schools, which she herself described as "indefensible" and "intellectually incoherent", caused controversy and criticism"

In reply to Jon Stewart:
"Isn't the issue with the top rate whether or not it does generate income. I'm all for raising tax revenue for better services, but after a long debate on here I ended up much less convinced that the 50p rate is much more than symbolic - there are probably much better ways to tax those who can afford it."


It,s a myth generated by the Tory press that raising the tax rate to 50% would not generate more tax revenue.
There's an awful lot of people earning over £150000, so its mathematically impossible that it would not raise cash. If it didn't affect anyone, why the objection??

>

In reply to BnB:


I hope you have a nice tasty hat..

In reply to Root1:

First show me a 45% taxpayer that thinks he or she should be paying 50%

In reply to Root1:

Misunderstanding by alot of people. Those earning that sort of money just shifted their pay to dividend payments which has a lower rate. It sort of became a non-issue. There was plenty of research done at the time showing that it did not produce the billions that people thought it might.

if you hunt round on google there are loads of articles about it, including the Guardian which if you read some of their articles suggested that there was little to gain.

In reply to Root1:


I explained in some length up thread why raising the tax would be counter-productive. You'd do well to ponder the consequences of disincentivising a highly mobile, highly coveted (by foreign employers) professional "elite"(bankers, CEOs, lawyers etc) and a second group (business owners) who have legitimate additional controls over their tax affairs. They amount to 1% of the working population but are paying about 30% of all the income tax.

More to the point, there is no proof that Labour's hike from 40% to 50% raised the total take at all. And if it did at all, it wasn't in a manner remotely commensurate with an increase of 25%. The cost meanwhile is only felt down the road when enterprise finds a new home beyond our borders.

In reply to neilh: thats difficult if you're salaried to that level of pay. Its not really an option to me - years i earn that i pay more tax

I think thats a bit of a tory urban myth for most people earning that much , at least the ones i know

In reply to Oceanrower:

Remember Trump

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Basically we are somewhere near the limits in terms of income tax. So, follow the money....pensions and fixed assets are the taxman's next target.

In reply to wbo:


That's undoubtedly true for those earning PAYE, who still see 45% or 50% as their marginal rate, maybe hitting the top fifth of their earnings. But if the 50% rate applies to three quarters of your earnings or more, then you're likely in a different situation professionally with more options to make your income tax efficient, CEOs with share option schemes, business owners with carefully timed dividends, bankers with tax exempt alternative job offers from Paris.

In reply to Oceanrower:

More like Diane Flabbott

In reply to Oceanrower:

"Britain should not be afraid of debt or borrowing money to fund investment, Jeremy Corbyn has said."

There'll be a Tory government along after us to pay it off....

In reply to Oceanrower:

Loss of Middlesbrough council seat again casts doubt on Corbyn’s leadership. Party loses Coulby Newham seat to the Conservatives in Middlesbrough, a traditional Labour stronghold. The Conservatives have won a council seat in Middlesbrough, usually considered a Labour stronghold, sparking a row among MPs about whether Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is undermining support in the party’s heartlands. Conservative candidate Jacob Young took the seat of Coulby Newham, with 38% of the vote, up 8.3% since 2015, while Labour saw its share fall by 8.2%, to 35.5%.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/14/corbyns-leadership-under-s...

In reply to Big Ger:

Loss of Middlesbrough council seat again casts doubt on Corbyn’s leadership...

Abbott thinks that Corbyn is amazing. Definitely bonkers: -

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/13/most-of-labours-support-is...