• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

the dza said:
Saw that yesterday, quite an interesting policy I thought. At first glance, seems like a good idea.
Click to expand...

It's the future. It's just a matter of how progressive we are taking positive steps now, or whether powerful interest in supressing the 99% means we have to battle out of the old regime.
 
No - I see. Ill be paying more tax. Now I get it.

Ill be hit more with the 40% rate thanks to its threshold being dropped to £37.5k

Sounds like a bit of a con to me.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Whats the point if its a net-0 benefit to people? To get an extra £2.5k off of those earning more than £125k?
Click to expand...

From the article:

The richest 10% of households will be £1,470 better off by 2019-20 as a result of changes to the personal allowance since 2010, compared with just £130 for each of the poorest 10% of households.

It said the change would transfer about £8bn currently spent on tax allowances that benefit the 35% of highest income households to the rest of the country.

it would also mean bringing down the threshold for higher-rate taxpayers from £50,000 to £37,500. This is because the starting point for 40% income tax moves with the personal allowance. NEF said this would affect the top 13% of earners in the country.

___________

It's not a bad point to start a debate from, as it's currently only a policy idea from a left-wing think tank, not a Labour policy as far as I can tell. It's the sort of stuff a left-wing party should be thinking of though, imo.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
No - I see. Ill be paying more tax. Now I get it.

Ill be hit more with the 40% rate thanks to its threshold being dropped to £37.5k

Sounds like a bit of a con to me.
Click to expand...

It's moving towards the state as employer per se, rather than companies. It gives everyone a bit of unconditional basic security - you can at least eat on £50 a week.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Which is about the going rate for the dole anyway.

This is more about higher tax rate than your social utopian policies.
Click to expand...

It's supposed to replace the dole and go to middle classes too. The key is that it's unconditional (except maybe not being in prison). Dole is conditional on pretending to be finding work.
 
Gutter Boy said:
It's supposed to replace the dole and go to middle classes too. The key is that it's unconditional (except maybe not being in prison). Dole is conditional on pretending to be finding work.
Click to expand...


The key is that for someone earning over £25k the loss of the allowance is balanced off.

Someone earning over £37.5k (hardly rich) the loss of the allowance is balanced off, and then the tax you pay is increased thanks to the significantly lowered 40% tax threshold.

Thats going to catch a hell of a lot of people who will be worse off as a result.

Socially whats the benefit? None Id say.

Unless you see a particular benefit to society having people not even pretending to find jobs and taking their allowance.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
The key is that for someone earning over £25k the loss of the allowance is balanced off.

Someone earning over £37.5k (hardly rich) the loss of the allowance is balanced off, and then the tax you pay is increased thanks to the significantly lowered 40% tax threshold.

Thats going to catch a hell of a lot of people who will be worse off as a result.

Socially whats the benefit? None Id say.

Unless you see a particular benefit to society having people not even pretending to find jobs and taking their allowance.
Click to expand...

It's just a step in that direction, rather than a proper solution. The important thing is establishing the principle of a 'citizens income'. Once that genie is out of the bottle, labour will always be a sellers' market.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
The key is that for someone earning over £25k the loss of the allowance is balanced off.

Someone earning over £37.5k (hardly rich) the loss of the allowance is balanced off, and then the tax you pay is increased thanks to the significantly lowered 40% tax threshold.

Thats going to catch a hell of a lot of people who will be worse off as a result.

Socially whats the benefit? None Id say.

Unless you see a particular benefit to society having people not even pretending to find jobs and taking their allowance.
Click to expand...

I think the point is to direct the current benefits of the personal allowance more towards the lower end than the higher, with people on £25k largely unaffected either way and people over £37.5 affected negatively, though more negatively the higher up the wage scale you go (presumably).

I guess we'd have to know what percentage of people earns what amount of money, and how people would be affected as a whole. I dunno about all the stuff that Gutter Boy is talking about (I think it's more for the future of automation, his ideas), but for me a left-wing taxation policy should benefit most people, particularly those worst off, and direct the negative effects up the food chain. We have the Tories for right-wing taxation policy, we have the Lib Dems doing whatever they do, so it makes sense for Labour to come up with proposals to the left. Then the country has proper choices to make come election time.

This is what politics should be a lot more of imo, parties making proposals or debating ideas on how things can be done differently and making the offer to voters. I'll be glad when this Brexit stuff is out of the way, GHod knows how long it will take.
 
People forget the personal allowance has gone up a lot recently but in the first 10 years under Labour it only went up by about £1,200 which dragged more and more people into the higher income tax brackets. That combined with tax credits makes me think this is really not that much different.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Whats the point if its a net-0 benefit to people? To get an extra £2.5k off of those earning more than £125k?
Click to expand...
Those earning over £125k have no allowance anyway. Once you hit £100k then for every extra £1k you earn, you lose £0.5k from your personal allowance. So the marginal tax rate from £100-124k is 60%

What they're suggesting is nothing other than lowering the 40% bracket by an obscenely large amount and calling it something other than a tax rise. Don't be fooled though, it's a tax increase, nothing more, nothing less.

Edit: Just spotted that you weren't fooled at all by it.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
The key is that for someone earning over £25k the loss of the allowance is balanced off.

Someone earning over £37.5k (hardly rich) the loss of the allowance is balanced off, and then the tax you pay is increased thanks to the significantly lowered 40% tax threshold.

Thats going to catch a hell of a lot of people who will be worse off as a result.

Socially whats the benefit? None Id say.

Unless you see a particular benefit to society having people not even pretending to find jobs and taking their allowance.
Click to expand...
It smacks of being completely out of touch with what good Vs average earnings are.
37.5k in London is nothing (that rents a room).
37.5k in Manchester can get you on the property ladder
37.5k on the outskirts of Cardiff does make you quite wealthy (as in solid middle class).

The problem is using a blanket value in a country that has such disparity in costs of living, esp SE England Vs the rest.
 
It's a hit in the pocket for those on decent wages and not extravagant wages.
The allowance brackets are to wide spread for this to be fair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back