Westminster Politics

[EwanI Ted]

That's where I disagree. In my view anyone earning £20k or less should not be paying a penny of income tax or national insurance.

I know you're just thinking aloud, but you should really do a bit of checking first. Setting it at £20K would give the top 2/3 of earners a massive tax break at the expense of low earners. It does the exact opposite of what you want it to do.

Truth be told any person that's entitled to benefits shouldn't be paying tax; it's illogical and cruel to take their money and then give it back to them like some sort of gift.

Firstly, its not cruel. Most people on benefits gain far more than they pay in tax, so they benefit massively on the arrangement.

Secondly, its not even illogical. If you accept that we should vary the amount people are entitled to based on their circumstances, then that variation has to be accounted for in either the taxation or the benefits system.

To build that into the tax system would create thousands of new tax codes to account for housing need, parental status, health, location etc and would create a completely incomprehensible tax system that would be packed full of loopholes. And it wouldn't obviate the need for a benefit system anyway, because some people have zero income, so you would still need one of them too. So the simplest thing is to keep the tax system as simple as possible, and have the complexity applied only to the benefits system. The fact that it leaves some people paying money out just to get it back again can be seen as a curiosity, but nothing more.

 

[finneh]

I know you're just thinking aloud, but you should really do a bit of checking first. Setting it at £20K would give the top 2/3 of earners a massive tax break at the expense of low earners. It does the exact opposite of what you want it to do.

By your very statement it would help the vast majority of the bottom 2/3rds of earners.

Plus it would disproportionately help the lowest in the group as for example someone earning £20k per annum would see their net salary increase by more than 8% whereas someone on £40k would see less than a 4.5% rise.

I think helping middle earners is beneficial too as they will have seen their salaries hugely affected by Covid. I also think that a boost for middle earners would help stimulate the economy as they would then spend more which would drive greater VAT, corporation tax receipts etc, somewhat offsetting the cost.

Firstly, its not cruel. Most people on benefits gain far more than they pay in tax, so they benefit massively on the arrangement.

Again I disagree it isn't cruel. Taking someone's money when they have precious little in the first place and deciding you know better than them as to what to spend it on, before offering them services (some of which they might not want or need) in return, if not cruel then at a minimum is contemptuous (for example using tax taken from someone who's family have never attended university and are unlikely to in the medium term future to subsidise the wealthiest people in the country to attend Oxford).

The bottom 10-15% at a minimum should be allowed to keep 100% of their own money rather than having the state forcefully sieze it from them in return for services they may not want or need.

This is something I believe in strongly but also accept I'm in the minority. I completely reject the right wing argument that poor people can't be trusted with money (I knows this isn't at all your argument)

Secondly,, its not even illogical. If you accept that we should vary the amount people are entitled to based on their circumstances, then that variation has to be accounted for in either the taxation or the benefits system. To build that into the tax system would create thousands of new tax codes to account for housing need, parental status, health, location etc and would create a completely incomprehensible tax system that would be packed full of loopholes. And it wouldn't obviate the need for a benefit system anyway, because some people have zero income, so you would still need one of them too. So the simplest thing is to keep the tax system as simple as possible, and have the complexity applied only to the benefits system. The fact that it leaves some people paying money out just to get it back again can be seen as a curiosity, but nothing more.

In truth I did qualify that some of my "thinking aloud" was possibly unworkable from an administrative point or view. In a perfect world the tax system would far more straight forward (as would the benefits system) but we do have to work with what we have.

I've always liked the idea of a negative tax rate for example as the poorest people in society often paying an effective tax rate comparable to the highest earners in society (e.g. to earn an extra £1000 net of benefits they need to make £2000 from employment, an effective tax rate of 50%)

 

[EwanI Ted]

By your very statement it would help the vast majority of the bottom 2/3rds of earners.

When you raise the personal allowance, every earner already above the line benefits. People already below the line get no more benefit. £20K is the 34th percentile of income, which means as you successively raise the line everyone in the top 64% of earners benefit from every step of increase, while those at the bottom don't. People earning £100K get a bigger tax cut from it than people earning £15K. That's why it benefits high earners and not low earners.

Plus it would disproportionately help the lowest in the group as for example someone earning £20k per annum would see their net salary increase by more than 8% whereas someone on £40k would see less than a 4.5% rise.

Very specious. In cash terms it would obviously be the same amount.

I think helping middle earners is beneficial too as they will have seen their salaries hugely affected by Covid. I also think that a boost for middle earners would help stimulate the economy as they would then spend more which would drive greater VAT, corporation tax receipts etc, somewhat offsetting the cost.

It helps middle and high earners for sure, if that's the intention.

Again I disagree it isn't cruel. Taking someone's money when they have precious little in the first place and deciding you know better than them as to what to spend it on, before offering them services (some of which they might not want or need) in return, if not cruel then at a minimum is contemptuous (for example using tax taken from someone who's family have never attended university and are unlikely to in the medium term future to subsidise the wealthiest people in the country to attend Oxford).

The bottom 10-15% at a minimum should be allowed to keep 100% of their own money rather than having the state forcefully sieze it from them in return for services they may not want or need.

We were talking about benefits, which are cash payments, not services.

In truth I did qualify that some of my "thinking aloud" was possibly unworkable from an administrative point or view. In a perfect world the tax system would far more straight forward (as would the benefits system) but we do have to work with what we have.

I've always liked the idea of a negative tax rate for example as the poorest people in society often paying an effective tax rate comparable to the highest earners in society (e.g. to earn an extra £1000 net of benefits they need to make £2000 from employment, an effective tax rate of 50%)

A Negative Income Tax is a fine idea, but it still needs additional components to account for people's specific needs (not least variable housing costs), so it doesn't obviate the need for an additional form of benefit system.

 

[finneh]

When you raise the personal allowance, every earner already above the line benefits. People already below the line get no more benefit. £20K is the 34th percentile of income, which means as you successively raise the line everyone in the top 64% of earners benefit from every step of increase, while those at the bottom don't. People earning £100K get a bigger tax cut from it than people earning £15K. That's why it benefits high earners and not low earners.

Very specious. In cash terms it would obviously be the same amount.

It helps middle and high earners for sure, if that's the intention.

We were talking about benefits, which are cash payments, not services.

A Negative Income Tax is a fine idea, but it still needs additional components to account for people's specific needs (not least variable housing costs), so it doesn't obviate the need for an additional form of benefit system.

I think you're focusing too veciferously on one of the measures I suggested out of a cocktail of several which would as a whole benefit the poorest to a great degree (certainly more than welfare programs that are more open to both exploitation, corruption and long term negative effects in my view).

A VAT decrease would disproportionately help the poorest as a higher % of their net income is taken from them; the same is true for fuel duty and mandatory insurance taxes; the same is true of council tax. I'd reiterate that judging the benefit of income tax relief as a % is far more pertinent than as a true figure; to turn it around it would patently be unfair to implement a flat £10k income tax even though "in cash terms they're paying the same".

I accept your benefits point in terms of direct welfare payments, I thought you were referring to services provides. I likewise agree a NIT couldn't be the sole measure, although in my view it should be by far the most important and other relief should fees into it rather than being separate programs in their own right (again enforcing an effective tax rate on the poorest akin to even middle earners, let alone the highest earners is patently unfair).

 

[EwanI Ted]

I think you're focusing too veciferously on one of the measures I suggested out of a cocktail of several which would as a whole benefit the poorest to a great degree (certainly more than welfare programs that are more open to both exploitation, corruption and long term negative effects in my view).

A VAT decrease would disproportionately help the poorest as a higher % of their net income is taken from them; the same is true for fuel duty and mandatory insurance taxes; the same is true of council tax. I'd reiterate that judging the benefit of income tax relief as a % is far more pertinent than as a true figure; to turn it around it would patently be unfair to implement a flat £10k income tax even though "in cash terms they're paying the same".

I accept your benefits point in terms of direct welfare payments, I thought you were referring to services provides. I likewise agree a NIT couldn't be the sole measure, although in my view it should be by far the most important and other relief should fees into it rather than being separate programs in their own right (again enforcing an effective tax rate on the poorest akin to even middle earners, let alone the highest earners is patently unfair).

I do have a particular bee in the bonnet for personal allowance because its such a bad policy when it goes is beyond the bottom few percentiles of income. Its like saying that because the occasional glass of red wine is good for you, a bottle a day must be *really* good for you. It doesn't work that way.

On the other point about other taxes, the idea that if you cut taxes to that degree then low earners will have more money in their pockets but nothing else changes is completely bogus. Assuming you don't propose running a big deficit in perpetuity, then cutting tax that dramatically will also mean cutting public spending to the same degree. Cutting public spending disproportionally affects low earners through lower benefits and fewer services - simply put, they lose more than they gain. For those tax cuts to give a net benefit to low earners you'd have to re-profile pubic spending to benefit low earners over high earners. Honestly I doubt you've thought that far ahead, but if you have Im all ears.

 

[finneh]

I do have a particular bee in the bonnet for personal allowance because its such a bad policy when it goes is beyond the bottom few percentiles of income. Its like saying that because the occasional glass of red wine is good for you, a bottle a day must be *really* good for you. It doesn't work that way.

On the other point about other taxes, the idea that if you cut taxes to that degree then low earners will have more money in their pockets but nothing else changes is completely bogus. Assuming you don't propose running a big deficit in perpetuity, then cutting tax that dramatically will also mean cutting public spending to the same degree. Cutting public spending disproportionally affects low earners through lower benefits and fewer services - simply put, they lose more than they gain. For those tax cuts to give a net benefit to low earners you'd have to re-profile pubic spending to benefit low earners over high earners. Honestly I doubt you've thought that far ahead, but if you have Im all ears.

In terms of the deficit you'd have two main options in my view. Considering the policies are a recovery mechanism from Covid the first would be to create a fiscal drag to return the levels to "normal" over a period of time (for example if the personal allowance were increased by 50% you'd leave it at that level until the minimum wage had increased by 50% to match).

However I'm more of the school of economics that believes governmental spending is inherently inefficient and so a mechanism for large reductions in public spending via tax cuts combined with both a negative tax rate and also some form of tapered basic income might be a solution (so for example to use simple figures if everyone was entitled to £10k a year but for every £4k they earned that would reduce by £1k). That combined with a Swiss style health insurance system, education vouchers allowing for free choice or top-up in education (the state then benefiting from private sector efficiency), a "nudge" auto enrollment savings/insurance system for social care (ala pensions currently) and the privatisation of public bodies such as the BBC, transport for London etc.

However the latter would obviously be deeply unpopular on here (and in truth I've discussed that to death so to bring this enjoyable conversation* to it's conclusion let's point to the former).

*Not sarcastically if it reads that way

 

[nickm]

By your very statement it would help the vast majority of the bottom 2/3rds of earners.

Plus it would disproportionately help the lowest in the group as for example someone earning £20k per annum would see their net salary increase by more than 8% whereas someone on £40k would see less than a 4.5% rise.

I think helping middle earners is beneficial too as they will have seen their salaries hugely affected by Covid. I also think that a boost for middle earners would help stimulate the economy as they would then spend more which would drive greater VAT, corporation tax receipts etc, somewhat offsetting the cost.



Again I disagree it isn't cruel. Taking someone's money when they have precious little in the first place and deciding you know better than them as to what to spend it on, before offering them services (some of which they might not want or need) in return, if not cruel then at a minimum is contemptuous (for example using tax taken from someone who's family have never attended university and are unlikely to in the medium term future to subsidise the wealthiest people in the country to attend Oxford).

The bottom 10-15% at a minimum should be allowed to keep 100% of their own money rather than having the state forcefully sieze it from them in return for services they may not want or need.

This is something I believe in strongly but also accept I'm in the minority. I completely reject the right wing argument that poor people can't be trusted with money (I knows this isn't at all your argument)



In truth I did qualify that some of my "thinking aloud" was possibly unworkable from an administrative point or view. In a perfect world the tax system would far more straight forward (as would the benefits system) but we do have to work with what we have.

I've always liked the idea of a negative tax rate for example as the poorest people in society often paying an effective tax rate comparable to the highest earners in society (e.g. to earn an extra £1000 net of benefits they need to make £2000 from employment, an effective tax rate of 50%)

I understand where you are coming from. Personally I think everyone should pay some tax if only so everyone has some vested interest in how the services we all use are paid for.

 

[Silva]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[redtilded121]

I am not against in principle of the merging of foreign aid into the foreign office . I just don't trust boris

 

[Grinner]

I'm just not sure why it's a priority right now.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

I'm just not sure why it's a priority right now.

deflection and distraction

 

[Grinner]

deflection and distraction

Doesn't make sense. Ordinary people don't give a feck about something like this.

 

[Sweet Square]

British columnists summed up in one tweet.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[711]

Well done Marcus. I often read folk on the Cafe say the country's gone more right wing, but they can't have lived through Thatcher's time, there's no way that evil woman would have ever climbed down.

 

[Virgil]

So from the news Starmer is trying to take credit for the government uturn in respect of free school meals. He is as much of a shit as Boris. It was soley down to our Marcus, bless him. All that any politician did was hang on to Rashfords coat tails.

 

[SteveJ]

"The PM fully understands the issue facing families across the UK during what is a difficult and unprecedented time".

This, from a man who once described his journalist's salary of £250,000 a year as 'chicken feed'.

 

[Berbasbullet]

So from the news Starmer is trying to take credit for the government uturn in respect of free school meals. He is as much of a shit as Boris. It was soley down to our Marcus, bless him. All that any politician did was hang on to Rashfords coat tails.

Tbf he isn’t, and Starmer mentioned it in PMQs a week ago.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

British columnists summed up in one tweet.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Unbelievable

 

[Fingeredmouse]

So from the news Starmer is trying to take credit for the government uturn in respect of free school meals. He is as much of a shit as Boris. It was soley down to our Marcus, bless him. All that any politician did was hang on to Rashfords coat tails.

This is incorrect.

 

[Sweet Square]

Unbelievable

Another one from today

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Which leads to this sort of thing

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

So from the news Starmer is trying to take credit for the government uturn in respect of free school meals. He is as much of a shit as Boris. It was soley down to our Marcus, bless him. All that any politician did was hang on to Rashfords coat tails.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Another one from today

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Which leads to this sort of thing

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

client journalism

 

[finneh]

British columnists summed up in one tweet.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

That's a disingenuous tweet. The critique regarding free school meals was made because paying for it was accounted for by implementing a 20% VAT charge on private schools.

Implementing a 20% VAT charge on private schools would cause more parents to send their children to state school creating a black hole in education funding, meaning the money "available" for the aforementioned free school meals wouldn't in fact be available.

Reading the article it was a critique on Corbyn's inability to understand basic market functions, not a policy critique (unless I've missed something).

 

[Adisa]

Why do we stand for this shit?

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Sweet Square]

That's a disingenuous tweet. The critique regarding free school meals was made because paying for it was accounted for by implementing a 20% VAT charge on private schools.

Implementing a 20% VAT charge on private schools would cause more parents to send their children to state school creating a black hole in education funding, meaning the money "available" for the aforementioned free school meals wouldn't in fact be available.

Reading the article it was a critique on Corbyn's inability to understand basic market functions, not a policy critique (unless I've missed something).

There was no data to back her claim up or at least she didn't present any. It's simply the man in the red tie was going to tax people like herself and Rashford well needed intervention isnt.

 

[Silva]

more specifically it reads as "oh shit, i'll have my kids to a worse school"

there should be paid no schools, it only incentivises the ruling classes to neglect the education of the lower classes, schools wouldn't be lacking staff or resources if we didn't have a class based education system where the rich go to good schools and poor don't

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

By your very statement it would help the vast majority of the bottom 2/3rds of earners.

I don’t think you understand the economics of the personal tax allowance.

Also : If I’m not blocked (as I probably should be), have you ensured that your employees are treated better yet?

 

[finneh]

There was no data to back her claim up or at least she didn't present any. It's simply the man in the red tie was going to tax people like herself and Rashford well needed intervention isnt.

Surely it's pretty self explanatory that if you increase the cost of something the demand for it falls?

I agree that the article wasn't a thesis on the the public sector educational cost burden of increasing the cost of private education by 20%, when compared to funds raised; but likewise surely that analysis is for those who announce the policy to undertake rather than those merely reacting to a policy announcement with the critique you'd expect from any poorly costed policy.

Now if the tweet had said "I wish the critique on policy funding was as forensic now as it purported to be when Corbyn announced his policy on subsidised school meals" then I could understand the criticism.

However to disingenuously argue a point that was never made (ie that taxpayer subsidised free school meals are a bad policy irrespective of the funding) is poor in my view.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

So from the news Starmer is trying to take credit for the government uturn in respect of free school meals. He is as much of a shit as Boris. It was soley down to our Marcus, bless him. All that any politician did was hang on to Rashfords coat tails.

No he didn’t.
No he’s not.
No it wasn’t.
No they didn’t.

Rashford had a wonderfully huge influence on it. But don’t pretend that Labour didn’t want it. Nor that they’ve claimed the win.

 

[Sweet Square]

Surely it's pretty self explanatory that if you increase the cost of something the demand for it falls?

she was talking about school closures and parents having to remove their children from private schools such claims needed some data.

I agree that the article wasn't a thesis on the the public sector educational cost burden of increasing the cost of private education by 20%, when compared to funds raised; but likewise surely that analysis is for those who announce the policy to undertake rather than those merely reacting to a policy announcement with the critique you'd expect from any poorly costed policy.

The article was nothing more than her complaining about a potential rise in her taxes. Maybe the Labour policy was shit or maybe it was great but as a fitting tribute to Jane Merrick I can't be arsed to do the extra work and find out.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Why do we stand for this shit?

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

A Tory majority of 80 may leave people apathetic.

 

[finneh]

she was talking about school closures and parents having to remove their children from private schools such claims needed some data.

The article was nothing more than her complaining about a potential rise in her taxes. Maybe the Labour policy was shit or maybe it was great but as a fitting tribute to Jane Merrick I can't be arsed to do the extra work and find out.

I'm not sure what tabloid articles you normally read but I certainly can't remember the last time one explored in depth the complex economic cause and effect of policy agenda.

I've seen hundreds of articles critique whether policy makers have studied those nuances prior to making tax giveaway, but precious few actually providing a cast iron economic review of them.

I don’t think you understand the economics of the personal tax allowance.

Also : If I’m not blocked (as I probably should be), have you ensured that your employees are treated better yet?

The personal tax allowance is pretty straight forward to understand unless I'm missing some hidden treasure that you wanted to enlighten me on?

I wouldn't block you. If I cared to block everyone who disagreed with me I wouldn't bother posting in political discussions and certainly not on a forum dominated by those that are by modern standards far left.

 

[Dobba]

Even by her standards...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53069650

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Even by her standards...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53069650

That is a bloody awful article.

 

[SteveJ]

I know it's par for the course in modern politics, and certainly not exclusive to the Conservative Party, but phrases like 'terrible optics' & 'bad political antennae' doesn't exactly sound like the talk of people who are in touch with their fellow human beings, does it?

 

[SteveJ]

That is a bloody awful article.

Apart from her bias, and a defence of Johnson's government which amounts to Captain Obvious-style ruminations on humankind's shifting moods, it's boring. Though perhaps that's a deliberate choice of style, in an article underplaying yet another embarrassing u-turn.

 

[BobbyManc]

Even by her standards...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53069650

It's an article that is incredibly disturbing in its blandness and meaningless fluff. Those opening paragraphs in particular are so tedious. I'd expect to read it on some teenager's blog. And it establishes a narrative that has no relation to the story - the u-turn did not pivot on 'new information' but overwhelming public pressure. But Laura's need to spin this and satisfy No.10 supersedes her need to do her actual job, I get it.

The very real issue at the heart of this - that thousands of children across the country would go hungry this summer without government intervention - is treated as some trivial sideshow to the more pressing matters of optics and credibility. There is nothing on the question of child poverty whatsoever. Nothing on why we have reached a point in one of the world's richest economies that parents in work cannot guarantee meals for their kids. Nothing on the absurdity that a young professional footballer is having to lead a campaign to force the government to address this matter. No wonder new research today revealed that faith in the media is at an absolute nadir.

 

[Eugenius]

I'm not sure what tabloid articles you normally read but I certainly can't remember the last time one explored in depth the complex economic cause and effect of policy agenda.

I've seen hundreds of articles critique whether policy makers have studied those nuances prior to making tax giveaway, but precious few actually providing a cast iron economic review of them.


The personal tax allowance is pretty straight forward to understand unless I'm missing some hidden treasure that you wanted to enlighten me on?

I wouldn't block you. If I cared to block everyone who disagreed with me I wouldn't bother posting in political discussions and certainly not on a forum dominated by those that are by modern standards far left.

Increasing the personal allowance is a very expensive way of helping lower earners because higher earners (at least up to £100k) also get a tax break. It's not very targeted.

If you are already on £12k, then increasing the personal allowance doesn't help you any more, but it will help someone on £90k.

By definition the further the threshold is increased, those who benefit most incrementally become the better off earners.

 

[Adisa]

Have we evwe had a cabinet this bad?
Feels like Cummings chose the worst possible cabinet to keep eyes off Boris.
Gaff after gaff. It's incredible.

 

[SteveJ]

'Outrage' ~

Tory MP tells teaching union leaders he is 'outraged' at their stance on schools reopening

Union chief Mary Bousted says: "Some of the line of the questioning here seems to be that it’s schools' and teachers' and leaders' fault for following government guidance."

I wish, when accused or questioned, some of these people & organisations the government considers to be opponents would call out this habitual faked outrage from MPs. Bodies from the EU to, currently, teaching unions are routinely being accused of everything from arrogance to truculence to outright militancy, as if their sole purpose in professional life is to thwart a brilliant and independent English government. This stance is laughable, expedient, and is purely aimed at the galleries of public and media; surely people can see through this tactic that they employ again and again? Make no mistake - in time, it'll be the turn of 'hero' nurses and doctors to be suddenly labelled 'traitors' (or greedy, lazy, entitled, Marxists etc etc), or care workers, or...whoever has the misfortune of fleetingly exposing the Conservative Party for its utter carelessness towards anyone bar themselves, their supporters, their donors, and their political/financial masters.