Media needs regulating. This, again would've happened under Labour, which partly contributed to the negative press coverage last election.
Why would the Tories regulate the media when they are in bed with them?
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Why would the Tories regulate the media when they are in bed with them?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yeah, exactly. They literally killed Leveson part 2 for media favours
Very important distinction about shows how narratives are formed.
I will be brutally honest. I am struggling for sympathy. Apathy is more like what I am feeling.
This country voted for the party that imposed over a decade of austerity(by choice) with the biggest majority in decades and will continue to vote for the said party.
This is the just the beginning, the true cost of the last 18 months on the UK taxpayer is going to be truly staggering; but surely everyone realised that when they had their feet up furloughed at home?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'm on board with a political media blackout at this point.
Clueless question as always, what would be the other options to fund this shortfall other than the NI hike?
If you accept the government's premise that they need to raise around £12Bn a year in extra taxes, take your pick from the table below. Obviously, it's harder to get significant extra revenue from some taxes than others, and you need to take into account the behavioural impact of changes.
If my calculations are right, the marginal tax rate for some low income earners will be circa 40p for every £. Fecking hell!
For someone on Universal Credit, the taper rate once they exceed their Work Allowance is equivalent to a marginal tax rate of 75%.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Not sure that I understand how regulating would work, or would even be practical. Take the BBC for example. It has proved almost impossible to regulate it with scandal after scandal.
They are supposed to be accountable to the license payers. But are they really.
I accept that the media in general are part of the problem.
But it is a fact that you get the government you deserve.
And an apathetic electorate deserves an incompetent and immoral government which is exactly what we have and may well continue to have.
Well stop wasting billions would be a good start.
And if it were just 40% that would not be that bad. But take a few seconds to think about the multitude of other taxes you actually pay.
And when you have taken your last breath, remember that if you and your wife estate exceeds the inheritance tax threshold, whoever inherits it will be charged 40% whether you or they have been a high rate taxpayer or not. And that doesn't include Probate, which is yet another tax or capital gains tax.
40%+ is just for starters.
At every GE I vote against the Government, but it still keeps getting back in...!
Once the Government gets its hands on your money, however it explains it, via direct or indirect taxation, you have no say in how its spent.
My father use to tell me that and add.... " one day people will wake up to that fact".... still waiting dad (wherever you are now)!
Your father was quite right. But unfortunately, there are nothing like enough who even understand what is happening. And even less who care enough.
To your credit, I know that you do.
But how many of your friends and family do for example?
Whenever taxes are raised expenditure comes under more public scrutiny.
What should happen is Labour making sure all the dodgy Tory deals are highlighted, yet they won't.
Instead the public will be steered towards hating public sector pay rises and welfare. I predict in the next month or two we'll hear the "we can't give pay rises whilst asking the tax payer to pay more to save the NHS. We need to be prudent".
This is clearly terrible policy yet it'll embolden the Tories and be used against useless Labour.
What should happen is Labour making sure all the dodgy Tory deals are highlighted, yet they won't.
Instead the public will be steered towards hating public sector pay rises and welfare. I predict in the next month or two we'll hear the "we can't give pay rises whilst asking the tax payer to pay more to save the NHS. We need to be prudent".
This is clearly terrible policy yet it'll embolden the Tories and be used against useless Labour.
You are spot on with this!... I can scarcely open my mouth at family gatherings, before I get 'don't you dare' looks from my wife and my two daughters... my nephew tries it on now an again and he tosses the odd 'grenade' in occasionally to try and set me off.... sometimes he succeeds!
End of party... or I get hauled off to sit on the naughty step!
While it’s funny he’s either so deluded, or so ignorant, this is a damning of indictment of the electorate.
You could spend a year with this bloke teaching him maths and showing him all the data that proves he’s in the top 5% of earners and he’d spend an entire year convinced he was still right shouting “I am not in the top 5% of earners” back at you.
He’s probably come from humble beginnings, worked hard and done well in a trade that pays well and it’s put him in that bracket. Fair play to him but in his head the “top 5% of earners” isn’t a statistic, it’s a mythical class made up solely of elite people who are all professionals and all come from old money.
Particularly in the internet age where news stories are so diffuse. It's a weak argument that Labour would somehow have waved a magic wand and the UK media would be totally unbiased and honest. Wishful thinking, sadly.
To go back to the question of 'why did they choose to raise NI over other taxes'... this morning I've been reading an interesting IFS report (on holiday by the pool, cos that's how I roll), which I think points to the likely answer.
Other countries raise more from social security contributions...
The composition of revenue in the UK is broadly in line with other developed countries. The amounts raised from income tax, VAT, other indirect taxes and corporation tax are all around the average for comparable countries. The UK raises more than most from property taxes, especially business rates. But it raises less than average from social security contributions (SSCs – National Insurance contributions in the UK), and in particular from employers’ SSCs.
...particularly for average earners
If the UK were to adopt the income tax and SSC rates of one of our higher-tax European neighbours, it might raise slightly more from the highest earners. But the big difference would be in the tax levied on the earnings of average workers. The average tax rate on median full-time earnings in the UK was 28% in 2016–17. This is much lower than it would be under the tax systems of the other countries shown in Figure 5, for which the average is 44%. Since 2016–17 (the year for which this analysis was undertaken), the income tax personal allowance has been increased more quickly than inflation, which will have further reduced income tax payments at the median in the UK.
https://ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN259-How-high-are-our-taxes-and-where-does-the-money-come-from.pdf
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
wouldn't that wage put somebody in the top 3% of earners worldwide
https://howrichami.givingwhatwecan....GBR&household[adults]=1&household[children]=0
and comfortably in the top half in the UK
https://www.uktaxcalculators.co.uk/...-your-income-percentile-with-this-calculator/
So graduate - by probability single and no kids... probably better off than the vast majority of households
https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in
so tax the rich and all that ... 42.25% for having their University education pre-funded by the tax payer enabling them to get a well paying job for the rest of their life... that does not strike me as a massive tax rate to be honest given the need to fund housing NHS, social care and at some point eliminate not only the national deficit but actually tackle the massive national debt
Remember that time you used to claim to be left wing. Haha yeah good times.
Yep. Was similar for me. But now I am over the age of 70, no one takes any notice of what I have to say anyway.You are spot on with this!... I can scarcely open my mouth at family gatherings, before I get 'don't you dare' looks from my wife and my two daughters... my nephew tries it on now an again and he tosses the odd 'grenade' in occasionally to try and set me off.... sometimes he succeeds!
End of party... or I get hauled off to sit on the naughty step!
Not only does he think he’s not in the top 5%, he doesn’t think he’s in the top 50%. If over half the U.K. made that much we wouldn’t have many problems.
Comfortably being 55%?
Yes. It is far too easy to blame anything or evening. But it pains me to say that the only thing responsible is Labour themselves.
Jesus that's embarrassing and a bit racist too.
It's kind of misleading the way it's worded given it's referring to the marginal tax rate for graduates above that income level.
A graduate (with a student loan) will not make any repayments against their loan at an income of £27,295. Their annual take-home pay will be £22,222.76 for this year, after income tax of £2,945 and NI of £2,127. Total effective tax rate: 19%. (I've ignored pension contributions they may want to make)
Their annual take-home pay will be about £200 lower next year as a result of higher NI.
What about people with the pre-reform student loans? Don't you pay for earnings above like £23k?
Also factoring in VAT at 20% on most items people on middling incomes are losing a lot to taxation
Labour currently are pretty much the architect of their own problems, but I wouldn't underestimate the influence of the media. I'm just sceptical about how much regulation would really change things beyond cutting out lowhanging fruit like long lens pap shots, make apologies have equivalent placing to false stories etc...
Someone on the old system (Repayment Plan 1) will pay £660 annually in student loan repayments at this income level (£27,295).
In terms of the real tax burden people face across all taxes and benefits, here's the data for 2017 which is the latest I've seen. It hasn't changed that much since then:
https://ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN249.pdf
The tax system as it stands means income received from going to work is effectively taxed (tax + NI) at a higher rate than other forms of income.
Income from interest, dividends, capital gains, inheritance and even things like renting out houses are all taxed more generously. Some of them just by removing the NI component so you only pay the income tax, others due to additional tax allowances and more generous tax rates.
The Tories argue that this incentivises savings and investment. I see it as just a way of making sure that the burden falls more heavily on low paid and average earners. Funny how it's the richest who need incentives.
The NHS could try spending their money more wisely. Nobody wants to say it but it’s a massive fecking problem.
The same as the police force, too much money being wasted on shite.
Paying too much money for resources to start with. You can put some of that blame on the private companies who choose to charge the nhs and police extortionate amounts for basic goods and maintenance, even something as simple as toilet roll. Both the Nhs and police pay stupid amounts for this shit.
They also spend too much unnecessary money on medicine. Over prescribing something as basic as paracetamol.
Overpaying directors and consultants and all the other undeserving snakes sitting on six figure salaries working for them. The list is endless.
Nah. UK health expenditure is pretty efficient compared to other countries. Highlighted bar below:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/chartimage?u...comparewithothercountries/2019-08-29/ae93ec43
Nah?
it’s not an opinion I’m expressing
It’s a fact. I’m not sure how that graph you showed me disproves that the Nhs mis-spend money.Any sources/data that backs your facts up?Nah?
it’s not an opinion I’m expressing