A good point and I think you will find that has been built in to the calculations. The estimates on the money the tax rises will bring in have been purposely conservative - if you can excuse the pun!
Good Pun!
We'll have to disagree on that one Mutley, some of their costing document specifically states they haven't taken into account the behavioural impact. On income tax they have taken the Inland Revenue figures and only made an allowance for Scotland who has independence on that.
Myself alone they have calculated i'll pay £10k more in income Tax, in reality it'll be £2k maximum they collect extra. On the assumption that people would have spent at least a proportion of what they will now pay in tax they haven't allowed for a lower amount of VAT collected. On corporation tax where companies can and it's more efficient they'll do business elsewhere, if my company pays on average £20m in corporation tax per annum I'd guess within 5 years that'll be down to a few million at best.
Even those companies who don't do anything, will they pay lower bonuses to staff and therefore the tax take will be less?
There are so many unknowns in Labours manifesto costs/expenses, just like there are in the conservatives, the difference is the huge additional spend in Labours.
There is a line in the costings document covering behavioural changes - they have costed £3.9 billion. I would encourage people to read it - if they do that and think the policies are not deliverable - fair enough!
Agreed at £3.9bn line which is less than 7.5%,
So comes down to do you believe even of the direct 40.5bn (19.4bn Corp Tax, 6.4bn Income Tax, 1.3bn Pay Levy, 1.6bn offshore property, 6.5bn Tax avoidance, 3.7bn IHT etc, 1.6bn Private school fee's) will yield all of that bar 3.9bn? i.e. they'll achieve over 90% tax take? Personally I think they'll be lucky to get anywhere near 50%. It simply won't happen.
McDonnell was on Marr yesterday and said they would adopt the Dilcot proposals.
The conservative manifesto has £40 billion of extra spending commitments, not a single penny costed. Everything is coming from growth and efficiency saving, neither of which they have done very well in 7 years of government.
While it is true to say neither fully costed it also paints a completely disingenuous picture. On one had you have one of the most comprehensively costed manifestos in British political history, on the other hand a manifesto completely uncosted.
I not really sure what your acid test would be to be honest, you seem to be asking for a level of detail never given before from only one party. Even the ONS have come out and said Labour's manifesto is cost neutral.
Got a job offer from an agency in LA that I am keeping ticking over for as long as possible. Want to see how this election goes - if there is any chance that this taxation of jealousy comes in then I want to keep my options open.
I cant believe that people think a party verging on socialism is really the way to get this country booming again or at least heading on a better direction.
I was at a very pro Corbyn dinner party this weekend. The faithful are taking the Hebden Bridge and Tranmere rallies as the first sign that he's turning the tide and seem genuinely positive.
In the US election of 1956 a Democratic voter approached her candidate, the erudite Adlai Stephenson.
"Oh Adlai! ," she exclaimed, " Good luck tomorrow, every thinking American will be voting for you."
"Won't be enough," he said.
I put across views that weren't dissimilar to the believers. IMHO Corbyn's coalition is just too narrow to win this election simply because the policies that enthuse metropolitan types in the south east won't fire up enough voters elsewhere.
Got a job offer from an agency in LA that I am keeping ticking over for as long as possible. Want to see how this election goes - if there is any chance that this taxation of jealousy comes in then I want to keep my options open.
I cant believe that people think a party verging on socialism is really the way to get this country booming again or at least heading on a better direction.
You clearly have not studied Keynes, but I reckon he knew a bit more about economics than you do. It is how you spend the money that is important I will agree on that. That is why the social elements are covered by taxation and the capital elements are covered by borrowing - as that is how you become wealthier. Well, maybe not you personally, but the country.
Got a job offer from an agency in LA that I am keeping ticking over for as long as possible. Want to see how this election goes - if there is any chance that this taxation of jealousy comes in then I want to keep my options open.
I cant believe that people think a party verging on socialism is really the way to get this country booming again or at least heading on a better direction.
Honestly Damo. Labour's policies on social care and university fees would only bring the UK into line with German practice. Do you think Angela Merkel is "verging on socialism"?
Or put it another way, which country do you consider to be doing better overall, the UK or Germany?
Or, another way. If you spoke fluent German, would you consider a hot job in Berlin, on normal employee terms?
Got a job offer from an agency in LA that I am keeping ticking over for as long as possible. Want to see how this election goes - if there is any chance that this taxation of jealousy comes in then I want to keep my options open.
I cant believe that people think a party verging on socialism is really the way to get this country booming again or at least heading on a better direction.
What would get this country booming and heading in a better direction then? I'd love that, a booming economy would greatly improve tax receipts and employment, and pay for all the stuff we need, like education and health. Sounds great. The tories aren't quite managing to achieve that now are they.
It was part of the £48bn sub total - your homework is to read it again. What has been betaryed is the fact that you haven't read it - and you are lecturing people who have! Read it, then your position carries more weight.
The Tory party manifesto is a load of tosh, even tory party members are saying so. But the Labour manifesto has been lauded by independant economists - I find it amazing they produced this comprehensive document with full costings on one side of the balance sheet and full costings on the other and the Tories who called the snap election seemed to have wrote theirs on the back of a fag packet!
Rob7Lee - it is clearly going to cost you smome money if Labour get it - it may cost me - but it won't cost most people and when you consider the dementia tax and if you have a son or daughter who may have aspirations of further education, you will get some if not all of it back. And you will be living in a better Britain. If more people have more money, I know my business will thrive.
I'm not concerned what it would cost me if Labour got in (ive always said happy to pay more tax) but as net effect is I'd be substantially better off if they could really afford all they say, hence why in the main I don't think it's remotely possible. The dementia tax is debatable as Labour haven't said what they'd do.
My daughters (1st one Sep 18) would save me £30k each in uni fee's alone. On the broad assumption that my father wouldn't have to pay for his care that's over £40k per annum. My tax in reality would be £2k more.....
Got a job offer from an agency in LA that I am keeping ticking over for as long as possible. Want to see how this election goes - if there is any chance that this taxation of jealousy comes in then I want to keep my options open.
I cant believe that people think a party verging on socialism is really the way to get this country booming again or at least heading on a better direction.
You clearly have not studied Keynes, but I reckon he knew a bit more about economics than you do. It is how you spend the money that is important I will agree on that. That is why the social elements are covered by taxation and the capital elements are covered by borrowing - as that is how you become wealthier. Well, maybe not you personally, but the country.
TBF its up to me. If I want to protect more of my income to go towards my own kids, then that's what I will do. Agree on covering points by taxation. Naturally if my income and contribution I can make towards my kids is hit, I aint gonna like it. And rather than sit there moaning about it, if I have the chance to get off my arse and do something then I will consider it.
It is no surprise that Labour's taxation plans have landed positively with 75% of voters. Most people in the UK don't earn more than £80k so of course they are going to like it. Fair enough.
Got a job offer from an agency in LA that I am keeping ticking over for as long as possible. Want to see how this election goes - if there is any chance that this taxation of jealousy comes in then I want to keep my options open.
I cant believe that people think a party verging on socialism is really the way to get this country booming again or at least heading on a better direction.
You clearly have not studied Keynes, but I reckon he knew a bit more about economics than you do. It is how you spend the money that is important I will agree on that. That is why the social elements are covered by taxation and the capital elements are covered by borrowing - as that is how you become wealthier. Well, maybe not you personally, but the country.
TBF its up to me. If I want to protect more of my income to go towards my own kids, then that's what I will do. Agree on covering points by taxation. Naturally if my income and contribution I can make towards my kids is hit, I aint gonna like it. And rather than sit there moaning about it, if I have the chance to get off my arse and do something then I will consider it.
It is no surprise that Labour's taxation plans have landed positively with 75% of voters. Most people in the UK don't earn more than £80k so of course they are going to like it. Fair enough.
The have clearly said they will follow the Dilnot proposals - the difference is they think the cap would be in line with what Cameron proposed - £72k, rather than the £35k the commision reccomended. That is the most you would have to pay before your savings -including your home are secure. They also want to try to de-politicise this important issue by having a cross party agreement - which is another thing Dilnot proposed. His findings were agreed with by Tories and others when he made them. I think this is a very important aspect - what you come up with has to be a lasting solution, not a political football! I think it is a realistic aim as many tories do agree with Dilnot!
Got a job offer from an agency in LA that I am keeping ticking over for as long as possible. Want to see how this election goes - if there is any chance that this taxation of jealousy comes in then I want to keep my options open.
I cant believe that people think a party verging on socialism is really the way to get this country booming again or at least heading on a better direction.
That may be because you don't understand what taxation is wholly used for. Not just jealously, but also wealth redistribution because wage markets are inefficient.
Germany has had a Social Democrat government for as long as I can remember and they seemed to have boomed and headed in a better direction than our succession centralist governments. Just like you can't believe in the labour party leading us to prosperity, I can't understand why anyone thinks we have had strong and stable leadership, let alone going to.
Social care funding is a nettle that no politician wants to fully grasp. It's a time bomb. It's obvious that this latest attempt by the conservatives is not either popular or adequately thought through.
Why the cost can't be catered for from general taxation where the burden is shared equally I can't understand. Nobody will like being asked to pay more but it's essential that politicians are honest and clear with the people and tell the truth.
Fat chance.
I don't understand either. Especially as we're talking about something that has the potential to hit everyone. My aunt's partner passed away of dementia last year. I think he was in care for 4 years. Luckily he had the funds to pay for the care, but I think it was in the hundreds of thousands by the time he died.
Not everyone who lives in a £500k property say in London is necessarily rich and using my aunt's partner as an example, someone who had 4 years of care, that could potentially be the value of your estate wiped out down to the last £100k. It's not fair. I really can't see why people would begrudge this being an additional taxation for the benefit of all, as we don't know who it will hit. It could be any of us. Seems like a 'fair' taxation to me.
What he was doing as well was paying 40% more for his care than people receiving the same care with no savings! Effectively subsidising them becuase he was ill. Some people seem perfectly ok robbing a person who has demetia in this way, I want to cry out of frustration. It is being done in my name!
What he was doing as well was paying 40% more for his care than people receiving the same care with no savings! Effectively subsidising them becuase he was ill. Some people seem perfectly ok robbing a person who has demetia in this way, I want to cry out of frustration. It is being done in my name!
Not in my name, Mutts.
But, I was reminded on the radio this morning of Mark Twain's quote:
If voting made a difference - they wouldn't let us do it!
Social care funding is a nettle that no politician wants to fully grasp. It's a time bomb. It's obvious that this latest attempt by the conservatives is not either popular or adequately thought through.
Why the cost can't be catered for from general taxation where the burden is shared equally I can't understand. Nobody will like being asked to pay more but it's essential that politicians are honest and clear with the people and tell the truth.
Fat chance.
I don't understand either. Especially as we're talking about something that has the potential to hit everyone. My aunt's partner passed away of dementia last year. I think he was in care for 4 years. Luckily he had the funds to pay for the care, but I think it was in the hundreds of thousands by the time he died.
Not everyone who lives in a £500k property say in London is necessarily rich and using my aunt's partner as an example, someone who had 4 years of care, that could potentially be the value of your estate wiped out down to the last £100k. It's not fair. I really can't see why people would begrudge this being an additional taxation for the benefit of all, as we don't know who it will hit. It could be any of us. Seems like a 'fair' taxation to me.
That is exactly how Damien Green on Andrew Marr described £100k as though, fair.
Got a job offer from an agency in LA that I am keeping ticking over for as long as possible. Want to see how this election goes - if there is any chance that this taxation of jealousy comes in then I want to keep my options open.
You'd pay less in tax, I'm sure, but have you budgeted for additional expenditure in healthcare and education?
In particular the debt your children would have if they go to university or the costs of unexpected healthcare requirements
Got a job offer from an agency in LA that I am keeping ticking over for as long as possible. Want to see how this election goes - if there is any chance that this taxation of jealousy comes in then I want to keep my options open.
I cant believe that people think a party verging on socialism is really the way to get this country booming again or at least heading on a better direction.
You clearly have not studied Keynes, but I reckon he knew a bit more about economics than you do. It is how you spend the money that is important I will agree on that. That is why the social elements are covered by taxation and the capital elements are covered by borrowing - as that is how you become wealthier. Well, maybe not you personally, but the country.
TBF its up to me. If I want to protect more of my income to go towards my own kids, then that's what I will do. Agree on covering points by taxation. Naturally if my income and contribution I can make towards my kids is hit, I aint gonna like it. And rather than sit there moaning about it, if I have the chance to get off my arse and do something then I will consider it.
It is no surprise that Labour's taxation plans have landed positively with 75% of voters. Most people in the UK don't earn more than £80k so of course they are going to like it. Fair enough.
Protect your income by all means but I suggest you don't get dementia and then squeal that your children won't benefit from your self protectionism.
Various Tories were on the media talking about proposals, and details and Green papers and the like. Trying to take the sting out of the Dementia Tax. The £100,000 figure was clear, and stark. I don't trust the politicians who are saying vote for me now, and we'll sort out what it means later. They have said what they have said, and will use that to justify and push through this dementia tax.
1. I'm not doing a u-turn. 2. I'm changing the social care policy completely. 3. I'm furious about Jeremy Corbyn having the audacity to tell the truth about my manifesto.
It was part of the £48bn sub total - your homework is to read it again. What has been betaryed is the fact that you haven't read it - and you are lecturing people who have! Read it, then your position carries more weight.
The Tory party manifesto is a load of tosh, even tory party members are saying so. But the Labour manifesto has been lauded by independant economists - I find it amazing they produced this comprehensive document with full costings on one side of the balance sheet and full costings on the other and the Tories who called the snap election seemed to have wrote theirs on the back of a fag packet!
Rob7Lee - it is clearly going to cost you smome money if Labour get it - it may cost me - but it won't cost most people and when you consider the dementia tax and if you have a son or daughter who may have aspirations of further education, you will get some if not all of it back. And you will be living in a better Britain. If more people have more money, I know my business will thrive.
I'm not concerned what it would cost me if Labour got in (ive always said happy to pay more tax) but as net effect is I'd be substantially better off if they could really afford all they say, hence why in the main I don't think it's remotely possible. The dementia tax is debatable as Labour haven't said what they'd do.
My daughters (1st one Sep 18) would save me £30k each in uni fee's alone. On the broad assumption that my father wouldn't have to pay for his care that's over £40k per annum. My tax in reality would be £2k more.....
And there-in lies the problem. You said earlier that Labour's proposals would increase your tax bill by £10k, but you'd then rearrange you finances so you only paid £2k. Yet you're more than happy to take the potential £40k in saving. Can you not see the massive moral problem with that stance? You are offered up to £30k per year (40-10), but your greed drives you to say "no, I want £38k, and I'll do whatever it takes to make sure I don't get just £30k".
You'll reply that the £40k is all potential that may not happen, whilst the £8k tax saving you'd make is very real. And you're right to a certain extent, but it is that attitude that will guarantee the money to make those saving happen isn't paid.
Truly the tragedy of the commons, everybody worse off because they can't see beyond the end of their nose.
Got a job offer from an agency in LA that I am keeping ticking over for as long as possible. Want to see how this election goes - if there is any chance that this taxation of jealousy comes in then I want to keep my options open.
I cant believe that people think a party verging on socialism is really the way to get this country booming again or at least heading on a better direction.
You clearly have not studied Keynes, but I reckon he knew a bit more about economics than you do. It is how you spend the money that is important I will agree on that. That is why the social elements are covered by taxation and the capital elements are covered by borrowing - as that is how you become wealthier. Well, maybe not you personally, but the country.
TBF its up to me. If I want to protect more of my income to go towards my own kids, then that's what I will do. Agree on covering points by taxation. Naturally if my income and contribution I can make towards my kids is hit, I aint gonna like it. And rather than sit there moaning about it, if I have the chance to get off my arse and do something then I will consider it.
It is no surprise that Labour's taxation plans have landed positively with 75% of voters. Most people in the UK don't earn more than £80k so of course they are going to like it. Fair enough.
You've quite literally just admitted that if you earn under £80k, you'll be better off under a labour government.
1. I'm not doing a u-turn. 2. I'm changing the social care policy completely. 3. I'm furious about Jeremy Corbyn having the audacity to tell the truth about my manifesto.
If they are back-tracking then I say good - but they need to spell out what they are back-tracking to. Like everything else- they won't! This won't play well - if you stand behind the ridiculous slogan May has and nothing else, you have to live up to it surely!
Wow. So much for strong and stable when May U turns on a key manifesto policy after only four days. Those EU negotiators must be laughing their heads off.
Labour would have a real chance of doing something in this election if they hadn't chosen the most unelectable leader possible but of course May knew that and that's why she called the election now.
Comments
The conservative manifesto has £40 billion of extra spending commitments, not a single penny costed. Everything is coming from growth and efficiency saving, neither of which they have done very well in 7 years of government.
While it is true to say neither fully costed it also paints a completely disingenuous picture. On one had you have one of the most comprehensively costed manifestos in British political history, on the other hand a manifesto completely uncosted.
I not really sure what your acid test would be to be honest, you seem to be asking for a level of detail never given before from only one party. Even the ONS have come out and said Labour's manifesto is cost neutral.
I cant believe that people think a party verging on socialism is really the way to get this country booming again or at least heading on a better direction.
Or put it another way, which country do you consider to be doing better overall, the UK or Germany?
Or, another way. If you spoke fluent German, would you consider a hot job in Berlin, on normal employee terms?
I'm not concerned what it would cost me if Labour got in (ive always said happy to pay more tax) but as net effect is I'd be substantially better off if they could really afford all they say, hence why in the main I don't think it's remotely possible. The dementia tax is debatable as Labour haven't said what they'd do.
My daughters (1st one Sep 18) would save me £30k each in uni fee's alone. On the broad assumption that my father wouldn't have to pay for his care that's over £40k per annum. My tax in reality would be £2k more.....
It is no surprise that Labour's taxation plans have landed positively with 75% of voters. Most people in the UK don't earn more than £80k so of course they are going to like it. Fair enough.
Germany has had a Social Democrat government for as long as I can remember and they seemed to have boomed and headed in a better direction than our succession centralist governments. Just like you can't believe in the labour party leading us to prosperity, I can't understand why anyone thinks we have had strong and stable leadership, let alone going to.
Not everyone who lives in a £500k property say in London is necessarily rich and using my aunt's partner as an example, someone who had 4 years of care, that could potentially be the value of your estate wiped out down to the last £100k. It's not fair. I really can't see why people would begrudge this being an additional taxation for the benefit of all, as we don't know who it will hit. It could be any of us. Seems like a 'fair' taxation to me.
But, I was reminded on the radio this morning of Mark Twain's quote:
If voting made a difference - they wouldn't let us do it!
Strong & Stable, my arse.
#Weak&Wobbly
That is exactly how Damien Green on Andrew Marr described £100k as though, fair.
In particular the debt your children would have if they go to university or the costs of unexpected healthcare requirements
The £100,000 figure was clear, and stark.
I don't trust the politicians who are saying vote for me now, and we'll sort out what it means later.
They have said what they have said, and will use that to justify and push through this dementia tax.
1. I'm not doing a u-turn.
2. I'm changing the social care policy completely.
3. I'm furious about Jeremy Corbyn having the audacity to tell the truth about my manifesto.
Back tracking, quicker than Michael Jackson doing a moonwalk
You'll reply that the £40k is all potential that may not happen, whilst the £8k tax saving you'd make is very real. And you're right to a certain extent, but it is that attitude that will guarantee the money to make those saving happen isn't paid.
Truly the tragedy of the commons, everybody worse off because they can't see beyond the end of their nose.
I feel a little part of me has died after finding myself in agreement with Hitchins, Gove and Farage though.
Look how many people that is:
For the many, not the few.
Labour would have a real chance of doing something in this election if they hadn't chosen the most unelectable leader possible but of course May knew that and that's why she called the election now.