Labour are offering us a real choice - David Milliband would have been a neo Liberal option with a bit more of a social conscience. If we are not ready for that choice at this election, it is better that we are offered it. I'll settle for a reduced Tory majority - it will be heartbreaking, but we have to play the long game for a better country and indeed a better world. People like Saunders and Corbyn may never expereince the power, but they will be remembered as key architects of it.
Meanwhile Labour has to fight this election to win it and push the tories as much as possible. This wil be a bigger victory than an establishment figure getting in for Labour.
Labour are offering us a real choice - David Milliband would have been a neo Liberal option with a bit more of a social conscience. If we are not ready for that choice at this election, it is better that we are offered it. I'll settle for a reduced Tory majority - it will be heartbreaking, but we have to play the long game for a better country and indeed a better world. People like Saunders and Corbyn may never expereince the power, but they will be remembered as key architects of it.
Meanwhile Labour has to fight this election to win it and push the tories as much as possible. This wil be a bigger victory than an establishment figure getting in for Labour.
I think it will be an increased Tory majority but not by the Margin that spinning May hoped for.
The Tory social care policy is surely nothing other than a new inheritance tax. To call it clumsy and ill thought out is an understatement.
If it was accompanied by changing inheritance tax that meant no one could leave more than £100k, it would at least be honest, but only a socialist nirvana could, get away with that. As it is you cannot introduce a wealth tax that only applies if you get sick and not pay the tax if you do not.
The objective is obviously to raise more tax, but, like all inheritance tax, it will become a voluntary tax. You simply transfer the property out of your estate.
I am sure the Tories would have understood this. They must have known the political fall out, and must always have considered potential unintended consequences.
I have a conspiracy theory. Is the objective to use a machiavellian tax policy to induce intended unintended desirable consequences? The transfer of wealth to the next generation. Not through the tax itself, but through inducing behaviours that change the attitude to accumulating debt and wealth. Because, as a tax, it has no merit and is doomed to failure.
The effect of this tax would be to stimulate house sales first at the top end of the market. Don't forget, the tax is not capped, it is 100% of value above £100k. So the more expensive the house, the greater is the potential loss and the more incentive to break up the assets in advance of dementia or death. Ordinary home owners would follow suit. Suddenly the market is flooded, forcing prices down, mortgage debt is re-paid early and property equity is converted into cash, stimulating consumption. Inheritance tax becomes redundant, tying up wealth in your own home as an investment ceases to be the pre-occupation of the British. Banks and financial institutions have improved capital ratios with a return to stable asset prices and interest rates that reflect the risk free premium.
Tax revenues increase, apart from the dementia tax, and a social care savings scheme is introduced into the National Insurance system based on the realistic market cost of care, rather than competing for funding within the NHS budget. Your interest in the social care scheme, like the Swedish model, can be in the form of vouchers to pay towards private care in a regulated market.
The dementia tax is replaced by a new inheritance tax on all wealth that maintains the same disincentive to tie up wealth in property for no good reason other than to pass it on.
I am obviously clutching at straws to try and rationalise what May hopes to achieve, apart from wanting to run the election as a handicap for novices.
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.
Regarding "taxation of jealousy", do you realise the amounts we're actually talking about?
The Tory social care policy is surely nothing other than a new inheritance tax. To call it clumsy and ill thought out is an understatement.
If it was accompanied by changing inheritance tax that meant no one could leave more than £100k, it would at least be honest, but only a socialist nirvana could, get away with that. As it is you cannot introduce a wealth tax that only applies if you get sick and not pay the tax if you do not.
The objective is obviously to raise more tax, but, like all inheritance tax, it will become a voluntary tax. You simply transfer the property out of your estate.
I am sure the Tories would have understood this. They must have known the political fall out, and must always have considered potential unintended consequences.
I have a conspiracy theory. Is the objective to use a machiavellian tax policy to induce intended unintended desirable consequences? The transfer of wealth to the next generation. Not through the tax itself, but through inducing behaviours that change the attitude to accumulating debt and wealth. Because, as a tax, it has no merit and is doomed to failure.
The effect of this tax would be to stimulate house sales first at the top end of the market. Don't forget, the tax is not capped, it is 100% of value above £100k. So the more expensive the house, the greater is the potential loss and the more incentive to break up the assets in advance of dementia or death. Ordinary home owners would follow suit. Suddenly the market is flooded, forcing prices down, mortgage debt is re-paid early and property equity is converted into cash, stimulating consumption. Inheritance tax becomes redundant, tying up wealth in your own home as an investment ceases to be the pre-occupation of the British. Banks and financial institutions have improved capital ratios with a return to stable asset prices and interest rates that reflect the risk free premium.
Tax revenues increase, apart from the dementia tax, and a social care savings scheme is introduced into the National Insurance system based on the realistic market cost of care, rather than competing for funding within the NHS budget. Your interest in the social care scheme, like the Swedish model, can be in the form of vouchers to pay towards private care in a regulated market.
The dementia tax is replaced by a new inheritance tax on all wealth that maintains the same disincentive to tie up wealth in property for no good reason other than to pass it on.
I am obviously clutching at straws to try and rationalise what May hopes to achieve, apart from wanting to run the election as a handicap for novices.
I also pray that the people running the country, and will run the country, have it least thought about something
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.
And yet Corbyn is now polling at above what Miliband ended up with, and the same as what got Cameron elected in 2010, and Blair in 2005. I don't think he'll win, but I totally disagree Labour have chosen the most unelectable leader possible. Do you really think Owen Smith, or anyone else who has been realistically linked with the leadership in recent years, would be on better numbers right now?
Yet still people want to vote for this plonker to carry on being our Foreign Secretary during the most critical negotiations for the country in decades!
The Tory social care policy is surely nothing other than a new inheritance tax. To call it clumsy and ill thought out is an understatement.
If it was accompanied by changing inheritance tax that meant no one could leave more than £100k, it would at least be honest, but only a socialist nirvana could, get away with that. As it is you cannot introduce a wealth tax that only applies if you get sick and not pay the tax if you do not.
The objective is obviously to raise more tax, but, like all inheritance tax, it will become a voluntary tax. You simply transfer the property out of your estate.
I am sure the Tories would have understood this. They must have known the political fall out, and must always have considered potential unintended consequences.
I have a conspiracy theory. Is the objective to use a machiavellian tax policy to induce intended unintended desirable consequences? The transfer of wealth to the next generation. Not through the tax itself, but through inducing behaviours that change the attitude to accumulating debt and wealth. Because, as a tax, it has no merit and is doomed to failure.
The effect of this tax would be to stimulate house sales first at the top end of the market. Don't forget, the tax is not capped, it is 100% of value above £100k. So the more expensive the house, the greater is the potential loss and the more incentive to break up the assets in advance of dementia or death. Ordinary home owners would follow suit. Suddenly the market is flooded, forcing prices down, mortgage debt is re-paid early and property equity is converted into cash, stimulating consumption. Inheritance tax becomes redundant, tying up wealth in your own home as an investment ceases to be the pre-occupation of the British. Banks and financial institutions have improved capital ratios with a return to stable asset prices and interest rates that reflect the risk free premium.
Tax revenues increase, apart from the dementia tax, and a social care savings scheme is introduced into the National Insurance system based on the realistic market cost of care, rather than competing for funding within the NHS budget. Your interest in the social care scheme, like the Swedish model, can be in the form of vouchers to pay towards private care in a regulated market.
The dementia tax is replaced by a new inheritance tax on all wealth that maintains the same disincentive to tie up wealth in property for no good reason other than to pass it on.
I am obviously clutching at straws to try and rationalise what May hopes to achieve, apart from wanting to run the election as a handicap for novices.
Not capped? That's so last week.
Our strong and stable leader has been very clear since late this morning: there is a cap. Or, there will be. When they've decided what it is. And it's no use people like Jeremy Corbyn pointing out that there isn't a cap. People like Jeremy Corbyn shouldn't spend so much time reading the Conservative manifesto. People like Jeremy Corbyn shouldn't stick to the facts.
The problem that our strong and stable leader is beginning to understand is that people like Jeremy Corbyn. Quite a lot of them.
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.
The conservative manifesto has been a shambles and this is from the one party that knew they would call this election, despite repeatability saying they would not call it. Yet, certain senior advisors in the labour party were convinced that it would be called and knew that costings would be the biggest weakness. You can't just produce a document to the level of detail as labour have done in a few weeks, they have been working at it for months.
Who do you want at that negotiating table, a team that has done it's homework or someone whose only tactic is to channel Margaret Thatcher?
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.
And yet Corbyn is now polling at above what Miliband ended up with, and the same as what got Cameron elected in 2010, and Blair in 2005. I don't think he'll win, but I totally disagree Labour have chosen the most unelectable leader possible. Do you really think Owen Smith, or anyone else who has been realistically linked with the leadership in recent years, would be on better numbers right now?
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.
If David Milliband had been voted in as leader the party would be in a completely different position
May is nothing like Thatcher. I think the PLP not backing Corbyn could be its downfall. I doubt there are many in the party who would have produced a similar manifesto.
At least it is actually getting interesting (well I may be over egging it...). Really thought that this would be a walkover.
As a child of the 70's I am more in my comfort zone where there is a proper left and then a proper right option, with a third option for the light on their loafers in the middle. You could walk down my street as a kid, a leafy S.E London Eltham and see a blue poster in a bay window, next door a red one and so on, with the odd yellow poster popping up as well.
Yet still people want to vote for this plonker to carry on being our Foreign Secretary during the most critical negotiations for the country in decades!
Nobody loathes Johnson more than I do but this is simply smart thinking, don't think for a second that a reporter wouldn't rifle through Johnson's papers given half a chance.
Although, to be fair Johnson doesn't read his briefings either.
May is nothing like Thatcher. I think the PLP not backing Corbyn could be its downfall. I doubt there are many in the party who would have produced a similar manifesto.
I only meant in reference to her negotiating tactics. It is undeniable that she has tried to project an "iron lady" image.
To be fair though I've never been involved in a contract negotiation, let alone a international treaty. Maybe it is a tactic to appear a knob before softening to a more reasonable postion?
Yet still people want to vote for this plonker to carry on being our Foreign Secretary during the most critical negotiations for the country in decades!
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.
And yet Corbyn is now polling at above what Miliband ended up with, and the same as what got Cameron elected in 2010, and Blair in 2005. I don't think he'll win, but I totally disagree Labour have chosen the most unelectable leader possible. Do you really think Owen Smith, or anyone else who has been realistically linked with the leadership in recent years, would be on better numbers right now?
I agree about the lack of leadership challenge that has been shown during his time as leader of the opposition. TBH with the dismal failure of pretty much everything the Tories have done in the last 7 years Labour should be walking this election or as a minimum forming a coalition.
But what he seriously suffers from is a lack of any support in the mainstream media. Even the smaller left leaning sections of the media have been wary of fully getting behind him and with some of the baggage that goes with him its an open goal for the Daily Mail et al.
Whether the closing of the polls will be translated to the ballot box in any way, we'll see. I think probably not but what it has done is perhaps shown that there is still an appetite for policies based on the needs of the wider society. The trick for Labour (or what I expect to happen a new centerist party) is to harness that appetite with an media savvy and credible leader without any the history of meeting with IRA followers, etc.
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.
And yet Corbyn is now polling at above what Miliband ended up with, and the same as what got Cameron elected in 2010, and Blair in 2005. I don't think he'll win, but I totally disagree Labour have chosen the most unelectable leader possible. Do you really think Owen Smith, or anyone else who has been realistically linked with the leadership in recent years, would be on better numbers right now?
Yet still people want to vote for this plonker to carry on being our Foreign Secretary during the most critical negotiations for the country in decades!
What's wrong with this then, Bournio?
Put it this way, even if you ignore the stupid schoolboy stuff from a professional politician...he still messed it up anyway:
The more the media attack you, the more you must be doing something right. The press are fuelled with the self interest of the established elite. I have changed my mind about the Labour party, I did believe it was its duty to get elected and make things a little bit better socially - Hence I supported Smith and the coup against Corbyn and the neo-liberals position. I have completely changed my mind on that now. It isn't about getting into power at any price and licking the arses of the elite that run things, it is about challenging them for the greater good. I think the elite will see the attacks on Milliband at the previous election as a mistake as they have let Corbyn out of the bag!
Yes it means having to accept that many still get all of their economic information from the Mail and the Sun and try not to get angry, but I do have faith in the British people and think we are close to something better! Maybe not at this election but the next. I will now defend Corbyn with a passion. I think he will be remembered very positively by History. People will look at May with the benefit of history behind them and laugh at us for electing her! If indeed we do - I wouldn't have added that a week ago! May is a limited opportunistic politician if ever there was one. Strong - My arse!
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.
If David Milliband had been voted in as leader the party would be in a completely different position
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.
If David Milliband had been voted in as leader the party would be in a completely different position
Indeed, it would probably be in power.
I'd be inclined to think that this would have been unlikely.
I think that David Miliband would have been seen by the electorate as Blair Mk2, and for many Labour voters, that would ensure that they would not support him.
There's also the potential that, had he been chosen rather than Ed, it would have been seen as the anointing of the "chosen one", which would have rubbed many up the wrong way.
And, for what it is worth, I think his flouncing off to Tracey Island to front (the) International Rescue (Committee) demonstrated a lack of commitment to the Party that he had wanted to lead. I think that , like Chuka Umuna, he actually lacks substance.
Don't get me wrong, I am very much in favour of people giving their talents to help benefit others through aid agencies - but I do worry about them when they also suggest that outside countries should politically (for which I read militarily) intervene in a country in a civil war. And, while I expect him to be well paid, I don't expect him to be believed to be earning 150% of the previous incumbent's salary.
I have major doubts about whether he would have been able to put up a better fight than Corbyn appears to be doing at the moment (Ed is a diferent matter - but, blessed with 20/20 hindsight, I still would have expected Labour to lose in 2015).
In many ways he is the candidate that the Conservatives would want to see lead Labour.
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.
If I was only in it for myself and only voted based on the monetary effect it would have on me and my family I'd be queuing up right now to vote Labour. Your argument on my morality doesn't really fit with someone who is unlikely to vote Labour this time around and therefore won't be the 30k better off if they did, surely I wouldn't vote Conservative if I'm going to be massively worse off under them compared to Labour would I?
I'm quite entitled to start paying money into a pension again, all be it limited to £10k before they double tax me (tax going in and again coming out) which would reduce my tax (on that £10k) by 52%. My wife is also entitled to pay more into a pension up to £3,600 or her annual salary, as is everyone in this country.
I don't make the rules, simply have to abide by them! Just like my wife had to when they stopped her £1750 a year in child benefit because I earned more than £60k, just like I had to when the Tories took away my personal allowance meaning my marginal rate became 60%, Also when effectively they have reduced where the higher rate of tax comes in, or when they reduced the amount I can pay into pension and receive tax relief......
Despite the rhetoric of conservatives being the party of low taxation and 'mates' of the well off in respect of tax, my personal experience the past 20 years is the complete opposite, my personal tax was much much lower under Labour.
I disbelieve hugely that Labour will raise even a 1/4 of what they believe they will in tax (Corp and personal), which if they don't who is going to be effected the most? ........It won't be the rich, I'd envisage it will be the poorer in society.......
And as much as the conservatives are idiots at times, I don't get the hoo hah and the nick name regarding 'dementia tax' .... has no one worked out yet that those who sadly do and will suffer from dementia - they are some of the few who will be better off under the 'dementia tax' £100k cap...... it's currently circa £23k!
Comments
Meanwhile Labour has to fight this election to win it and push the tories as much as possible. This wil be a bigger victory than an establishment figure getting in for Labour.
If it was accompanied by changing inheritance tax that meant no one could leave more than £100k, it would at least be honest, but only a socialist nirvana could, get away with that. As it is you cannot introduce a wealth tax that only applies if you get sick and not pay the tax if you do not.
The objective is obviously to raise more tax, but, like all inheritance tax, it will become a voluntary tax. You simply transfer the property out of your estate.
I am sure the Tories would have understood this. They must have known the political fall out, and must always have considered potential unintended consequences.
I have a conspiracy theory. Is the objective to use a machiavellian tax policy to induce intended unintended desirable consequences? The transfer of wealth to the next generation. Not through the tax itself, but through inducing behaviours that change the attitude to accumulating debt and wealth. Because, as a tax, it has no merit and is doomed to failure.
The effect of this tax would be to stimulate house sales first at the top end of the market. Don't forget, the tax is not capped, it is 100% of value above £100k. So the more expensive the house, the greater is the potential loss and the more incentive to break up the assets in advance of dementia or death. Ordinary home owners would follow suit. Suddenly the market is flooded, forcing prices down, mortgage debt is re-paid early and property equity is converted into cash, stimulating consumption. Inheritance tax becomes redundant, tying up wealth in your own home as an investment ceases to be the pre-occupation of the British. Banks and financial institutions have improved capital ratios with a return to stable asset prices and interest rates that reflect the risk free premium.
Tax revenues increase, apart from the dementia tax, and a social care savings scheme is introduced into the National Insurance system based on the realistic market cost of care, rather than competing for funding within the NHS budget. Your interest in the social care scheme, like the Swedish model, can be in the form of vouchers to pay towards private care in a regulated market.
The dementia tax is replaced by a new inheritance tax on all wealth that maintains the same disincentive to tie up wealth in property for no good reason other than to pass it on.
I am obviously clutching at straws to try and rationalise what May hopes to achieve, apart from wanting to run the election as a handicap for novices.
Yet still people want to vote for this plonker to carry on being our Foreign Secretary during the most critical negotiations for the country in decades!
Our strong and stable leader has been very clear since late this morning: there is a cap. Or, there will be. When they've decided what it is. And it's no use people like Jeremy Corbyn pointing out that there isn't a cap. People like Jeremy Corbyn shouldn't spend so much time reading the Conservative manifesto. People like Jeremy Corbyn shouldn't stick to the facts.
The problem that our strong and stable leader is beginning to understand is that people like Jeremy Corbyn. Quite a lot of them.
Who do you want at that negotiating table, a team that has done it's homework or someone whose only tactic is to channel Margaret Thatcher?
As a child of the 70's I am more in my comfort zone where there is a proper left and then a proper right option, with a third option for the light on their loafers in the middle. You could walk down my street as a kid, a leafy S.E London Eltham and see a blue poster in a bay window, next door a red one and so on, with the odd yellow poster popping up as well.
Beginning to like it, everyone is fucking up!
Although, to be fair Johnson doesn't read his briefings either.
To be fair though I've never been involved in a contract negotiation, let alone a international treaty. Maybe it is a tactic to appear a knob before softening to a more reasonable postion?
But what he seriously suffers from is a lack of any support in the mainstream media. Even the smaller left leaning sections of the media have been wary of fully getting behind him and with some of the baggage that goes with him its an open goal for the Daily Mail et al.
Whether the closing of the polls will be translated to the ballot box in any way, we'll see. I think probably not but what it has done is perhaps shown that there is still an appetite for policies based on the needs of the wider society. The trick for Labour (or what I expect to happen a new centerist party) is to harness that appetite with an media savvy and credible leader without any the history of meeting with IRA followers, etc.
https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/22/boris-johnson-naughty-boy-foreign-secretary-robert-peston
Yes it means having to accept that many still get all of their economic information from the Mail and the Sun and try not to get angry, but I do have faith in the British people and think we are close to something better! Maybe not at this election but the next. I will now defend Corbyn with a passion. I think he will be remembered very positively by History. People will look at May with the benefit of history behind them and laugh at us for electing her! If indeed we do - I wouldn't have added that a week ago! May is a limited opportunistic politician if ever there was one. Strong - My arse!
I think that David Miliband would have been seen by the electorate as Blair Mk2, and for many Labour voters, that would ensure that they would not support him.
There's also the potential that, had he been chosen rather than Ed, it would have been seen as the anointing of the "chosen one", which would have rubbed many up the wrong way.
And, for what it is worth, I think his flouncing off to Tracey Island to front (the) International Rescue (Committee) demonstrated a lack of commitment to the Party that he had wanted to lead. I think that , like Chuka Umuna, he actually lacks substance.
Don't get me wrong, I am very much in favour of people giving their talents to help benefit others through aid agencies - but I do worry about them when they also suggest that outside countries should politically (for which I read militarily) intervene in a country in a civil war. And, while I expect him to be well paid, I don't expect him to be believed to be earning 150% of the previous incumbent's salary.
I have major doubts about whether he would have been able to put up a better fight than Corbyn appears to be doing at the moment (Ed is a diferent matter - but, blessed with 20/20 hindsight, I still would have expected Labour to lose in 2015).
In many ways he is the candidate that the Conservatives would want to see lead Labour.
I'm quite entitled to start paying money into a pension again, all be it limited to £10k before they double tax me (tax going in and again coming out) which would reduce my tax (on that £10k) by 52%. My wife is also entitled to pay more into a pension up to £3,600 or her annual salary, as is everyone in this country.
I don't make the rules, simply have to abide by them! Just like my wife had to when they stopped her £1750 a year in child benefit because I earned more than £60k, just like I had to when the Tories took away my personal allowance meaning my marginal rate became 60%, Also when effectively they have reduced where the higher rate of tax comes in, or when they reduced the amount I can pay into pension and receive tax relief......
Despite the rhetoric of conservatives being the party of low taxation and 'mates' of the well off in respect of tax, my personal experience the past 20 years is the complete opposite, my personal tax was much much lower under Labour.
I disbelieve hugely that Labour will raise even a 1/4 of what they believe they will in tax (Corp and personal), which if they don't who is going to be effected the most? ........It won't be the rich, I'd envisage it will be the poorer in society.......
And as much as the conservatives are idiots at times, I don't get the hoo hah and the nick name regarding 'dementia tax' .... has no one worked out yet that those who sadly do and will suffer from dementia - they are some of the few who will be better off under the 'dementia tax' £100k cap...... it's currently circa £23k!