The Tories have raise way more money than Labour in donations, which is probably why they're able to spend time and resources manufacturing these lies.
So the stats you put up don't tell the story. And you are led to believe despite what an ex-police chief has told us. I mean - just read it back!
The stats tell you the number of police through the last 15 years. We have the same number now (plus PCSO's as an addition) as we did in 2003, in between then and now we had more.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have more police but the rhetoric of all the bad happening in this country is solely down to cuts in the last few years isn't the full story. In the key areas of counter terrorosm police we've never had more.
Had we had another 20,000 police officers would the last two attacks have happened? Some will say yes, some will say no.
Re: the land tax. Labour has only pledged to reform council tax and business rates in their manifesto. They gave a land value tax as one such example that they would look at. Here is the quote from the manifesto:
"A Labour government will give local government extra funding next year. We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term"
As per my post, can anyone really justify a rise for a household like me paying near enough 3 grand a year when I place no greater demand on the infrastructure of the local area?
If there was this much wollyness over welfare, benefits, or the economic bits that matter more to Labour voters - they would be having a field day.
Where is the clarity?
My consumption of public services paid for through general taxation is probably the lowest possible drain on those services, yet Corbyn's income tax plans will cost me in excess of £25k a year more in income tax. I haven't got a problem with that.
How is a land tax any different to council tax now - it will be based on the value of your property, as it is now. The more valuable the property the more you pay - simples. I expect the overall local taxes to increase for owners of expensive houses - and again I haven't got a problem with that. The purpose is for the local authorities to be able to provide the services they need - the services they have had to cut back on for the last 7 years. I won't consume many, if any, of those services but I haven't got a problem with that.
Can you see what I'm saying - a common thread? I have the ability to contribute more than I actually consume - and I AINT got a problem with that!
It's called socialism - sorry for swearing.
Yeah socialism - we really could end up with a socialist government here.....
I am sure I am not the only one who lives to a set of means - as I get squeezed more by various tax rises, I will need to compromise and cut back elsewhere.
So surely there is an element that it adds up to less spend from me into businesses and the wider economy. I wont be able to get that new front door so persons business suffers. Or I wont be able to get a new shed from the local carpenter.
Everything drops back - it's the classic example of something that doesnt work for anyone.
I just can't see how socialism works. Yes maybe taxes are cut for certain people, but if someone like myself (and many others) has less money to spend on (potentially) their business or services.... How does that work?
You obviously have a lot of disposable income - ie £25k!! I dont have £25k sitting there that isnt currently going in to my family.
People live to their means, and in most cases, if you squeeze them to hard, they will have less to spend elsewhere.
It will be counter productive to ALL people regardless of spending power.
Totally agree, whatever additional tax you pay is generally money you won't spend elsewhere, I've cited examples of what I would likely do which a) won't raise any more tax and b) means some money I would have spent/given to charity I now won't, but heh, it's all fully costed so don't worry!!
There should be a 'zero-based budgeting' approach to public services similar to those used by the leanest and best-managed global companies (eg. Kraft Heinz).
Instead of looking at how say the number of police officers has fallen year-on-year and declaring instinctively that a fall must be bad and a rise must be good, instead we should simply ask, "How many police officers do we actually need?"
Given that crime has been falling significantly over the past decade (for various reasons eg. better home/car security, lower drug/alcohol use, more deterrents [eg. CCTV], high employment etc.) then why would reducing the number of police officers necessarily mean the public has been left more at risk?
Re: the land tax. Labour has only pledged to reform council tax and business rates in their manifesto. They gave a land value tax as one such example that they would look at. Here is the quote from the manifesto:
"A Labour government will give local government extra funding next year. We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term"
As per my post, can anyone really justify a rise for a household like me paying near enough 3 grand a year when I place no greater demand on the infrastructure of the local area?
If there was this much wollyness over welfare, benefits, or the economic bits that matter more to Labour voters - they would be having a field day.
Where is the clarity?
My consumption of public services paid for through general taxation is probably the lowest possible drain on those services, yet Corbyn's income tax plans will cost me in excess of £25k a year more in income tax. I haven't got a problem with that.
How is a land tax any different to council tax now - it will be based on the value of your property, as it is now. The more valuable the property the more you pay - simples. I expect the overall local taxes to increase for owners of expensive houses - and again I haven't got a problem with that. The purpose is for the local authorities to be able to provide the services they need - the services they have had to cut back on for the last 7 years. I won't consume many, if any, of those services but I haven't got a problem with that.
Can you see what I'm saying - a common thread? I have the ability to contribute more than I actually consume - and I AINT got a problem with that!
It's called socialism - sorry for swearing.
Yeah socialism - we really could end up with a socialist government here.....
I am sure I am not the only one who lives to a set of means - as I get squeezed more by various tax rises, I will need to compromise and cut back elsewhere.
So surely there is an element that it adds up to less spend from me into businesses and the wider economy. I wont be able to get that new front door so persons business suffers. Or I wont be able to get a new shed from the local carpenter.
Everything drops back - it's the classic example of something that doesnt work for anyone.
I just can't see how socialism works. Yes maybe taxes are cut for certain people, but if someone like myself (and many others) has less money to spend on (potentially) their business or services.... How does that work?
You obviously have a lot of disposable income - ie £25k!! I dont have £25k sitting there that isnt currently going in to my family.
People live to their means, and in most cases, if you squeeze them to hard, they will have less to spend elsewhere.
It will be counter productive to ALL people regardless of spending power.
Totally agree, whatever additional tax you pay is generally money you won't spend elsewhere, I've cited examples of what I would likely do which a) won't raise any more tax and b) means some money I would have spent/given to charity I now won't, but heh, it's all fully costed so don't worry!!
Why should you feel safer to be completely uncosted?
I don't kid myself that the streets of London will be any safer under Labour than the tories. Unfortunately there will be atrocities in the future no matter who is in charge. Even with more cops on the streets there will be terrorist attacks. There are just too many jihadist nutters out there, plus other extremists, who can now use ordinary transport and knives to cause murder mayhem as opposed to using harder to obtain guns or bombs. What gripes with me is Mrs May on her high horse trying to make out that we should trust her when she has previously undermined the police by her cuts as Home Secretary. I note that Corbyn has had to firm up a commitment for the police to shoot on sight in 'certain' situations. That is quite a move by him and a sign that he can compromise his ideals, which is important as a potential (if unlikely) PM.
So how come when Corbyn changes his minds on policies it is seen as an important quality as a leader in compromising
And when the Tories do it, its seen as weak and backtracking?
Because they keep telling us they are strong & stable.
Land tax simply won't work in this country, too many people (mainly pensioners) are asset rich but cash poor, especially in the south.
Using the example in the link of 0.85% on a £750k house would take almost the whole of a pensioners state pension.
You can bet your bottom dollar this won't replace council tax but will be in addition to.
Think when the time comes I'll sell up and rent at this rate with rent caps (any info on that?) it'll be cheaper!!
There is quite a lot to be said for a land tax, not least the fact that it is almost impossible to evade.
All of us that are homeowners in the South-East have benefited from enormous amounts of 'unearned income' (through increasing home/land prices) by virtue of significant investment in the region that we simply free rode upon.
It is also almost by definition a highly progressive tax since the rich own much more (and valuable) land than the poor, and it encourages investment in less well-off areas (where land is cheaper and thus less taxed).
Importantly in the context of a housing supply crisis, it also disincentivises speculators from holding large land banks which they are not developing yet.
So onto another track..... I am trying to get my head around this 'garden tax' and work out how much, if at all, it will affect me and my family.
Maybe I am being lazy but Google is bringing up loads of conflicting info and I cant get my head round it. Could somebody summarise as briefly as possible?
My council tax is currently just shy of £3k per year - so I am sure you won't be surprise to hear I am constantly griping about that. Trying to work out of under Labour it would go up more or not?
Thank the Lord I sold that house I had in Bexley - the garden was huge!
There should be a 'zero-based budgeting' approach to public services similar to those used by the leanest and best-managed global companies (eg. Kraft Heinz).
Instead of looking at how say the number of police officers has fallen year-on-year and declaring instinctively that a fall must be bad and a rise must be good, instead we should simply ask, "How many police officers do we actually need?"
Given that crime has been falling significantly over the past decade (for various reasons eg. better home/car security, lower drug/alcohol use, more deterrents [eg. CCTV], high employment etc.) then why would reducing the number of police officers necessarily mean the public has been left more at risk?
I'm not sure that the leanest and best managed global companies have to provide a level of service cover 24/7 in the way that we expect from the emergency services.
I'm not saying that they are not well run, and there are definitely elements of their management practices that are worth consideration.
However, I am fairly sure that I don't want A&E or an emerging security situation managed in the same way as processed cheese or baked beans...
Re: the land tax. Labour has only pledged to reform council tax and business rates in their manifesto. They gave a land value tax as one such example that they would look at. Here is the quote from the manifesto:
"A Labour government will give local government extra funding next year. We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term"
As per my post, can anyone really justify a rise for a household like me paying near enough 3 grand a year when I place no greater demand on the infrastructure of the local area?
If there was this much wollyness over welfare, benefits, or the economic bits that matter more to Labour voters - they would be having a field day.
Where is the clarity?
My consumption of public services paid for through general taxation is probably the lowest possible drain on those services, yet Corbyn's income tax plans will cost me in excess of £25k a year more in income tax. I haven't got a problem with that.
How is a land tax any different to council tax now - it will be based on the value of your property, as it is now. The more valuable the property the more you pay - simples. I expect the overall local taxes to increase for owners of expensive houses - and again I haven't got a problem with that. The purpose is for the local authorities to be able to provide the services they need - the services they have had to cut back on for the last 7 years. I won't consume many, if any, of those services but I haven't got a problem with that.
Can you see what I'm saying - a common thread? I have the ability to contribute more than I actually consume - and I AINT got a problem with that!
It's called socialism - sorry for swearing.
Yeah socialism - we really could end up with a socialist government here.....
I am sure I am not the only one who lives to a set of means - as I get squeezed more by various tax rises, I will need to compromise and cut back elsewhere.
So surely there is an element that it adds up to less spend from me into businesses and the wider economy. I wont be able to get that new front door so persons business suffers. Or I wont be able to get a new shed from the local carpenter.
Everything drops back - it's the classic example of something that doesnt work for anyone.
I just can't see how socialism works. Yes maybe taxes are cut for certain people, but if someone like myself (and many others) has less money to spend on (potentially) their business or services.... How does that work?
You obviously have a lot of disposable income - ie £25k!! I dont have £25k sitting there that isnt currently going in to my family.
People live to their means, and in most cases, if you squeeze them to hard, they will have less to spend elsewhere.
It will be counter productive to ALL people regardless of spending power.
Totally agree, whatever additional tax you pay is generally money you won't spend elsewhere, I've cited examples of what I would likely do which a) won't raise any more tax and b) means some money I would have spent/given to charity I now won't, but heh, it's all fully costed so don't worry!!
Why should you feel safer to be completely uncosted?
I assume you aren't talking physical safety here but Labour v Conservative Manifesto?
In short otherwise this could be a long post;
The Conservatives haven't promised a huge amount of additional spending so i'm not overly concerned from JUST that perspective.
On the flip side Labour have made some huge promises from Free Uni Education, increased funding for schools, NHS, to pay rises etc etc you know them, lets say they cost circa £50bn. This is fully costed with their circa £50bn from taxes etc.
Lets assume for one moment that doesn't raise anywhere near the £50bn required, what then? We'd already have implemented 99% of the promises and they need paying for. My expectation at that point is that they won't then suddenly reverse all they are doing but will need to find xbn more....... queue greater taxation and the effects that will have on the country.
Re: the land tax. Labour has only pledged to reform council tax and business rates in their manifesto. They gave a land value tax as one such example that they would look at. Here is the quote from the manifesto:
"A Labour government will give local government extra funding next year. We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term"
As per my post, can anyone really justify a rise for a household like me paying near enough 3 grand a year when I place no greater demand on the infrastructure of the local area?
If there was this much wollyness over welfare, benefits, or the economic bits that matter more to Labour voters - they would be having a field day.
Where is the clarity?
What you mean like the utter lack of clarity from the Tories as to which pensioners will no longer be receiving the winter fuel allowance, where the cap on social care charges will be set, and even whether those social care charges will be levied on the 1/3 of people receiving home care that aren't currently pensioners, given that it only gets mentioned in the "Elderly Care" section of their manifesto? And that's before we get into the fact they got their sums utterly wrong on the costs of the school breakfast pledge, and the extra £8bn for the NHS comes from "redirecting current spending" or "the growing economy" depending on which talking head is being interviewed at the time.
There's a vast difference between offering to consult on a new policy for funding local services like this, and deciding on a policy and then belatedly offering to consult on exactly who's going to be hit by it when the criticism floods in.
Re: the land tax. Labour has only pledged to reform council tax and business rates in their manifesto. They gave a land value tax as one such example that they would look at. Here is the quote from the manifesto:
"A Labour government will give local government extra funding next year. We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term"
As per my post, can anyone really justify a rise for a household like me paying near enough 3 grand a year when I place no greater demand on the infrastructure of the local area?
If there was this much wollyness over welfare, benefits, or the economic bits that matter more to Labour voters - they would be having a field day.
Where is the clarity?
My consumption of public services paid for through general taxation is probably the lowest possible drain on those services, yet Corbyn's income tax plans will cost me in excess of £25k a year more in income tax. I haven't got a problem with that.
How is a land tax any different to council tax now - it will be based on the value of your property, as it is now. The more valuable the property the more you pay - simples. I expect the overall local taxes to increase for owners of expensive houses - and again I haven't got a problem with that. The purpose is for the local authorities to be able to provide the services they need - the services they have had to cut back on for the last 7 years. I won't consume many, if any, of those services but I haven't got a problem with that.
Can you see what I'm saying - a common thread? I have the ability to contribute more than I actually consume - and I AINT got a problem with that!
It's called socialism - sorry for swearing.
Yeah socialism - we really could end up with a socialist government here.....
I am sure I am not the only one who lives to a set of means - as I get squeezed more by various tax rises, I will need to compromise and cut back elsewhere.
So surely there is an element that it adds up to less spend from me into businesses and the wider economy. I wont be able to get that new front door so persons business suffers. Or I wont be able to get a new shed from the local carpenter.
Everything drops back - it's the classic example of something that doesnt work for anyone.
I just can't see how socialism works. Yes maybe taxes are cut for certain people, but if someone like myself (and many others) has less money to spend on (potentially) their business or services.... How does that work?
You obviously have a lot of disposable income - ie £25k!! I dont have £25k sitting there that isnt currently going in to my family.
People live to their means, and in most cases, if you squeeze them to hard, they will have less to spend elsewhere.
It will be counter productive to ALL people regardless of spending power.
Totally agree, whatever additional tax you pay is generally money you won't spend elsewhere, I've cited examples of what I would likely do which a) won't raise any more tax and b) means some money I would have spent/given to charity I now won't, but heh, it's all fully costed so don't worry!!
Well you would both agree wouldn't you? You've both admitted to earning a (relative to most) fortune in this thread and being big fans of trickle down economics.
Enjoyed my week off away from all this nonsense, can't wait till it's over
I am gonna stick my neck out and say labour will nick it, mainly as May isn't fit for PM and hasn't handled herself well through this whole election, and Corbyn despite all his flaws looks to have come out of it better from what I've seen
I Completely ignore the pre election polls as they have got the last few wrong and I think it will be the same this time
Young voters to come out in force as they always vote labour until they start earning
Let's be honest if it was down to this site and the various social media channels it would be a labour landslide...
Enjoyed my week off away from all this nonsense, can't wait till it's over
I am gonna stick my neck out and say labour will nick it, mainly as May isn't fit for PM and hasn't handled herself well through this whole election, and Corbyn despite all his flaws looks to have come out of it better from what I've seen
I Completely ignore the pre election polls as they have got the last few wrong and I think it will be the same this time
Young voters to come out in force as they always vote labour until they start earning
Let's be honest if it was down to this site and the various social media channels it would be a labour landslide...
4 days till it's all over
More chance of Elvis walking in to my local pub tonight....238 Tory seats in 2015 voted Leave in 2016 and at least 236 are in the bag, more than Labour will win in total.
The 'young voters' argument is hogwash - explosion in voter registrations has happened largely in safe Labour seats.
Enjoyed my week off away from all this nonsense, can't wait till it's over
I am gonna stick my neck out and say labour will nick it, mainly as May isn't fit for PM and hasn't handled herself well through this whole election, and Corbyn despite all his flaws looks to have come out of it better from what I've seen
I Completely ignore the pre election polls as they have got the last few wrong and I think it will be the same this time
Young voters to come out in force as they always vote labour until they start earning
Let's be honest if it was down to this site and the various social media channels it would be a labour landslide...
4 days till it's all over
More chance of Elvis walking in to my local pub tonight....238 Tory seats in 2015 voted Leave in 2016 and at least 236 are in the bag, more than Labour will win in total.
The 'young voters' argument is hogwash - explosion in voter registrations has happened largely in safe Labour seats.
If Elvis does walk in to the pub and settles in the UK - he will soon go back to Memphis after getting taxed to the hilt by Corbyn and co.
Enjoyed my week off away from all this nonsense, can't wait till it's over
I am gonna stick my neck out and say labour will nick it, mainly as May isn't fit for PM and hasn't handled herself well through this whole election, and Corbyn despite all his flaws looks to have come out of it better from what I've seen
I Completely ignore the pre election polls as they have got the last few wrong and I think it will be the same this time
Young voters to come out in force as they always vote labour until they start earning
Let's be honest if it was down to this site and the various social media channels it would be a labour landslide...
4 days till it's all over
More chance of Elvis walking in to my local pub tonight....238 Tory seats in 2015 voted Leave in 2016 and at least 236 are in the bag, more than Labour will win in total.
The 'young voters' argument is hogwash - explosion in voter registrations has happened largely in safe Labour seats.
Pride comes before a fall. Many a slip tween cup and lip.
Enjoyed my week off away from all this nonsense, can't wait till it's over
I am gonna stick my neck out and say labour will nick it, mainly as May isn't fit for PM and hasn't handled herself well through this whole election, and Corbyn despite all his flaws looks to have come out of it better from what I've seen
I Completely ignore the pre election polls as they have got the last few wrong and I think it will be the same this time
Young voters to come out in force as they always vote labour until they start earning
Let's be honest if it was down to this site and the various social media channels it would be a labour landslide...
4 days till it's all over
More chance of Elvis walking in to my local pub tonight....238 Tory seats in 2015 voted Leave in 2016 and at least 236 are in the bag, more than Labour will win in total.
The 'young voters' argument is hogwash - explosion in voter registrations has happened largely in safe Labour seats.
If Elvis does walk in to the pub and settles in the UK - he will soon go back to Memphis after getting taxed to the hilt by Corbyn and co.
Re: the land tax. Labour has only pledged to reform council tax and business rates in their manifesto. They gave a land value tax as one such example that they would look at. Here is the quote from the manifesto:
"A Labour government will give local government extra funding next year. We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term"
As per my post, can anyone really justify a rise for a household like me paying near enough 3 grand a year when I place no greater demand on the infrastructure of the local area?
If there was this much wollyness over welfare, benefits, or the economic bits that matter more to Labour voters - they would be having a field day.
Where is the clarity?
What you mean like the utter lack of clarity from the Tories as to which pensioners will no longer be receiving the winter fuel allowance, where the cap on social care charges will be set, and even whether those social care charges will be levied on the 1/3 of people receiving home care that aren't currently pensioners, given that it only gets mentioned in the "Elderly Care" section of their manifesto? And that's before we get into the fact they got their sums utterly wrong on the costs of the school breakfast pledge, and the extra £8bn for the NHS comes from "redirecting current spending" or "the growing economy" depending on which talking head is being interviewed at the time.
There's a vast difference between offering to consult on a new policy for funding local services like this, and deciding on a policy and then belatedly offering to consult on exactly who's going to be hit by it when the criticism floods in.
Exactly! I'm looking at yesterday's Telegraph and on the front page they have presented the land tax as being 3% and as a big scary fact that's going to effect 10m homeowners. It's bollocks they've been fed by Conservative Central Office to put the frighteners on pensioners in large properties particular.
Re: the land tax. Labour has only pledged to reform council tax and business rates in their manifesto. They gave a land value tax as one such example that they would look at. Here is the quote from the manifesto:
"A Labour government will give local government extra funding next year. We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term"
As per my post, can anyone really justify a rise for a household like me paying near enough 3 grand a year when I place no greater demand on the infrastructure of the local area?
If there was this much wollyness over welfare, benefits, or the economic bits that matter more to Labour voters - they would be having a field day.
Where is the clarity?
My consumption of public services paid for through general taxation is probably the lowest possible drain on those services, yet Corbyn's income tax plans will cost me in excess of £25k a year more in income tax. I haven't got a problem with that.
How is a land tax any different to council tax now - it will be based on the value of your property, as it is now. The more valuable the property the more you pay - simples. I expect the overall local taxes to increase for owners of expensive houses - and again I haven't got a problem with that. The purpose is for the local authorities to be able to provide the services they need - the services they have had to cut back on for the last 7 years. I won't consume many, if any, of those services but I haven't got a problem with that.
Can you see what I'm saying - a common thread? I have the ability to contribute more than I actually consume - and I AINT got a problem with that!
It's called socialism - sorry for swearing.
Yeah socialism - we really could end up with a socialist government here.....
I am sure I am not the only one who lives to a set of means - as I get squeezed more by various tax rises, I will need to compromise and cut back elsewhere.
So surely there is an element that it adds up to less spend from me into businesses and the wider economy. I wont be able to get that new front door so persons business suffers. Or I wont be able to get a new shed from the local carpenter.
Everything drops back - it's the classic example of something that doesnt work for anyone.
I just can't see how socialism works. Yes maybe taxes are cut for certain people, but if someone like myself (and many others) has less money to spend on (potentially) their business or services.... How does that work?
You obviously have a lot of disposable income - ie £25k!! I dont have £25k sitting there that isnt currently going in to my family.
People live to their means, and in most cases, if you squeeze them to hard, they will have less to spend elsewhere.
It will be counter productive to ALL people regardless of spending power.
Totally agree, whatever additional tax you pay is generally money you won't spend elsewhere, I've cited examples of what I would likely do which a) won't raise any more tax and b) means some money I would have spent/given to charity I now won't, but heh, it's all fully costed so don't worry!!
Well you would both agree wouldn't you? You've both admitted to earning a (relative to most) fortune in this thread and being big fans of trickle down economics.
Not sure on the trickle down bit, that implies that the higher earners pay little down the line, but maybe we both agree on some aspects of Labour Manifesto as in our view and experience we realise that what Labour say they will collect is highly unlikely on quite a large scale.
Damo can answer for himself (and already partly has) and I agree with him that a lot of the additional tax will in part be counter productive with everyone.
Labour think because people earn X means they'll collect Y extra in tax. All I can say is that is massively incorrect, not through any dodgy tax avoidance scheme etc but in the main simply (using me as an example) by fully using my fully entitled allowances that I currently don't (as well as my wife's) or by changing my habits. Will I pay as much to Charity or non charitable good causes, most likely not, when a signed shirt comes up on here for the upbeats or the lady at the lib will I buy one (that I never really wanted anyway) probably not, or maybe just 1 rather than 2 or 3. Will I sponsor 5 of the womans team, again probably not. All small things, but they'll add up when the 5% all change something of their habits. I think those in the 80k-150k will change the most as it's a lot easier for them.
I think the 20% on private school fee's will be a big issue for more people than they realise, not everyone who sends their kids private is a wash with cash and many people struggle to meet that cost, I know a few people who would have no option but to go back to the state schools, so no additional 20% in revenue and more cash required for state education. Two children private is roughly say 30k so as well as paying more income tax and therefore having less net income they would also need to find another 6k from their already reduced net income........ for many that won't be possible.
Many earners over £80k who maybe have some spare cash each month will pay more into pension and therefore not only will that remove the additional tax that labour believe they will collect but it will probably reduce what is currently collected. Even if they don't do that they will probably spend less, so less money going to your local restaurant etc and the knock on effect that has down the supply chain or employment.
Companies will also change their habits, my employer (Japanese) will move more business from the UK to Bermuda, so not only will Labour not collect the additional revenue/corporate tax they have largely counted on they will lose the vast majority of the corporation tax currently paid, some jobs will also go (to Bermuda) and a lot of those will be high earners, so again, not only do they lose the additional income tax they thought they would collect but also what is currently collected.
It's a shame that this election seems to have stirred up a bit of 'anti wealthy' feeling, I haven't seen anyone on here suggest that the wealthier in society shouldn't pay the greatest amount, but they already do and if you actually look at the changes the conservatives have made over the past 7 years in taxation etc the wealthier are already paying substantially more than before they came to power (by wealthier you can read anyone earning over £60k).
There is an argument (which I agree with) that to fund things like the NHS they could probably pay a bit more, but unfortunately Labour in my view have gone too far on that and has promised the earth on the back of a substantial raising in revenue that I don't personally believe will be even a quarter of what they are stating, I don't for one minute even think they themselves believe it likely. So they'll either have to go back on an awful lot of their promises or they'll be substantial tax rises across the board.
FWIW I still believe that the conservatives will increase their majority, but we'll see in a few days time.
Re: the land tax. Labour has only pledged to reform council tax and business rates in their manifesto. They gave a land value tax as one such example that they would look at. Here is the quote from the manifesto:
"A Labour government will give local government extra funding next year. We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term"
As per my post, can anyone really justify a rise for a household like me paying near enough 3 grand a year when I place no greater demand on the infrastructure of the local area?
If there was this much wollyness over welfare, benefits, or the economic bits that matter more to Labour voters - they would be having a field day.
Where is the clarity?
My consumption of public services paid for through general taxation is probably the lowest possible drain on those services, yet Corbyn's income tax plans will cost me in excess of £25k a year more in income tax. I haven't got a problem with that.
How is a land tax any different to council tax now - it will be based on the value of your property, as it is now. The more valuable the property the more you pay - simples. I expect the overall local taxes to increase for owners of expensive houses - and again I haven't got a problem with that. The purpose is for the local authorities to be able to provide the services they need - the services they have had to cut back on for the last 7 years. I won't consume many, if any, of those services but I haven't got a problem with that.
Can you see what I'm saying - a common thread? I have the ability to contribute more than I actually consume - and I AINT got a problem with that!
It's called socialism - sorry for swearing.
Yeah socialism - we really could end up with a socialist government here.....
I am sure I am not the only one who lives to a set of means - as I get squeezed more by various tax rises, I will need to compromise and cut back elsewhere.
So surely there is an element that it adds up to less spend from me into businesses and the wider economy. I wont be able to get that new front door so persons business suffers. Or I wont be able to get a new shed from the local carpenter.
Everything drops back - it's the classic example of something that doesnt work for anyone.
I just can't see how socialism works. Yes maybe taxes are cut for certain people, but if someone like myself (and many others) has less money to spend on (potentially) their business or services.... How does that work?
You obviously have a lot of disposable income - ie £25k!! I dont have £25k sitting there that isnt currently going in to my family.
People live to their means, and in most cases, if you squeeze them to hard, they will have less to spend elsewhere.
It will be counter productive to ALL people regardless of spending power.
Totally agree, whatever additional tax you pay is generally money you won't spend elsewhere, I've cited examples of what I would likely do which a) won't raise any more tax and b) means some money I would have spent/given to charity I now won't, but heh, it's all fully costed so don't worry!!
Well you would both agree wouldn't you? You've both admitted to earning a (relative to most) fortune in this thread and being big fans of trickle down economics.
Not sure on the trickle down bit, that implies that the higher earners pay little down the line, but maybe we both agree on some aspects of Labour Manifesto as in our view and experience we realise that what Labour say they will collect is highly unlikely on quite a large scale.
Damo can answer for himself (and already partly has) and I agree with him that a lot of the additional tax will in part be counter productive with everyone.
Labour think because people earn X means they'll collect Y extra in tax. All I can say is that is massively incorrect, not through any dodgy tax avoidance scheme etc but in the main simply (using me as an example) by fully using my fully entitled allowances that I currently don't (as well as my wife's) or by changing my habits. Will I pay as much to Charity or non charitable good causes, most likely not, when a signed shirt comes up on here for the upbeats or the lady at the lib will I buy one (that I never really wanted anyway) probably not, or maybe just 1 rather than 2 or 3. Will I sponsor 5 of the womans team, again probably not. All small things, but they'll add up when the 5% all change something of their habits. I think those in the 80k-150k will change the most as it's a lot easier for them.
I think the 20% on private school fee's will be a big issue for more people than they realise, not everyone who sends their kids private is a wash with cash and many people struggle to meet that cost, I know a few people who would have no option but to go back to the state schools, so no additional 20% in revenue and more cash required for state education. Two children private is roughly say 30k so as well as paying more income tax and therefore having less net income they would also need to find another 6k from their already reduced net income........ for many that won't be possible.
Many earners over £80k who maybe have some spare cash each month will pay more into pension and therefore not only will that remove the additional tax that labour believe they will collect but it will probably reduce what is currently collected. Even if they don't do that they will probably spend less, so less money going to your local restaurant etc and the knock on effect that has down the supply chain or employment.
Companies will also change their habits, my employer (Japanese) will move more business from the UK to Bermuda, so not only will Labour not collect the additional revenue/corporate tax they have largely counted on they will lose the vast majority of the corporation tax currently paid, some jobs will also go (to Bermuda) and a lot of those will be high earners, so again, not only do they lose the additional income tax they thought they would collect but also what is currently collected.
It's a shame that this election seems to have stirred up a bit of 'anti wealthy' feeling, I haven't seen anyone on here suggest that the wealthier in society shouldn't pay the greatest amount, but they already do and if you actually look at the changes the conservatives have made over the past 7 years in taxation etc the wealthier are already paying substantially more than before they came to power (by wealthier you can read anyone earning over £60k).
There is an argument (which I agree with) that to fund things like the NHS they could probably pay a bit more, but unfortunately Labour in my view have gone too far on that and has promised the earth on the back of a substantial raising in revenue that I don't personally believe will be even a quarter of what they are stating, I don't for one minute even think they themselves believe it likely. So they'll either have to go back on an awful lot of their promises or they'll be substantial tax rises across the board.
FWIW I still believe that the conservatives will increase their majority, but we'll see in a few days time.
Would the VAT on school fees be offset by free University education?
So @DamoNorthStand have I got this right, your current concern about Labour is that they may introduce something that is only referenced in their manifesto as "We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax."
But you are prepared to believe an article in the Daily Express that says otherwise, an article that changes the name of LVT "hereafter called the garden tax" and suggests it will be at 3% of the value of the land. That is despite no numbers being mentioned for a policy that does not exist.
If that is the case I think it reflects badly on you. Previously you have used evidence based reasoning to back your claims but this is frankly bollocks.
This is what it says about business rates in the Conservatives manifesto.
"We know that the business rates system presents considerable challenges to some smaller companies. That is why we have supported those businesses most affected by the recent revaluation of business rates. That is not all we will do. We will make longerterm reforms to the system to address concerns about the way it currently works. We will make sure that revaluations are conducted more frequently to avoid large changes to the bills that businesses face, and explore the introduction of self-assessments in the valuation process. To ensure the system is sustainable for the future we will also conduct a full review of the business rates system to make sure it is up to date for a world in which people increasingly shop online."
This is what it says about business rates and council tax in the Labour manifesto.
"A Labour government will give local government extra funding next year. We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term."
Enjoyed my week off away from all this nonsense, can't wait till it's over
I am gonna stick my neck out and say labour will nick it, mainly as May isn't fit for PM and hasn't handled herself well through this whole election, and Corbyn despite all his flaws looks to have come out of it better from what I've seen
I Completely ignore the pre election polls as they have got the last few wrong and I think it will be the same this time
Young voters to come out in force as they always vote labour until they start earning
Let's be honest if it was down to this site and the various social media channels it would be an labour Official Monster Raving Loony Party landslide...
Comments
Using the example in the link of 0.85% on a £750k house would take almost the whole of a pensioners state pension.
You can bet your bottom dollar this won't replace council tax but will be in addition to.
Think when the time comes I'll sell up and rent at this rate with rent caps (any info on that?) it'll be cheaper!!
Reality Check: May and Corbyn's record on anti-terror legislation
I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have more police but the rhetoric of all the bad happening in this country is solely down to cuts in the last few years isn't the full story. In the key areas of counter terrorosm police we've never had more.
Had we had another 20,000 police officers would the last two attacks have happened? Some will say yes, some will say no.
Instead of looking at how say the number of police officers has fallen year-on-year and declaring instinctively that a fall must be bad and a rise must be good, instead we should simply ask, "How many police officers do we actually need?"
Given that crime has been falling significantly over the past decade (for various reasons eg. better home/car security, lower drug/alcohol use, more deterrents [eg. CCTV], high employment etc.) then why would reducing the number of police officers necessarily mean the public has been left more at risk?
All of us that are homeowners in the South-East have benefited from enormous amounts of 'unearned income' (through increasing home/land prices) by virtue of significant investment in the region that we simply free rode upon.
It is also almost by definition a highly progressive tax since the rich own much more (and valuable) land than the poor, and it encourages investment in less well-off areas (where land is cheaper and thus less taxed).
Importantly in the context of a housing supply crisis, it also disincentivises speculators from holding large land banks which they are not developing yet.
I'm not saying that they are not well run, and there are definitely elements of their management practices that are worth consideration.
However, I am fairly sure that I don't want A&E or an emerging security situation managed in the same way as processed cheese or baked beans...
No one seems to care that public services are getting worse and worse but our taxes aren't falling to compensate.
In short otherwise this could be a long post;
The Conservatives haven't promised a huge amount of additional spending so i'm not overly concerned from JUST that perspective.
On the flip side Labour have made some huge promises from Free Uni Education, increased funding for schools, NHS, to pay rises etc etc you know them, lets say they cost circa £50bn. This is fully costed with their circa £50bn from taxes etc.
Lets assume for one moment that doesn't raise anywhere near the £50bn required, what then? We'd already have implemented 99% of the promises and they need paying for. My expectation at that point is that they won't then suddenly reverse all they are doing but will need to find xbn more....... queue greater taxation and the effects that will have on the country.
There's a vast difference between offering to consult on a new policy for funding local services like this, and deciding on a policy and then belatedly offering to consult on exactly who's going to be hit by it when the criticism floods in.
I am gonna stick my neck out and say labour will nick it, mainly as May isn't fit for PM and hasn't handled herself well through this whole election, and Corbyn despite all his flaws looks to have come out of it better from what I've seen
I Completely ignore the pre election polls as they have got the last few wrong and I think it will be the same this time
Young voters to come out in force as they always vote labour until they start earning
Let's be honest if it was down to this site and the various social media channels it would be a labour landslide...
4 days till it's all over
The 'young voters' argument is hogwash - explosion in voter registrations has happened largely in safe Labour seats.
I refer you to Donald Trump.
Damo can answer for himself (and already partly has) and I agree with him that a lot of the additional tax will in part be counter productive with everyone.
Labour think because people earn X means they'll collect Y extra in tax. All I can say is that is massively incorrect, not through any dodgy tax avoidance scheme etc but in the main simply (using me as an example) by fully using my fully entitled allowances that I currently don't (as well as my wife's) or by changing my habits. Will I pay as much to Charity or non charitable good causes, most likely not, when a signed shirt comes up on here for the upbeats or the lady at the lib will I buy one (that I never really wanted anyway) probably not, or maybe just 1 rather than 2 or 3. Will I sponsor 5 of the womans team, again probably not. All small things, but they'll add up when the 5% all change something of their habits. I think those in the 80k-150k will change the most as it's a lot easier for them.
I think the 20% on private school fee's will be a big issue for more people than they realise, not everyone who sends their kids private is a wash with cash and many people struggle to meet that cost, I know a few people who would have no option but to go back to the state schools, so no additional 20% in revenue and more cash required for state education. Two children private is roughly say 30k so as well as paying more income tax and therefore having less net income they would also need to find another 6k from their already reduced net income........ for many that won't be possible.
Many earners over £80k who maybe have some spare cash each month will pay more into pension and therefore not only will that remove the additional tax that labour believe they will collect but it will probably reduce what is currently collected. Even if they don't do that they will probably spend less, so less money going to your local restaurant etc and the knock on effect that has down the supply chain or employment.
Companies will also change their habits, my employer (Japanese) will move more business from the UK to Bermuda, so not only will Labour not collect the additional revenue/corporate tax they have largely counted on they will lose the vast majority of the corporation tax currently paid, some jobs will also go (to Bermuda) and a lot of those will be high earners, so again, not only do they lose the additional income tax they thought they would collect but also what is currently collected.
It's a shame that this election seems to have stirred up a bit of 'anti wealthy' feeling, I haven't seen anyone on here suggest that the wealthier in society shouldn't pay the greatest amount, but they already do and if you actually look at the changes the conservatives have made over the past 7 years in taxation etc the wealthier are already paying substantially more than before they came to power (by wealthier you can read anyone earning over £60k).
There is an argument (which I agree with) that to fund things like the NHS they could probably pay a bit more, but unfortunately Labour in my view have gone too far on that and has promised the earth on the back of a substantial raising in revenue that I don't personally believe will be even a quarter of what they are stating, I don't for one minute even think they themselves believe it likely. So they'll either have to go back on an awful lot of their promises or they'll be substantial tax rises across the board.
FWIW I still believe that the conservatives will increase their majority, but we'll see in a few days time.
But you are prepared to believe an article in the Daily Express that says otherwise, an article that changes the name of LVT "hereafter called the garden tax" and suggests it will be at 3% of the value of the land. That is despite no numbers being mentioned for a policy that does not exist.
If that is the case I think it reflects badly on you. Previously you have used evidence based reasoning to back your claims but this is frankly bollocks.
What about all the small businesses in the city who not only will be having their corporation tax increased but then also have this to deal?
What about the farms who will see an increase? Potentially a huge one. Who's going to feel the hit on that one? Us.
I don't like the fact there is so little information on it in the manifesto, seems a bit sneaky to me.
"We know that the business rates system presents considerable challenges to some
smaller companies. That is why we have supported those businesses most affected by
the recent revaluation of business rates. That is not all we will do. We will make longerterm
reforms to the system to address concerns about the way it currently works. We
will make sure that revaluations are conducted more frequently to avoid large changes
to the bills that businesses face, and explore the introduction of self-assessments in the
valuation process. To ensure the system is sustainable for the future we will also conduct
a full review of the business rates system to make sure it is up to date for a world in which
people increasingly shop online."
This is what it says about business rates and council tax in the Labour manifesto.
"A Labour government will give local
government extra funding next year.
We will initiate a review into
reforming council tax and business
rates and consider new options
such as a land value tax, to ensure
local government has sustainable
funding for the long term."