Are people actually trying to say that the Tories are for poor people and keeping a straight face?
I think the idea is that we are supposed to think it's quite normal to be earning £80k - £100k a year plus and therefore be grateful they contribute as much as they do in tax. It's not of course, far from it.
Meanwhile back in the world where most of us don't earn anything like that sort of salary...
The figures ignore non salary benefits when looking at the progression of remuneration and associated costs. Pension costs add at least 30% to the wages bill and these increase exponentially with pay rises.
The private sector has something to learn from the public sector's focus on skills improvement tied to promotional pay awards. It helps counter the pay constraints but is not recognised when looking at wage progression in the public sector.
So with respect I don't accept the idea that the public sector in the round are faring worse than the private sector.
It is just plain illogical to think the economy, let alone the Tories, have anything to gain from deliberately suppressing wages. As @Rob7Lee has admirably shown, the facts tend to get in the way of the received wisdom on the other side of the debate.
Either Labour promote a high tax, high welfare system like Sweden or shut up. No one, apart from the deluded, believes you can ape the Scandinavian model by only taxing the "rich" under a "fair" tax system.
If people earn 80k, they wont be paying a lot more - it is the point where you will pay more. This has been hinted at and I suggest people wait for the figures and decide from there.
I'm no fan of the conservatives Bournemouth, to me it's the lesser of two evils. Since 1990 there's has never been a party I really wanted to vote for hence generally in the past I've simply voted for who I thought was the best MP standing.
The conservatives have got a lot wrong but on tax I think they've got it right as I showed a few pages back, you can't argue that those at the lower end pay considerably less tax, those at the upper end considerably more. Froze council tax for 6(?) years?
My over riding issue this time around is two fold, can Labour do even half of what they say? I don't believe so and secondly I believe Corbyn and those around him will be a very weak government.
Let's take the £6bn they will raise in income tax, there is zero chance of raising that amount. Due in part to brexit a number of large organisations are looking for a European base. It's likely under labour that would lead to a bigger exodus of people, the vast majority of those will be high earners. Therefore not only will they not get the extra tax they will lose what they did earn from those people.
In my company alone the three highest paid underwriters (on a good year £1m+ in income tax) would likely move abroad, that's the tip of the iceberg in my industry. You'll also lose the tax on profits to a degree.
Even myself, say they increase my tax by £10k. I'd clearly have to cut back, part of that would likely be reducing what I give to charity by 50% so that's around £5k id no longer give. I'd probably start paying into a pension again up to the maximum I could, £10k, which would mean £5.2k less tax I'd pay, I'd probably top up my wife's saving another £1-2k in tax. I'd cut back on a few luxuries, so my two local restaurants would be down £3k+ a year. So all in all I'd pay no more tax (probably less) and local businesses and charity would also lose out.
If labour think those earning millions won't put in place perfectly legal ways of minimising the additional tax they are very much mistaken. The 50p/45p is proof of that.
It's a recipe for disaster, promise the earth and ultimately I believe we'd get less than we have now.
Labour has some great ideals, I just don't believe the majority are remotely possible.
BBC tax please don't be daft.. the BBC sets global standards for quality, and probably, no in the modern age people can't do without TV )) watch TV in just about any other country and you will realise just how lucky we are.
Are people actually trying to say that the Tories are for poor people and keeping a straight face?
I think the idea is that we are supposed to think it's quite normal to be earning £80k - £100k a year plus and therefore be grateful they contribute as much as they do in tax. It's not of course, far from it.
Meanwhile back in the world where most of us don't earn anything like that sort of salary...
The figures ignore non salary benefits when looking at the progression of remuneration and associated costs. Pension costs add at least 30% to the wages bill and these increase exponentially with pay rises.
The private sector has something to learn from the public sector's focus on skills improvement tied to promotional pay awards. It helps counter the pay constraints but is not recognised when looking at wage progression in the public sector.
So with respect I don't accept the idea that the public sector in the round are faring worse than the private sector.
It is just plain illogical to think the economy, let alone the Tories, have anything to gain from deliberately suppressing wages. As @Rob7Lee has admirably shown, the facts tend to get in the way of the received wisdom on the other side of the debate.
Either Labour promote a high tax, high welfare system like Sweden or shut up. No one, apart from the deluded, believes you can ape the Scandinavian model by only taxing the "rich" under a "fair" tax system.
Your point about increments based on career progression might have some validity if a) they haven't already been frozen in many authorities (my own included), b) they weren't within fairly limited bands meaning that even if they are not frozen it doesn't take very long to reach the ceiling within that band and c) they are not automatically awarded anyway but subject to satisfactory progression, performance and often additional responsibilities.
I'm not going to get into another discussion about pensions with you as you insist on lumping all public sector pensions together as one to present the "worst case" scenario when you are well aware there is a large range of different schemes within the public sector and these are under almost constant review.
Clearly, it IS in the Tories interests to suppress the wages of the 5m public sector workers since they are paying the bill! I know that public sector employees don't seem to count for much in many peoples eyes and certainly aren't in May's thinking when she talks about ordinary working families but there's a lot out there really struggling at the moment and considering their futures.
2. Public services get worse, experienced staff leave or strike and inexperienced cheap replacements cannot cope
3. Public services are sold to private firm at monstrous cost to taxpayer, those responsible gain massive profits due to being shareholders at private firm
Are people actually trying to say that the Tories are for poor people and keeping a straight face?
I think the idea is that we are supposed to think it's quite normal to be earning £80k - £100k a year plus and therefore be grateful they contribute as much as they do in tax. It's not of course, far from it.
Meanwhile back in the world where most of us don't earn anything like that sort of salary...
The figures ignore non salary benefits when looking at the progression of remuneration and associated costs. Pension costs add at least 30% to the wages bill and these increase exponentially with pay rises.
The private sector has something to learn from the public sector's focus on skills improvement tied to promotional pay awards. It helps counter the pay constraints but is not recognised when looking at wage progression in the public sector.
So with respect I don't accept the idea that the public sector in the round are faring worse than the private sector.
It is just plain illogical to think the economy, let alone the Tories, have anything to gain from deliberately suppressing wages. As @Rob7Lee has admirably shown, the facts tend to get in the way of the received wisdom on the other side of the debate.
Either Labour promote a high tax, high welfare system like Sweden or shut up. No one, apart from the deluded, believes you can ape the Scandinavian model by only taxing the "rich" under a "fair" tax system.
Clearly, it IS in the Tories interests to suppress the wages of the 5m public sector workers since they are paying the bill! I know that public sector employees don't seem to count for much in many peoples eyes and certainly aren't in May's thinking when she talks about ordinary working families but there's a lot out there really struggling at the moment and considering their futures.
I don't disagree that say Nurses deserve more, lots more, for what they do but I can put you in contact with plenty in the private sector who have received less than the 1% rise for years. One of my friends works for a local small business (Alarm fitter) and last had a payrise in 2011.
But Gross Pay is only one part of the equation and shouldn't be looked at in isolation, what about the fact that a Nurse (or anyone on the 'average wage') will get net approximately £1k more net pay per annum now compared to 2010 due to paying less income tax?
Not saying it's enough but simply looking at headline payrise numbers clouds the truth. That's not to say I don't think a nurse should be better paid, I do, but please at least look at the whole picture.
You cannot argue that since 2010 those on average or low end salaries see a fair proportion more in their take home pay than they did previously regardless of payrises or not.
Would Corbyn achieve all those in 5 years? Of course not. But investment now encourages returns later. A basic economic lesson the Tories seem to have forgotten in their rush to swing the ace, which has seen demand sucked out the economy.
Agreed, but to me it seems an awful lot isn't investing for returns later it's simply spending. The electorate will expect a number of those spending promises almost immediately.
I'm really interested to see the manifesto in full tomorrow, today it seems they also will re-nationalise the water companies, I assume they'll have to buy them, Thames Water alone has a market value of £12bn.
So instead we just let them rake in the profit which otherwise could be spent improving our infrastructure?
In 2013 alone, the water companies made in £1.9bn in profit.
The Thames Tideway Tunnel, something that was deemed necessary 12 years ago and is not planned to be complete for another 6 will cost £4.2bn. Something that could be paid for with just over 2 years of the profit that these companies are making.
Obviously it's not quite that simple but I think it's pretty shocking that people are profiting off of such a basic human need.
What a basic human need that costs just a few pence over a pound a day on average?
(I only spend around 60p a day on water/sewage and that includes having the sprinkler on the lawn all summer! It's a bargain. God knows how much water people waste.)
BTW, there's no point quoting a profit level unless you compare with other measures. It's meaningless. Take Severn Trent as an example. Its current dividend yield is 3.32%. The current FTSE 100 average dividend yield is 3.65%. That provides an indication that water companies are not profiteering excessively. Indeed it's a heavily regulated industry with OfWat setting the price, investment and service package that customers receive. This includes controlling the prices the companies can charge their customers. It's difficult to see how nationalising the industry could have a meaningful impact isn't it?
I like the list. My income is about £400 per week. I am personally comfortably off and am rarely going on holiday and tend to save up for something before I buy it. I would be prepared for that to drop to £350 per week to contribute towards paying for that stuff. I am not particularly Labour, but I would rather pay for stuff in that list than Grammar schools and HS2.
I am not particularly Labour, but I would rather pay for stuff in that list than Grammar schools and HS2.
Seth, do Grammar schools cost more than non grammar, serious question?
In my experience most what I would call comprehensive schools have a grammar stream anyway, the Old Crown Woods simply split into three schools, one effectively being grammar in all but name.
Edit, I think grammars are a red herring, regardless we need more school places, particularly secondary.
Would Corbyn achieve all those in 5 years? Of course not. But investment now encourages returns later. A basic economic lesson the Tories seem to have forgotten in their rush to swing the ace, which has seen demand sucked out the economy.
Agreed, but to me it seems an awful lot isn't investing for returns later it's simply spending. The electorate will expect a number of those spending promises almost immediately.
I'm really interested to see the manifesto in full tomorrow, today it seems they also will re-nationalise the water companies, I assume they'll have to buy them, Thames Water alone has a market value of £12bn.
So instead we just let them rake in the profit which otherwise could be spent improving our infrastructure?
In 2013 alone, the water companies made in £1.9bn in profit.
The Thames Tideway Tunnel, something that was deemed necessary 12 years ago and is not planned to be complete for another 6 will cost £4.2bn. Something that could be paid for with just over 2 years of the profit that these companies are making.
Obviously it's not quite that simple but I think it's pretty shocking that people are profiting off of such a basic human need.
What a basic human need that costs just a few pence over a pound a day on average?
(I only spend around 60p a day on water/sewage and that includes having the sprinkler on the lawn all summer! It's a bargain. God knows how much water people waste.)
BTW, there's no point quoting a profit level unless you compare with other measures. It's meaningless. Take Severn Trent as an example. Its current dividend yield is 3.32%. The current FTSE 100 average dividend yield is 3.65%. That provides an indication that water companies are not profiteering excessively. Indeed it's a heavily regulated industry with OfWat setting the price, investment and service package that customers receive. This includes controlling the prices the companies can charge their customers. It's difficult to see how nationalising the industry could have a meaningful impact isn't it?
So the capital investment and low prices you are so happy with isn't just altruism? Are you as happy with the less regulated industries, such as energy, rail and telecommunications?
Similarly with the Tories (why wasn't theirs out first btw they called the election?)
I think the answer to that is that it's likly to be a very deliberate decision and a basic electioneering tool.
We currently have wall-to-wall coverage on Len and Jeremy's manifesto.
But your average punter, is probably already getting very, very bored with the whole thing and will have a very short attention span. There might be a better chance that they'll remember the last thing they heard/saw. That will be the Tories saying, the Len and Jeremy show is uncosted, unaffordable and will bankrupt the country. We on the other hand are strong and stable. I reckon they should have used something like convincing and coherent rather than strong and stable. Marketing types will tell you the "k" sound is always more attractive to an audience.
BTW, I've been quietly impressed with Corbyn so far. It's clear that making rousing speeches to an already convinced and adoring audience is his forte. As he has demonstrated over the years at CND, etc, etc. I suppose. What I don't quite understand is how anyone knows where one of his happenings is going to take place so that the rabble all pitch up. I assume it's Momentum's social media? Unfortunately the more he speaks, the more he opens his mouth which gives a clue about the appalling dental care he has received over the years.
I'm no fan of the conservatives Bournemouth, to me it's the lesser of two evils. Since 1990 there's has never been a party I really wanted to vote for hence generally in the past I've simply voted for who I thought was the best MP standing.
The conservatives have got a lot wrong but on tax I think they've got it right as I showed a few pages back, you can't argue that those at the lower end pay considerably less tax, those at the upper end considerably more. Froze council tax for 6(?) years?
My over riding issue this time around is two fold, can Labour do even half of what they say? I don't believe so and secondly I believe Corbyn and those around him will be a very weak government.
Let's take the £6bn they will raise in income tax, there is zero chance of raising that amount. Due in part to brexit a number of large organisations are looking for a European base. It's likely under labour that would lead to a bigger exodus of people, the vast majority of those will be high earners. Therefore not only will they not get the extra tax they will lose what they did earn from those people.
In my company alone the three highest paid underwriters (on a good year £1m+ in income tax) would likely move abroad, that's the tip of the iceberg in my industry. You'll also lose the tax on profits to a degree.
Even myself, say they increase my tax by £10k. I'd clearly have to cut back, part of that would likely be reducing what I give to charity by 50% so that's around £5k id no longer give. I'd probably start paying into a pension again up to the maximum I could, £10k, which would mean £5.2k less tax I'd pay, I'd probably top up my wife's saving another £1-2k in tax. I'd cut back on a few luxuries, so my two local restaurants would be down £3k+ a year. So all in all I'd pay no more tax (probably less) and local businesses and charity would also lose out.
If labour think those earning millions won't put in place perfectly legal ways of minimising the additional tax they are very much mistaken. The 50p/45p is proof of that.
It's a recipe for disaster, promise the earth and ultimately I believe we'd get less than we have now.
Labour has some great ideals, I just don't believe the majority are remotely possible.
I raised the same comment earlier in this thread about those earning huge salaries having the power to minimise their tax burden 'creatively'.
I have no personal allowance, I can only invest £10k in total into my pension plan (I can invest more but why would you pay tax going in and coming out?), my benefits in kind (car, health insurance and so on...) are all on my P11D resulting in a significant negative tax code, and every penny of my income is taxed at 20%, 40% and 45% as appropriate (in reality 47% with the NI) via PAYE. I would add that I do not moan about the tax I pay.
What are these wonderful schemes I'm missing out on?
Would Corbyn achieve all those in 5 years? Of course not. But investment now encourages returns later. A basic economic lesson the Tories seem to have forgotten in their rush to swing the ace, which has seen demand sucked out the economy.
Agreed, but to me it seems an awful lot isn't investing for returns later it's simply spending. The electorate will expect a number of those spending promises almost immediately.
I'm really interested to see the manifesto in full tomorrow, today it seems they also will re-nationalise the water companies, I assume they'll have to buy them, Thames Water alone has a market value of £12bn.
So instead we just let them rake in the profit which otherwise could be spent improving our infrastructure?
In 2013 alone, the water companies made in £1.9bn in profit.
The Thames Tideway Tunnel, something that was deemed necessary 12 years ago and is not planned to be complete for another 6 will cost £4.2bn. Something that could be paid for with just over 2 years of the profit that these companies are making.
Obviously it's not quite that simple but I think it's pretty shocking that people are profiting off of such a basic human need.
What a basic human need that costs just a few pence over a pound a day on average?
(I only spend around 60p a day on water/sewage and that includes having the sprinkler on the lawn all summer! It's a bargain. God knows how much water people waste.)
BTW, there's no point quoting a profit level unless you compare with other measures. It's meaningless. Take Severn Trent as an example. Its current dividend yield is 3.32%. The current FTSE 100 average dividend yield is 3.65%. That provides an indication that water companies are not profiteering excessively. Indeed it's a heavily regulated industry with OfWat setting the price, investment and service package that customers receive. This includes controlling the prices the companies can charge their customers. It's difficult to see how nationalising the industry could have a meaningful impact isn't it?
So the capital investment and low prices you are so happy with isn't just altruism? Are you as happy with the less regulated industries, such as energy, rail and telecommunications?
In the main, yes. Again, I don't seem to spend much on energy - less than a grand a year - and that includes keeping 4 litres of water at boiling point 24/7 in case I need a cuppa. In my experience rail is so much better than it ever used to be when it was nationalised. But rail travel is expensive - would nationalisation cure that? (Oh and I don't use Southern.) As for telecomms - well your talking to someone who remembers when an order for a GPO phone would likely leave you on a waiting list for well over six months and then you'd probably only get a party line. And it would cost a fortune.
I am not particularly Labour, but I would rather pay for stuff in that list than Grammar schools and HS2.
Seth, do Grammar schools cost more than non grammar, serious question?
In my experience most what I would call comprehensive schools have a grammar stream anyway, the Old Crown Woods simply split into three schools, one effectively being grammar in all but name.
Edit, I think grammars are a red herring, regardless we need more school places, particularly secondary.
Grammar schools inevitably involve duplication of facilities. The best teachers take the easiest jobs at the grammar school while bad teachers end up doing the more challenging work which is an inefficient and stupid way to allocate teaching resources.
Not to mention the poor sods who end up in the wrong school and cannot move up or down to an appropriate level.
Agree with edit! Let's just have more and better schools where everyone can get what they need!
I am not particularly Labour, but I would rather pay for stuff in that list than Grammar schools and HS2.
Seth, do Grammar schools cost more than non grammar, serious question?
In my experience most what I would call comprehensive schools have a grammar stream anyway, the Old Crown Woods simply split into three schools, one effectively being grammar in all but name.
Edit, I think grammars are a red herring, regardless we need more school places, particularly secondary.
It isn't the comparative costs of types of school that I am on about, it is the principle of them.
I'm no fan of the conservatives Bournemouth, to me it's the lesser of two evils. Since 1990 there's has never been a party I really wanted to vote for hence generally in the past I've simply voted for who I thought was the best MP standing.
The conservatives have got a lot wrong but on tax I think they've got it right as I showed a few pages back, you can't argue that those at the lower end pay considerably less tax, those at the upper end considerably more. Froze council tax for 6(?) years?
My over riding issue this time around is two fold, can Labour do even half of what they say? I don't believe so and secondly I believe Corbyn and those around him will be a very weak government.
Let's take the £6bn they will raise in income tax, there is zero chance of raising that amount. Due in part to brexit a number of large organisations are looking for a European base. It's likely under labour that would lead to a bigger exodus of people, the vast majority of those will be high earners. Therefore not only will they not get the extra tax they will lose what they did earn from those people.
In my company alone the three highest paid underwriters (on a good year £1m+ in income tax) would likely move abroad, that's the tip of the iceberg in my industry. You'll also lose the tax on profits to a degree.
Even myself, say they increase my tax by £10k. I'd clearly have to cut back, part of that would likely be reducing what I give to charity by 50% so that's around £5k id no longer give. I'd probably start paying into a pension again up to the maximum I could, £10k, which would mean £5.2k less tax I'd pay, I'd probably top up my wife's saving another £1-2k in tax. I'd cut back on a few luxuries, so my two local restaurants would be down £3k+ a year. So all in all I'd pay no more tax (probably less) and local businesses and charity would also lose out.
If labour think those earning millions won't put in place perfectly legal ways of minimising the additional tax they are very much mistaken. The 50p/45p is proof of that.
It's a recipe for disaster, promise the earth and ultimately I believe we'd get less than we have now.
Labour has some great ideals, I just don't believe the majority are remotely possible.
I raised the same comment earlier in this thread about those earning huge salaries having the power to minimise their tax burden 'creatively'.
I have no personal allowance, I can only invest £10k in total into my pension plan (I can invest more but why would you pay tax going in and coming out?), my benefits in kind (car, health insurance and so on...) are all on my P11D resulting in a significant negative tax code, and every penny of my income is taxed at 20%, 40% and 45% as appropriate (in reality 47% with the NI) via PAYE. I would add that I do not moan about the tax I pay.
What are these wonderful schemes I'm missing out on?
Snap Bob, I think rightly many of the loop holes (all be it they were legal) have been closed. In my industry more and more people have simply gone abroad as have the companies and profits so we lose their personal tax as well as the companies tax. My company is Japanese owned, it'll move 90% of what is currently in the UK to Bermuda or elsewhere over the next few years I'm sure (the initial plan was circa 25%). A pure guess at a number but suspect in both income tax (inc NI) and Corp tax that'll be £750m a year not going to the revenue here anymore, quite possibly more.
Many very high earners in some industries have moved to being effectively self employed, one of my friends did that, in reality earns in excess of £300k per year yet his 'salary' is such that I believe he is still able to claim child benefit! By paying Corp Tax, taking dividends (as does his wife and father) he massively limits his tax bill to probably the same as someone earning £100k.
Share/company ownership is used a lot as well instead of salary. Google John Charman, one of the big hitters in insurance, his salary........ $1.
One point on the 6bn to be raised through income tax, on the assumption that worked (which I don't believe for one minute it will), surely at least a proportion of that would have been spent by those earning it and therefore attracted VAT in a lot of instances for the Government which they will no longer receive....?
I'm no fan of the conservatives Bournemouth, to me it's the lesser of two evils. Since 1990 there's has never been a party I really wanted to vote for hence generally in the past I've simply voted for who I thought was the best MP standing.
The conservatives have got a lot wrong but on tax I think they've got it right as I showed a few pages back, you can't argue that those at the lower end pay considerably less tax, those at the upper end considerably more. Froze council tax for 6(?) years?
My over riding issue this time around is two fold, can Labour do even half of what they say? I don't believe so and secondly I believe Corbyn and those around him will be a very weak government.
Let's take the £6bn they will raise in income tax, there is zero chance of raising that amount. Due in part to brexit a number of large organisations are looking for a European base. It's likely under labour that would lead to a bigger exodus of people, the vast majority of those will be high earners. Therefore not only will they not get the extra tax they will lose what they did earn from those people.
In my company alone the three highest paid underwriters (on a good year £1m+ in income tax) would likely move abroad, that's the tip of the iceberg in my industry. You'll also lose the tax on profits to a degree.
Even myself, say they increase my tax by £10k. I'd clearly have to cut back, part of that would likely be reducing what I give to charity by 50% so that's around £5k id no longer give. I'd probably start paying into a pension again up to the maximum I could, £10k, which would mean £5.2k less tax I'd pay, I'd probably top up my wife's saving another £1-2k in tax. I'd cut back on a few luxuries, so my two local restaurants would be down £3k+ a year. So all in all I'd pay no more tax (probably less) and local businesses and charity would also lose out.
If labour think those earning millions won't put in place perfectly legal ways of minimising the additional tax they are very much mistaken. The 50p/45p is proof of that.
It's a recipe for disaster, promise the earth and ultimately I believe we'd get less than we have now.
Labour has some great ideals, I just don't believe the majority are remotely possible.
I raised the same comment earlier in this thread about those earning huge salaries having the power to minimise their tax burden 'creatively'.
I have no personal allowance, I can only invest £10k in total into my pension plan (I can invest more but why would you pay tax going in and coming out?), my benefits in kind (car, health insurance and so on...) are all on my P11D resulting in a significant negative tax code, and every penny of my income is taxed at 20%, 40% and 45% as appropriate (in reality 47% with the NI) via PAYE. I would add that I do not moan about the tax I pay.
What are these wonderful schemes I'm missing out on?
Snap Bob, I think rightly many of the loop holes (all be it they were legal) have been closed. In my industry more and more people have simply gone abroad as have the companies and profits so we lose their personal tax as well as the companies tax. My company is Japanese owned, it'll move 90% of what is currently in the UK to Bermuda or elsewhere over the next few years I'm sure (the initial plan was circa 25%). A pure guess at a number but suspect in both income tax (inc NI) and Corp tax that'll be £750m a year not going to the revenue here anymore, quite possibly more.
Many very high earners in some industries have moved to being effectively self employed, one of my friends did that, in reality earns in excess of £300k per year yet his 'salary' is such that I believe he is still able to claim child benefit! By paying Corp Tax, taking dividends (as does his wife and father) he massively limits his tax bill to probably the same as someone earning £100k.
Share/company ownership is used a lot as well instead of salary. Google John Charman, one of the big hitters in insurance, his salary........ $1.
One point on the 6bn to be raised through income tax, on the assumption that worked (which I don't believe for one minute it will), surely at least a proportion of that would have been spent by those earning it and therefore attracted VAT in a lot of instances for the Government which they will no longer receive....?
I find your posts about tax informative because it's been along time since I covered it during my legal practice course, and I didn't really understand it then, I've certainly lost all memory of it now.
So basically we have a system where your mate can earn £300k a year and pay tax equivalent to £100k a year. That's pretty depressing
I'm no fan of the conservatives Bournemouth, to me it's the lesser of two evils. Since 1990 there's has never been a party I really wanted to vote for hence generally in the past I've simply voted for who I thought was the best MP standing.
The conservatives have got a lot wrong but on tax I think they've got it right as I showed a few pages back, you can't argue that those at the lower end pay considerably less tax, those at the upper end considerably more. Froze council tax for 6(?) years?
My over riding issue this time around is two fold, can Labour do even half of what they say? I don't believe so and secondly I believe Corbyn and those around him will be a very weak government.
Let's take the £6bn they will raise in income tax, there is zero chance of raising that amount. Due in part to brexit a number of large organisations are looking for a European base. It's likely under labour that would lead to a bigger exodus of people, the vast majority of those will be high earners. Therefore not only will they not get the extra tax they will lose what they did earn from those people.
In my company alone the three highest paid underwriters (on a good year £1m+ in income tax) would likely move abroad, that's the tip of the iceberg in my industry. You'll also lose the tax on profits to a degree.
Even myself, say they increase my tax by £10k. I'd clearly have to cut back, part of that would likely be reducing what I give to charity by 50% so that's around £5k id no longer give. I'd probably start paying into a pension again up to the maximum I could, £10k, which would mean £5.2k less tax I'd pay, I'd probably top up my wife's saving another £1-2k in tax. I'd cut back on a few luxuries, so my two local restaurants would be down £3k+ a year. So all in all I'd pay no more tax (probably less) and local businesses and charity would also lose out.
If labour think those earning millions won't put in place perfectly legal ways of minimising the additional tax they are very much mistaken. The 50p/45p is proof of that.
It's a recipe for disaster, promise the earth and ultimately I believe we'd get less than we have now.
Labour has some great ideals, I just don't believe the majority are remotely possible.
I raised the same comment earlier in this thread about those earning huge salaries having the power to minimise their tax burden 'creatively'.
I have no personal allowance, I can only invest £10k in total into my pension plan (I can invest more but why would you pay tax going in and coming out?), my benefits in kind (car, health insurance and so on...) are all on my P11D resulting in a significant negative tax code, and every penny of my income is taxed at 20%, 40% and 45% as appropriate (in reality 47% with the NI) via PAYE. I would add that I do not moan about the tax I pay.
What are these wonderful schemes I'm missing out on?
So true. Tax free pension contributions limit was £255k p.a under Tony Blair and now stands at £40k p.a. Even worse, If you earn over £150k the bloody Tories have reduced tax relief further under taper rules by up to £30k p.a.
The total tax free pension pot was £1.5m under Tony Blair and is now £1m under the bloody Tories. If you don't pay any tax you can still put £3,500 into a pension scheme and the bloody Tories give you a tax "rebate" of £700 on top.
Pension freedoms under means the bloody Tories now take more tax out of pension pots.
What's the bastard Tories ever done for the rich, bring back Tony Blair.
I'm no fan of the conservatives Bournemouth, to me it's the lesser of two evils. Since 1990 there's has never been a party I really wanted to vote for hence generally in the past I've simply voted for who I thought was the best MP standing.
The conservatives have got a lot wrong but on tax I think they've got it right as I showed a few pages back, you can't argue that those at the lower end pay considerably less tax, those at the upper end considerably more. Froze council tax for 6(?) years?
My over riding issue this time around is two fold, can Labour do even half of what they say? I don't believe so and secondly I believe Corbyn and those around him will be a very weak government.
Let's take the £6bn they will raise in income tax, there is zero chance of raising that amount. Due in part to brexit a number of large organisations are looking for a European base. It's likely under labour that would lead to a bigger exodus of people, the vast majority of those will be high earners. Therefore not only will they not get the extra tax they will lose what they did earn from those people.
In my company alone the three highest paid underwriters (on a good year £1m+ in income tax) would likely move abroad, that's the tip of the iceberg in my industry. You'll also lose the tax on profits to a degree.
Even myself, say they increase my tax by £10k. I'd clearly have to cut back, part of that would likely be reducing what I give to charity by 50% so that's around £5k id no longer give. I'd probably start paying into a pension again up to the maximum I could, £10k, which would mean £5.2k less tax I'd pay, I'd probably top up my wife's saving another £1-2k in tax. I'd cut back on a few luxuries, so my two local restaurants would be down £3k+ a year. So all in all I'd pay no more tax (probably less) and local businesses and charity would also lose out.
If labour think those earning millions won't put in place perfectly legal ways of minimising the additional tax they are very much mistaken. The 50p/45p is proof of that.
It's a recipe for disaster, promise the earth and ultimately I believe we'd get less than we have now.
Labour has some great ideals, I just don't believe the majority are remotely possible.
I raised the same comment earlier in this thread about those earning huge salaries having the power to minimise their tax burden 'creatively'.
I have no personal allowance, I can only invest £10k in total into my pension plan (I can invest more but why would you pay tax going in and coming out?), my benefits in kind (car, health insurance and so on...) are all on my P11D resulting in a significant negative tax code, and every penny of my income is taxed at 20%, 40% and 45% as appropriate (in reality 47% with the NI) via PAYE. I would add that I do not moan about the tax I pay.
What are these wonderful schemes I'm missing out on?
Snap Bob, I think rightly many of the loop holes (all be it they were legal) have been closed. In my industry more and more people have simply gone abroad as have the companies and profits so we lose their personal tax as well as the companies tax. My company is Japanese owned, it'll move 90% of what is currently in the UK to Bermuda or elsewhere over the next few years I'm sure (the initial plan was circa 25%). A pure guess at a number but suspect in both income tax (inc NI) and Corp tax that'll be £750m a year not going to the revenue here anymore, quite possibly more.
Many very high earners in some industries have moved to being effectively self employed, one of my friends did that, in reality earns in excess of £300k per year yet his 'salary' is such that I believe he is still able to claim child benefit! By paying Corp Tax, taking dividends (as does his wife and father) he massively limits his tax bill to probably the same as someone earning £100k.
Share/company ownership is used a lot as well instead of salary. Google John Charman, one of the big hitters in insurance, his salary........ $1.
One point on the 6bn to be raised through income tax, on the assumption that worked (which I don't believe for one minute it will), surely at least a proportion of that would have been spent by those earning it and therefore attracted VAT in a lot of instances for the Government which they will no longer receive....?
I find your posts about tax informative because it's been along time since I covered it during my legal practice course, and I didn't really understand it then, I've certainly lost all memory of it now.
So basically we have a system where your mate can earn £300k a year and pay tax equivalent to £100k a year. That's pretty depressing
Totally agree and I've told him so! That said, he does give up all employment rights but hardly relevant in the circumstances. It wasn't so long ago someone like that would have had an even smaller tax liability.
I remember 20 years ago an IT contractor I worked with who even then earned over £100k per year, he paid almost no income tax due to his 'company' being registered in the IOM. I think he paid about 10%. 2.5% went to a company in the isle of man who handled it all and he paid around 7.5% tax, it was fraud which ever way you look at it, manly by the IOM tax office and double taxation rules. But he did pay about £2 a week NI!
It's on a different scale but not that indifferent to a number of self employed (don't all the self employed shoot me here!). As an example, my builder.......
He was asking my advice about a mortgage last month, due to his 'accounts' the bank would only lend him £100k, yet by his own admission he earns circa £80k per year (gross), but due to the fact he only draws a salary of around £2500 a month that's all they would lend him. I suspect some of the gap is 'cash in hand' work but also the dividend element etc.
I look at the manifesto and despite my criticisms of Corbyn, I have to say it is the most exciting mainfesto I can remember. I think it would breath life into this country and the economy would benefit. I studied economics and have explained previously why I think so - I won't bore you but I base it on what Keynes has taught us.
I think the big issue we are facing is Brexit. We are leaving the EU - we all have to accept that - but as a businessman who trades with Europe, not being part of the single market will be a disaster. Maybe not if you are retired living off a nice pension, but it will be for the rest of us and wealth creators. The Labour party will be more flexible in negotiations - that is clear - and we are therefore more likely to get the agreement we need. I am fearful of the mess leaving the single market will cause. I don't wish to be rude, but I don't want people who don't deal with importing materials to lecture me - it is my living FFS! The Tory lanslide we are heading for will damage the economy.
Austerity will always continue because we can only pay off our debts through growth. Interest rates are at record lows and it is fine for a government to borrow money and create it. I have been won over - I want something better for my country and my son. I don't see a risk from Labour that I see from May and her cronies. They don't try to educate people,they play on their fears and misunderstandings to keep their squalid selves in power. Labour has won my vote. I have admittedly always voted Labour but I wasn't going to at this election - but I have never agreed with a manifesto more - how can I not vote for them?
I am not particularly Labour, but I would rather pay for stuff in that list than Grammar schools and HS2.
Seth, do Grammar schools cost more than non grammar, serious question?
In my experience most what I would call comprehensive schools have a grammar stream anyway, the Old Crown Woods simply split into three schools, one effectively being grammar in all but name.
Edit, I think grammars are a red herring, regardless we need more school places, particularly secondary.
Grammar schools inevitably involve duplication of facilities. The best teachers take the easiest jobs at the grammar school while bad teachers end up doing the more challenging work which is an inefficient and stupid way to allocate teaching resources.
Not to mention the poor sods who end up in the wrong school and cannot move up or down to an appropriate level.
Agree with edit! Let's just have more and better schools where everyone can get what they need!
This!
Don't create schools for the elite, improve all schools. I'm all for having streaming within comprehensive schools because it gives children the chance to move into the higher streams, rather than deciding at 11 years-old that they have not reached some arbitrary level and never will.
Also, the idea that parents have some choice in the school their little ones go to - if you want choice, pay.
Now, for a little light relief. Jeremy Corbyn and parliamentary early day motions:
Not a fan of humanity and wants us wiped out
"That this House is appalled, but barely surprised, at the revelations in M15 files regarding the bizarre and inhumane proposals to use pigeons as flying bombs; recognises the important and live-saving role of carrier pigeons in two world wars and wonders at the lack of gratitude towards these gentle creatures; and believes that humans represent the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet and looks forward to the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into the earth and wipes them out thus giving nature the opportunity to start again." Supported by three MPs: Tony Banks, Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
Beards on British Rail: he added an amendment to a motion on British Rail Beards
at end add 'and further believes that beards are healthy and create the sympathetic image necessary for staff dealing with deeply distressed passengers.'
Weed
He was one of 14 Labour MPs who wanted to decriminalise cannabis (not a bad shout - who knows?) and set up a local authority licensing scheme. Among the signatories were Diane Abbot and John McD. But is that at odds with:
Back in 1989 (well ahead of his time)
At end add, "and urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation to ban smoking in public places as an indication of the Government's determination to reduce the crippling burden on the Health Service caused by the effects of smoking, and to underline their desire to help stamp out smoking in school children." Shamefully only seven signatories including Diane.
In The Mood?
That this House greatly regrets the decision by the BBC to end direct funding for Radio 2's Big Band as of 31st March; notes that Big Band music approximates only 2 per cent. of Radio 2's total output, which suggests that the decision is financially rather than editorially motivated; is concerned that many music listeners and musicians throughout the United Kingdom will be deprived of a valuable source of live music entertainment should the unit cease to exist; and calls on the BBC to maintain the Big Band as part of its in-house musical base. 35 signatories on this one, including one Tory, sadly Ms Abbot seems not to have been a fan of big band music.
Regarding Euros '96
That this House, while welcoming the success of England's football team in the European 1996 Championships, deplores the jingoism and nationalism in the pages of sections of the tabloid press which does (sic) nothing to maintain the true spirit of sport, but is reminiscent of Hitler's use of sport to enhance his evel (sic) regime in the 1930s. 13 signatories on that one including Jezza, Red Ken and the Beast of Bolsover.
Another Tony Banks special
That this House notes with regret in the run-up to Christmas the concentrated advertising campaign on television directed at children to sell stereotyped toys; believe that encouraging boys to want war toys and other violent games is the start of a process of brutalisation which leads on to all the undesirable behaviour patterns exhibited by so many males in later life; calls for a ban on advertising war toys, together with a study into the likely connection between such toys and male violence; and encourages all parents not to purchase war toys or games portraying violence as Christmas presents. A good one this, 21 supporters again including Ken but also the infamous Denis MacShane (real name Matyjaszek) who did time for false accounting.
Not a fan of The Prodigy?
That this House expresses its disgust and outrage at the advertising billboard campaign to promote a record album entitled Smack my Bitch Up; and urges the recording company to withdraw this advertisement immediately.
Obviously not a champagne socialist either
That this House notes with great concern the decision of the French Government to resume nuclear testing in the South Pacific; deplores the actions of French troops in storming the Greenpeace ship, 'Rainbow Warrior II', during a protest against the tests; congratulates and supports the numerous South Pacific and Australasian countries which have objected to the resumption of testing; and calls on the British people to express their anger with the French Government by boycotting all French products until such time as plans for further French nuclear tests are abandoned.
Too long to copy but he thought the millennium celebartions were disproportionate and inappropriate parliament.uk/edm/1999-00/222
Back to pigeons
That this House expresses its opposition to any moves to remove, or eliminate, pigeons from Trafalger (sic) Square; believes these intelligent and gentle creatures are a feature of the Square attracting tourists and providing employment for sellers of pigeon corn; understands that pigeons are less likely to transmit disease to human beings than dogs or cats and that acid rain is a greater threat to the fabric of buildings than pigeon droppings; calls upon Westminster Council to view pigeons as friends rather than enemies; and requests Her Majesty's Government to publish its report on pigeon management and cease contributing to pigeon prejudice in the capital.
Cross party support for this one and it's urgent!
That this House notes that Beefeater gin, being the only genuine London gin and manufactured in Kennington in the heart of London, is not available in places of refreshment within the Palace of Westminster; and calls upon the Catering Committee to rectify this situation as a matter of urgency.
In the light of some of these, this one back in 1993 is a little odd
"This House believes that the Early Day Motion has been brought into disrepute, trivialised and abused; and calls for the Procedure Committee to institute a review so that the one Early Day Motion with the highest percentage of cross-party support each week is actually debated at an early day, namely each Friday morning, for a period of two hours, so that the House has a chance to debate a topical matter of concern to the widest number of honourable Members."
Strangely, while Tory support for these motions was thin on the ground, one Peter Bottomley features as a signatory a few times.
Finally there's this which I couldn't quite bring myself to repeat as, frankly, I couldn't get my head around it and it is not light relief. Make of it what you will.
I am not particularly Labour, but I would rather pay for stuff in that list than Grammar schools and HS2.
Seth, do Grammar schools cost more than non grammar, serious question?
In my experience most what I would call comprehensive schools have a grammar stream anyway, the Old Crown Woods simply split into three schools, one effectively being grammar in all but name.
Edit, I think grammars are a red herring, regardless we need more school places, particularly secondary.
Grammar schools inevitably involve duplication of facilities. The best teachers take the easiest jobs at the grammar school while bad teachers end up doing the more challenging work which is an inefficient and stupid way to allocate teaching resources.
Not to mention the poor sods who end up in the wrong school and cannot move up or down to an appropriate level.
Agree with edit! Let's just have more and better schools where everyone can get what they need!
This!
Don't create schools for the elite, improve all schools. I'm all for having streaming within comprehensive schools because it gives children the chance to move into the higher streams, rather than deciding at 11 years-old that they have not reached some arbitrary level and never will.
Also, the idea that parents have some choice in the school their little ones go to - if you want choice, pay.
There is an argument that streaming children gets better results, I know a fair few teachers who would agree they get those better results teaching similar ability children. Whether that needs to be partly via grammar schools is in my view, at least in part, irrelevant. Many 'comp' schools are selective. Take Coopers in Chislehurst, you sit a test and they put you into 1 of 9 bands, they take 30 from each band.
A large part of the funding issue for schools is down to wastage (bare with me here), when I first became a Governor I was amazed at the money being spent that didn't need to be. You have the cartel builders who are 'council approved' that charge 5x rate for work. You also have unscrupulous suppliers such as photo copier companies charging eye watering amounts on long term deals.
It wasn't difficult for me to save in excess of £100k per annum just on those two things. That's at least 2 teachers.............
Now, for a little light relief. Jeremy Corbyn and parliamentary early day motions:
Not a fan of humanity and wants us wiped out
"That this House is appalled, but barely surprised, at the revelations in M15 files regarding the bizarre and inhumane proposals to use pigeons as flying bombs; recognises the important and live-saving role of carrier pigeons in two world wars and wonders at the lack of gratitude towards these gentle creatures; and believes that humans represent the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet and looks forward to the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into the earth and wipes them out thus giving nature the opportunity to start again." Supported by three MPs: Tony Banks, Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
Beards on British Rail: he added an amendment to a motion on British Rail Beards
at end add 'and further believes that beards are healthy and create the sympathetic image necessary for staff dealing with deeply distressed passengers.'
Weed
He was one of 14 Labour MPs who wanted to decriminalise cannabis (not a bad shout - who knows?) and set up a local authority licensing scheme. Among the signatories were Diane Abbot and John McD. But is that at odds with:
Back in 1989 (well ahead of his time)
At end add, "and urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation to ban smoking in public places as an indication of the Government's determination to reduce the crippling burden on the Health Service caused by the effects of smoking, and to underline their desire to help stamp out smoking in school children." Shamefully only seven signatories including Diane.
In The Mood?
That this House greatly regrets the decision by the BBC to end direct funding for Radio 2's Big Band as of 31st March; notes that Big Band music approximates only 2 per cent. of Radio 2's total output, which suggests that the decision is financially rather than editorially motivated; is concerned that many music listeners and musicians throughout the United Kingdom will be deprived of a valuable source of live music entertainment should the unit cease to exist; and calls on the BBC to maintain the Big Band as part of its in-house musical base. 35 signatories on this one, including one Tory, sadly Ms Abbot seems not to have been a fan of big band music.
Regarding Euros '96
That this House, while welcoming the success of England's football team in the European 1996 Championships, deplores the jingoism and nationalism in the pages of sections of the tabloid press which does (sic) nothing to maintain the true spirit of sport, but is reminiscent of Hitler's use of sport to enhance his evel (sic) regime in the 1930s. 13 signatories on that one including Jezza, Red Ken and the Beast of Bolsover.
Another Tony Banks special
That this House notes with regret in the run-up to Christmas the concentrated advertising campaign on television directed at children to sell stereotyped toys; believe that encouraging boys to want war toys and other violent games is the start of a process of brutalisation which leads on to all the undesirable behaviour patterns exhibited by so many males in later life; calls for a ban on advertising war toys, together with a study into the likely connection between such toys and male violence; and encourages all parents not to purchase war toys or games portraying violence as Christmas presents. A good one this, 21 supporters again including Ken but also the infamous Denis MacShane (real name Matyjaszek) who did time for false accounting.
Not a fan of The Prodigy?
That this House expresses its disgust and outrage at the advertising billboard campaign to promote a record album entitled Smack my Bitch Up; and urges the recording company to withdraw this advertisement immediately.
Obviously not a champagne socialist either
That this House notes with great concern the decision of the French Government to resume nuclear testing in the South Pacific; deplores the actions of French troops in storming the Greenpeace ship, 'Rainbow Warrior II', during a protest against the tests; congratulates and supports the numerous South Pacific and Australasian countries which have objected to the resumption of testing; and calls on the British people to express their anger with the French Government by boycotting all French products until such time as plans for further French nuclear tests are abandoned.
Too long to copy but he thought the millennium celebartions were disproportionate and inappropriate parliament.uk/edm/1999-00/222
Back to pigeons
That this House expresses its opposition to any moves to remove, or eliminate, pigeons from Trafalger (sic) Square; believes these intelligent and gentle creatures are a feature of the Square attracting tourists and providing employment for sellers of pigeon corn; understands that pigeons are less likely to transmit disease to human beings than dogs or cats and that acid rain is a greater threat to the fabric of buildings than pigeon droppings; calls upon Westminster Council to view pigeons as friends rather than enemies; and requests Her Majesty's Government to publish its report on pigeon management and cease contributing to pigeon prejudice in the capital.
Cross party support for this one and it's urgent!
That this House notes that Beefeater gin, being the only genuine London gin and manufactured in Kennington in the heart of London, is not available in places of refreshment within the Palace of Westminster; and calls upon the Catering Committee to rectify this situation as a matter of urgency.
In the light of some of these, this one back in 1993 is a little odd
"This House believes that the Early Day Motion has been brought into disrepute, trivialised and abused; and calls for the Procedure Committee to institute a review so that the one Early Day Motion with the highest percentage of cross-party support each week is actually debated at an early day, namely each Friday morning, for a period of two hours, so that the House has a chance to debate a topical matter of concern to the widest number of honourable Members."
Strangely, while Tory support for these motions was thin on the ground, one Peter Bottomley features as a signatory a few times.
Finally there's this which I couldn't quite bring myself to repeat as, frankly, I couldn't get my head around it and it is not light relief. Make of it what you will.
Comments
The private sector has something to learn from the public sector's focus on skills improvement tied to promotional pay awards. It helps counter the pay constraints but is not recognised when looking at wage progression in the public sector.
So with respect I don't accept the idea that the public sector in the round are faring worse than the private sector.
It is just plain illogical to think the economy, let alone the Tories, have anything to gain from deliberately suppressing wages. As @Rob7Lee has admirably shown, the facts tend to get in the way of the received wisdom on the other side of the debate.
Either Labour promote a high tax, high welfare system like Sweden or shut up. No one, apart from the deluded, believes you can ape the Scandinavian model by only taxing the "rich" under a "fair" tax system.
The conservatives have got a lot wrong but on tax I think they've got it right as I showed a few pages back, you can't argue that those at the lower end pay considerably less tax, those at the upper end considerably more. Froze council tax for 6(?) years?
My over riding issue this time around is two fold, can Labour do even half of what they say? I don't believe so and secondly I believe Corbyn and those around him will be a very weak government.
Let's take the £6bn they will raise in income tax, there is zero chance of raising that amount. Due in part to brexit a number of large organisations are looking for a European base. It's likely under labour that would lead to a bigger exodus of people, the vast majority of those will be high earners. Therefore not only will they not get the extra tax they will lose what they did earn from those people.
In my company alone the three highest paid underwriters (on a good year £1m+ in income tax) would likely move abroad, that's the tip of the iceberg in my industry. You'll also lose the tax on profits to a degree.
Even myself, say they increase my tax by £10k. I'd clearly have to cut back, part of that would likely be reducing what I give to charity by 50% so that's around £5k id no longer give. I'd probably start paying into a pension again up to the maximum I could, £10k, which would mean £5.2k less tax I'd pay, I'd probably top up my wife's saving another £1-2k in tax. I'd cut back on a few luxuries, so my two local restaurants would be down £3k+ a year. So all in all I'd pay no more tax (probably less) and local businesses and charity would also lose out.
If labour think those earning millions won't put in place perfectly legal ways of minimising the additional tax they are very much mistaken. The 50p/45p is proof of that.
It's a recipe for disaster, promise the earth and ultimately I believe we'd get less than we have now.
Labour has some great ideals, I just don't believe the majority are remotely possible.
I'm not going to get into another discussion about pensions with you as you insist on lumping all public sector pensions together as one to present the "worst case" scenario when you are well aware there is a large range of different schemes within the public sector and these are under almost constant review.
Clearly, it IS in the Tories interests to suppress the wages of the 5m public sector workers since they are paying the bill! I know that public sector employees don't seem to count for much in many peoples eyes and certainly aren't in May's thinking when she talks about ordinary working families but there's a lot out there really struggling at the moment and considering their futures.
1. Defund public services
2. Public services get worse, experienced staff leave or strike and inexperienced cheap replacements cannot cope
3. Public services are sold to private firm at monstrous cost to taxpayer, those responsible gain massive profits due to being shareholders at private firm
But Gross Pay is only one part of the equation and shouldn't be looked at in isolation, what about the fact that a Nurse (or anyone on the 'average wage') will get net approximately £1k more net pay per annum now compared to 2010 due to paying less income tax?
Not saying it's enough but simply looking at headline payrise numbers clouds the truth. That's not to say I don't think a nurse should be better paid, I do, but please at least look at the whole picture.
You cannot argue that since 2010 those on average or low end salaries see a fair proportion more in their take home pay than they did previously regardless of payrises or not.
(I only spend around 60p a day on water/sewage and that includes having the sprinkler on the lawn all summer! It's a bargain. God knows how much water people waste.)
BTW, there's no point quoting a profit level unless you compare with other measures. It's meaningless. Take Severn Trent as an example. Its current dividend yield is 3.32%. The current FTSE 100 average dividend yield is 3.65%. That provides an indication that water companies are not profiteering excessively. Indeed it's a heavily regulated industry with OfWat setting the price, investment and service package that customers receive. This includes controlling the prices the companies can charge their customers. It's difficult to see how nationalising the industry could have a meaningful impact isn't it?
My income is about £400 per week. I am personally comfortably off and am rarely going on holiday and tend to save up for something before I buy it.
I would be prepared for that to drop to £350 per week to contribute towards paying for that stuff.
I am not particularly Labour, but I would rather pay for stuff in that list than Grammar schools and HS2.
In my experience most what I would call comprehensive schools have a grammar stream anyway, the Old Crown Woods simply split into three schools, one effectively being grammar in all but name.
Edit, I think grammars are a red herring, regardless we need more school places, particularly secondary.
We currently have wall-to-wall coverage on Len and Jeremy's manifesto.
But your average punter, is probably already getting very, very bored with the whole thing and will have a very short attention span. There might be a better chance that they'll remember the last thing they heard/saw. That will be the Tories saying, the Len and Jeremy show is uncosted, unaffordable and will bankrupt the country. We on the other hand are strong and stable. I reckon they should have used something like convincing and coherent rather than strong and stable. Marketing types will tell you the "k" sound is always more attractive to an audience.
BTW, I've been quietly impressed with Corbyn so far. It's clear that making rousing speeches to an already convinced and adoring audience is his forte. As he has demonstrated over the years at CND, etc, etc. I suppose. What I don't quite understand is how anyone knows where one of his happenings is going to take place so that the rabble all pitch up. I assume it's Momentum's social media? Unfortunately the more he speaks, the more he opens his mouth which gives a clue about the appalling dental care he has received over the years.
(I'm still not voting.)
Managed to resist the urge to punch the smug twat in the face.
I have no personal allowance, I can only invest £10k in total into my pension plan (I can invest more but why would you pay tax going in and coming out?), my benefits in kind (car, health insurance and so on...) are all on my P11D resulting in a significant negative tax code, and every penny of my income is taxed at 20%, 40% and 45% as appropriate (in reality 47% with the NI) via PAYE. I would add that I do not moan about the tax I pay.
What are these wonderful schemes I'm missing out on?
Not to mention the poor sods who end up in the wrong school and cannot move up or down to an appropriate level.
Agree with edit! Let's just have more and better schools where everyone can get what they need!
Many very high earners in some industries have moved to being effectively self employed, one of my friends did that, in reality earns in excess of £300k per year yet his 'salary' is such that I believe he is still able to claim child benefit! By paying Corp Tax, taking dividends (as does his wife and father) he massively limits his tax bill to probably the same as someone earning £100k.
Share/company ownership is used a lot as well instead of salary. Google John Charman, one of the big hitters in insurance, his salary........ $1.
One point on the 6bn to be raised through income tax, on the assumption that worked (which I don't believe for one minute it will), surely at least a proportion of that would have been spent by those earning it and therefore attracted VAT in a lot of instances for the Government which they will no longer receive....?
So basically we have a system where your mate can earn £300k a year and pay tax equivalent to £100k a year. That's pretty depressing
The total tax free pension pot was £1.5m under Tony Blair and is now £1m under the bloody Tories. If you don't pay any tax you can still put £3,500 into a pension scheme and the bloody Tories give you a tax "rebate" of £700 on top.
Pension freedoms under means the bloody Tories now take more tax out of pension pots.
What's the bastard Tories ever done for the rich, bring back Tony Blair.
I remember 20 years ago an IT contractor I worked with who even then earned over £100k per year, he paid almost no income tax due to his 'company' being registered in the IOM. I think he paid about 10%. 2.5% went to a company in the isle of man who handled it all and he paid around 7.5% tax, it was fraud which ever way you look at it, manly by the IOM tax office and double taxation rules. But he did pay about £2 a week NI!
It's on a different scale but not that indifferent to a number of self employed (don't all the self employed shoot me here!). As an example, my builder.......
He was asking my advice about a mortgage last month, due to his 'accounts' the bank would only lend him £100k, yet by his own admission he earns circa £80k per year (gross), but due to the fact he only draws a salary of around £2500 a month that's all they would lend him. I suspect some of the gap is 'cash in hand' work but also the dividend element etc.
I think the big issue we are facing is Brexit. We are leaving the EU - we all have to accept that - but as a businessman who trades with Europe, not being part of the single market will be a disaster. Maybe not if you are retired living off a nice pension, but it will be for the rest of us and wealth creators. The Labour party will be more flexible in negotiations - that is clear - and we are therefore more likely to get the agreement we need. I am fearful of the mess leaving the single market will cause. I don't wish to be rude, but I don't want people who don't deal with importing materials to lecture me - it is my living FFS! The Tory lanslide we are heading for will damage the economy.
Austerity will always continue because we can only pay off our debts through growth. Interest rates are at record lows and it is fine for a government to borrow money and create it. I have been won over - I want something better for my country and my son. I don't see a risk from Labour that I see from May and her cronies. They don't try to educate people,they play on their fears and misunderstandings to keep their squalid selves in power. Labour has won my vote. I have admittedly always voted Labour but I wasn't going to at this election - but I have never agreed with a manifesto more - how can I not vote for them?
Don't create schools for the elite, improve all schools. I'm all for having streaming within comprehensive schools because it gives children the chance to move into the higher streams, rather than deciding at 11 years-old that they have not reached some arbitrary level and never will.
Also, the idea that parents have some choice in the school their little ones go to - if you want choice, pay.
Not a fan of humanity and wants us wiped out
"That this House is appalled, but barely surprised, at the revelations in M15 files regarding the bizarre and inhumane proposals to use pigeons as flying bombs; recognises the important and live-saving role of carrier pigeons in two world wars and wonders at the lack of gratitude towards these gentle creatures; and believes that humans represent the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet and looks forward to the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into the earth and wipes them out thus giving nature the opportunity to start again."
Supported by three MPs: Tony Banks, Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
Beards on British Rail: he added an amendment to a motion on British Rail Beards
at end add 'and further believes that beards are healthy and create the sympathetic image necessary for staff dealing with deeply distressed passengers.'
Weed
He was one of 14 Labour MPs who wanted to decriminalise cannabis (not a bad shout - who knows?) and set up a local authority licensing scheme. Among the signatories were Diane Abbot and John McD. But is that at odds with:
Back in 1989 (well ahead of his time)
At end add, "and urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation to ban smoking in public places as an indication of the Government's determination to reduce the crippling burden on the Health Service caused by the effects of smoking, and to underline their desire to help stamp out smoking in school children." Shamefully only seven signatories including Diane.
In The Mood?
That this House greatly regrets the decision by the BBC to end direct funding for Radio 2's Big Band as of 31st March; notes that Big Band music approximates only 2 per cent. of Radio 2's total output, which suggests that the decision is financially rather than editorially motivated; is concerned that many music listeners and musicians throughout the United Kingdom will be deprived of a valuable source of live music entertainment should the unit cease to exist; and calls on the BBC to maintain the Big Band as part of its in-house musical base. 35 signatories on this one, including one Tory, sadly Ms Abbot seems not to have been a fan of big band music.
Regarding Euros '96
That this House, while welcoming the success of England's football team in the European 1996 Championships, deplores the jingoism and nationalism in the pages of sections of the tabloid press which does (sic) nothing to maintain the true spirit of sport, but is reminiscent of Hitler's use of sport to enhance his evel (sic) regime in the 1930s. 13 signatories on that one including Jezza, Red Ken and the Beast of Bolsover.
Another Tony Banks special
That this House notes with regret in the run-up to Christmas the concentrated advertising campaign on television directed at children to sell stereotyped toys; believe that encouraging boys to want war toys and other violent games is the start of a process of brutalisation which leads on to all the undesirable behaviour patterns exhibited by so many males in later life; calls for a ban on advertising war toys, together with a study into the likely connection between such toys and male violence; and encourages all parents not to purchase war toys or games portraying violence as Christmas presents. A good one this, 21 supporters again including Ken but also the infamous Denis MacShane (real name Matyjaszek) who did time for false accounting.
Not a fan of The Prodigy?
That this House expresses its disgust and outrage at the advertising billboard campaign to promote a record album entitled Smack my Bitch Up; and urges the recording company to withdraw this advertisement immediately.
Obviously not a champagne socialist either
That this House notes with great concern the decision of the French Government to resume nuclear testing in the South Pacific; deplores the actions of French troops in storming the Greenpeace ship, 'Rainbow Warrior II', during a protest against the tests; congratulates and supports the numerous South Pacific and Australasian countries which have objected to the resumption of testing; and calls on the British people to express their anger with the French Government by boycotting all French products until such time as plans for further French nuclear tests are abandoned.
Too long to copy but he thought the millennium celebartions were disproportionate and inappropriate parliament.uk/edm/1999-00/222
Back to pigeons
That this House expresses its opposition to any moves to remove, or eliminate, pigeons from Trafalger (sic) Square; believes these intelligent and gentle creatures are a feature of the Square attracting tourists and providing employment for sellers of pigeon corn; understands that pigeons are less likely to transmit disease to human beings than dogs or cats and that acid rain is a greater threat to the fabric of buildings than pigeon droppings; calls upon Westminster Council to view pigeons as friends rather than enemies; and requests Her Majesty's Government to publish its report on pigeon management and cease contributing to pigeon prejudice in the capital.
Cross party support for this one and it's urgent!
That this House notes that Beefeater gin, being the only genuine London gin and manufactured in Kennington in the heart of London, is not available in places of refreshment within the Palace of Westminster; and calls upon the Catering Committee to rectify this situation as a matter of urgency.
In the light of some of these, this one back in 1993 is a little odd
"This House believes that the Early Day Motion has been brought into disrepute, trivialised and abused; and calls for the Procedure Committee to institute a review so that the one Early Day Motion with the highest percentage of cross-party support each week is actually debated at an early day, namely each Friday morning, for a period of two hours, so that the House has a chance to debate a topical matter of concern to the widest number of honourable Members."
Strangely, while Tory support for these motions was thin on the ground, one Peter Bottomley features as a signatory a few times.
Finally there's this which I couldn't quite bring myself to repeat as, frankly, I couldn't get my head around it and it is not light relief. Make of it what you will.
parliament.uk/edm/2004-05/392
A large part of the funding issue for schools is down to wastage (bare with me here), when I first became a Governor I was amazed at the money being spent that didn't need to be. You have the cartel builders who are 'council approved' that charge 5x rate for work. You also have unscrupulous suppliers such as photo copier companies charging eye watering amounts on long term deals.
It wasn't difficult for me to save in excess of £100k per annum just on those two things. That's at least 2 teachers.............