So some early highlights of how the promises will be paid for (not the promises themselves), bit disappointed if I'm honest as an awful lot of gaps;
45p tax band at 80k, 50p tax band at 123k. This supposedly will raise £6.4bn.
If you truly believe that will raise this money you are as deluded as JC and JMc. I may have missed it but couldn't see anywhere any comment as to what tax would be lost (namely VAT) on that additional income tax some of which would have been spent by the individual.
This has potential to actually reduce the taxation at those levels overall in my view, at least I'd put my hat on the line and say those increases would raise no where near that amount. He's just opened the door and let the money flood out.
A levy on employers where they pay over £300k or £500k. Again I believe this will have a negative effect and again no mention of the lost tax (i.e. this assuming it is paid would be from current company profit so what about Corp tax that would have been paid anyway?)
Privatise the water industry........ but can't confirm the cost in doing so ... WTF!
Some changes on Corp Tax, IHT etc - again sounds great in principal but I doubt it will have the desired effect they think it will.
This raises for me more questions than answers as so many gaps regarding funding.....
It's insane. Just bung it in the manifesto, the plebs'll love it! Never mind how to pay for it. Thames Water has a capital value of £12bn on its own. I guess they're planning on taking the Venezuelan approach and just stealing the company from shareholders?!
That would be my approach - pay them what they paid for their shares apart from failing train companies, where you just order it back into public hands.
They'll end up spending more than £12bn just on lawyers when the whole thing ends up in court for a thousand years!
Isn't Thames Water owned by an Australian Company anyway?
It won't matter. 60%+ of the voting population won't bother to educate themselves on the manifestos and just stick to what they're told by newspapers and television.
This is why May isn't bothering to try, she knows the media will drag her to a landslide.
This is why I've been stressing to friends that we need to discuss with that 60% face to face and try to open their eyes away from the media's biased slur
I'm not face to face but I'm listening, hit me with it?
-----
PS, anyone heard what Scotland with their devolved powers are going to do on Taxation?
So under labour my salary will be taxed at 50% instead of 40%.
This election is suddenly becoming quite important..
So the only point on which the election becomes important is when there is a material impact to *your* take home pay?
The NHS, pensions, workers' rights, the unemployment level, inflation, migration, VAT, social care, the environment, education, universities, crime, public transport, security, defence, nuclear arms, overseas aid and Brexit are all of no consequence? But the moment you find out you might have to contribute more to the economy at a marginal rate, for your salary of over £123k is the moment you decide it's important?
I didn't say it would be Labour's approach but mine. These industries need to be run efficiently for our benefit. Great pot Mcgrandall, quantative easing is printing money for banks to lock away in vaults and not to lend to anybody! Better to make the money work!
That doesn't make any sense, at all, on any level.
QE was the exchange of cash (a liquid asset) for instruments, mainly Gilts but also commercial bonds held by the financial institutions (illquid assets). Now the thing about were we are at the moment is that Gilts and other bonds pay a dividend. Cash "locked away in vaults" doesn't. If the banks had no intention of on-lending the cash and making a nice little profit on so doing, swapping it for their bonds made no commercial sense. So, that's just bollocks I'm afraid.
BTW, if the water companies were "stolen" back (how do you work out who bought shares when and at what price - the original transactions will be long gone) who do you think is going to be up for financing Jeremy's £500bn or whatever for his new National Investment Bank. He says he wants private money for that. Yeah good luck Jezza. Just ring up the people that have been burned on various re-nationalisations and see how you get on.
So under labour my salary will be taxed at 50% instead of 40%.
This election is suddenly becoming quite important..
So the only point on which the election becomes important is when there is a material impact to *your* take home pay?
The NHS, pensions, workers' rights, the unemployment level, inflation, migration, VAT, social care, the environment, education, universities, crime, public transport, security, defence, nuclear arms, overseas aid and Brexit are all of no consequence? But the moment you find out you might have to contribute more to the economy at a marginal rate, for your salary of over £123k is the moment you decide it's important?
He already contributes a very high rate to the economy. There comes a time when you want the success you have worked and fought to create to benefit your family and your childrens future. I am not ashamed to say I go to work for my two boys and their future. That's my driver. Like Southend I am comfortable that by paying more towards the benefits system / NHS / social services than more than 95% of the country that I do my part.
There is nothing wrong with stating that now I will focus on my own family.
May just be me then but if you have a choice between earning an extra £3-400 a month or not I would hazard most would vote in their best interests.
See Rob7lee's various posts on tax. It will never raise the billions the labour party seem to think it will, not even 10% as people are going to cut other things to have the same lifestyle
So under labour my salary will be taxed at 50% instead of 40%.
This election is suddenly becoming quite important..
So the only point on which the election becomes important is when there is a material impact to *your* take home pay?
The NHS, pensions, workers' rights, the unemployment level, inflation, migration, VAT, social care, the environment, education, universities, crime, public transport, security, defence, nuclear arms, overseas aid and Brexit are all of no consequence? But the moment you find out you might have to contribute more to the economy at a marginal rate, for your salary of over £123k is the moment you decide it's important?
I've a feeling he may have been a bit tongue in cheek with the comment!
VAT receipts will go down as people spend less (unless I missed it the 95% aren't getting any more money to spend, the 5% will have less to spend). Couldn't see that mentioned anywhere.
The NHS will get the full 6.4bn of the additional income tax etc..... except it won't get receipts of anywhere near that amount and Labour know that.
Pensions, anyone with a pension fund with exposure to shares will see 30% wiped off the value over night when the stock market crashes if Labour get in. (My advice is to move into defensive now 'just' in case)
Education/university fee's - nothing in Labours costing document states how this will be paid for exactly. A sentence in the manifesto says 'corporation tax' ...... good luck with that......
Transport - don't worry we've come up with a 250bn fund for that.......
All that tongue in cheek aside, this is no more costed than my dear daughters plans of getting a new Audi A1 when she passes her test hopefully later this year on her £60 a week McDonalds salary........ in fact she'll be very annoyed at the removal of zero hours contracts.
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
Billions have been robbed from public services, impacting the poorest and most vulnerable, in a failed attempt to shore up the country's finances after the amount of money the government threw at the banks to stop them from failing, in the event of which the rich would have definitely been the biggest victims. A fact that some high earners conveniently ignore.
We have been robbing the poorest in society for 7 years in an attempt to get the economy going and it has emphatically failed. Asking the rich to pay by comparison a much smaller (proportionally speaking) part of their income is worth a shot.
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.
What are these wonderful schemes I'm missing out on?
Bob, do you have a wife/does she work? Assuming you do, pay either £2,880 into a pension for her (£3,600 after tax relief) if she doesn't work or her full salary up to £40k (if she's in a pension scheme already obviously deduct that).
but I'm guessing from your postings you either already know that or already do!
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
So other than the raising of the personal allowance for the very lowest earners (a Lib Dem coalition policy) I'm still interested in all the other examples where the Tories have improved the majority of the British publics lives in the last 7 years? Anyone?
I didn't say it would be Labour's approach but mine. These industries need to be run efficiently for our benefit. Great pot Mcgrandall, quantative easing is printing money for banks to lock away in vaults and not to lend to anybody! Better to make the money work!
That doesn't make any sense, at all, on any level.
QE was the exchange of cash (a liquid asset) for instruments, mainly Gilts but also commercial bonds held by the financial institutions (illquid assets). Now the thing about were we are at the moment is that Gilts and other bonds pay a dividend. Cash "locked away in vaults" doesn't. If the banks had no intention of on-lending the cash and making a nice little profit on so doing, swapping it for their bonds made no commercial sense. So, that's just bollocks I'm afraid.
BTW, if the water companies were "stolen" back (how do you work out who bought shares when and at what price - the original transactions will be long gone) who do you think is going to be up for financing Jeremy's £500bn or whatever for his new National Investment Bank. He says he wants private money for that. Yeah good luck Jezza. Just ring up the people that have been burned on various re-nationalisations and see how you get on.
QA was printing money and not doing enough with it once it was printed. By printing I don't actually mean physically printing! That was my point and it is a generally accepted one, even from the right! If you don't get that, I question your credentials!
My view on utilities is a personal one - the theft was privitisation in the first place. Labour is not advocating 'stealing' them from share holders anyway.
I'd say utility companies charging the erderly more money for the same electricity and gas because they are less likely to shop around for providers is a form of theft too!
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
The bit you miss is the further up the ladder and in general terms the more you earn the more stressful life becomes. You get to a point where 'the next step up' isn't worth it if the tax take is too high.
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
What a load of bollocks! £80k is the point where people would pay more taxes than they do now - they won't be hammered at that point! It is a selfish slight of hand trick to say - I'm one of the people who earn over £80k but it isn't me I'm bothered about, it is those of you who own less who might earn £80k or more one day.
People who earn money from their own endeavours are vital to the economy and Labour appreciates that. Many of them are more than happy to pay a bit more for a better Britain. It is just a case of asking those with the broadest shoulders to carry a little bit more.
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
It's not a question of not striving but it's the implicit message to anyone with the audacity to have drive and ambition.
At some level taxation becomes expropriation, especially when targeting those that no reasonable person would describe as rich.
I didn't say it would be Labour's approach but mine. These industries need to be run efficiently for our benefit. Great pot Mcgrandall, quantative easing is printing money for banks to lock away in vaults and not to lend to anybody! Better to make the money work!
That doesn't make any sense, at all, on any level.
QE was the exchange of cash (a liquid asset) for instruments, mainly Gilts but also commercial bonds held by the financial institutions (illquid assets). Now the thing about were we are at the moment is that Gilts and other bonds pay a dividend. Cash "locked away in vaults" doesn't. If the banks had no intention of on-lending the cash and making a nice little profit on so doing, swapping it for their bonds made no commercial sense. So, that's just bollocks I'm afraid.
BTW, if the water companies were "stolen" back (how do you work out who bought shares when and at what price - the original transactions will be long gone) who do you think is going to be up for financing Jeremy's £500bn or whatever for his new National Investment Bank. He says he wants private money for that. Yeah good luck Jezza. Just ring up the people that have been burned on various re-nationalisations and see how you get on.
Isn't it who the money is working for though? QE helped mostly private institutions, this is why a national investment bank is central to the idea. It's been years since i studied economics and I must admit most of this goes over my head, but isn't it QE based on national capital investment? Similar to the German model.
Wealth creators are a vital part of any economy, but it often feels to me that it is a surrogate argument for trickle down economics. Economic theory has moved on and I suggest Capital in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty to see that economics of the left has moved on from the 1970's.
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
People who earn money from their own endeavours are vital to the economy and Labour appreciates that. Many of them are more than happy to pay a bit more for a better Britain.
But not if you earn under £80k? Labour have missed a trick here, why cut it at £80k? is someone on £75k not happy to pay a bit more?
Can't believe I'm saying it but the lib dems are nearer the mark, 1p across all tax bands.
On NHS efficiencies, my sister (self employed) gets paid £750 a day by the NHS as a freelance psychologist, on more difficult cases £1k a day, compared to about £200 a day when they directly employed her. It was her boss who suggested she go self employed! As an aside she pays less tax now and works 3 days a week
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
It's not a question of not striving but it's the implicit message to anyone with the audacity to have drive and ambition.
At some level taxation becomes expropriation, especially when targeting those that no reasonable person would describe as rich.
I don't get that message at all. I really really don't see this as hampering my drive for financial success in life.
I wish I knew the first thing about economics... I don't so this is probably bollocks... Surely the way to increase the amount of tax taken, which can then be spent on public services, is to grow the economy. It shouldn't be about kicking the poor and disabled and calling them scroungers on one hand, or overtaxing the rich on the other. You want the rich to be investing in the economy, creating jobs, and paying fair wages so money circulates. Some focus from the politicians about how they are going to stimulate and grow the economy, and how they want everybody on board, rather than finger pointing and punishing people and making boogeymen would be nice. I find neither the hard left or right inspiring tbh. I don't want ideology, I want pragmatism. The lib dems ought to be filling that hole, but they are very hard to take seriously.
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
It's not a question of not striving but it's the implicit message to anyone with the audacity to have drive and ambition.
At some level taxation becomes expropriation, especially when targeting those that no reasonable person would describe as rich.
I don't get that message at all. I really really don't see this as hampering my drive for financial success in life.
Fair enough but I am postulating for the whole country not two examples.
In recent times the brief 50% tax rate did not generate any additional receipts.
You may be selling yourelf short McBobbin. You seem to agree with John Maynard Keynes who was the greatest economist. He said the time for austerity was when the economy is doing well - now is the time for growth which can be funded by borrowing on record low interest rates as well as taxation.
There are many historic examples of how austerity policies have failed- in the aftermath of the great recession, many European countries implemented such policies: unemployment rose to higher levels and debt-to-GDP ratios increased, despite some reductions in budget deficits (relative to GDP). The date in which Austerity is no longer needed will always be pushed back!
I wish I knew the first thing about economics... I don't so this is probably bollocks... Surely the way to increase the amount of tax taken, which can then be spent on public services, is to grow the economy. It shouldn't be about kicking the poor and disabled and calling them scroungers on one hand, or overtaxing the rich on the other. You want the rich to be investing in the economy, creating jobs, and paying fair wages so money circulates. Some focus from the politicians about how they are going to stimulate and grow the economy, and how they want everybody on board, rather than finger pointing and punishing people and making boogeymen would be nice. I find neither the hard left or right inspiring tbh. I don't want ideology, I want pragmatism. The lib dems ought to be filling that hole, but they are very hard to take seriously.
I don't think it is bollocks but neither will cafcnick1992, well maybe not him, because everything you have said is reasonable to most political persuasions.
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
The bit you miss is the further up the ladder and in general terms the more you earn the more stressful life becomes. You get to a point where 'the next step up' isn't worth it if the tax take is too high.
I know what you're trying to say but stress is someone working for £11k and not having any fecking food in the cupboard to give the kids breakfast.
We can all start worrying about not filling jobs paying £150k a year plus when there's nobody applying and I don't see that time coming any time soon.
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
The bit you miss is the further up the ladder and in general terms the more you earn the more stressful life becomes. You get to a point where 'the next step up' isn't worth it if the tax take is too high.
I know what you're trying to say but stress is someone working for £11k and not having any fecking food in the cupboard to give the kids breakfast.
We can all start worrying about not filling jobs paying £150k a year plus when there's nobody applying and I don't see that time coming any time soon.
I turned down the next job up, but you are right someone else took it (my old boss), he's now on indefinite leave with stress!! I'm not kidding!!
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
It's not a question of not striving but it's the implicit message to anyone with the audacity to have drive and ambition.
At some level taxation becomes expropriation, especially when targeting those that no reasonable person would describe as rich.
I don't get that message at all. I really really don't see this as hampering my drive for financial success in life.
Fair enough but I am postulating for the whole country not two examples.
In recent times the brief 50% tax rate did not generate any additional receipts.
Anyone with taxable earnings between £100k and £123k is already paying a marginal rate of tax of 60%.
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
It's not a question of not striving but it's the implicit message to anyone with the audacity to have drive and ambition.
At some level taxation becomes expropriation, especially when targeting those that no reasonable person would describe as rich.
I don't get that message at all. I really really don't see this as hampering my drive for financial success in life.
Fair enough but I am postulating for the whole country not two examples.
In recent times the brief 50% tax rate did not generate any additional receipts.
Anyone with taxable earnings between £100k and £123k is already paying a marginal rate of tax of 60%.
So other than the raising of the personal allowance for the very lowest earners (a Lib Dem coalition policy) I'm still interested in all the other examples where the Tories have improved the majority of the British publics lives in the last 7 years? Anyone?
You seem to forget that the Tories continued with the policy of raising the personal allowance.
I am split between thinking that higher tax bands are counter productive and would like the move to higher personal allowance and a flat rate above that whatever.
On the other hand I see many people on low to medium wages stuck on the same income for years and the bastards at the very top getting enormous rises irrelevant of performance.
The problem is that I can't see a workable solution to make income more equitable.
Meanwhile man of the people Corbyn is proposing the scrapping of tuition fees (which already contain a large subsidy) to put the full burden back on the taxpayer (millions of whom probably think a 2:1 will be the score in the Cup final).
Comments
supporterspeople....-----
PS, anyone heard what Scotland with their devolved powers are going to do on Taxation?
The NHS, pensions, workers' rights, the unemployment level, inflation, migration, VAT, social care, the environment, education, universities, crime, public transport, security, defence, nuclear arms, overseas aid and Brexit are all of no consequence? But the moment you find out you might have to contribute more to the economy at a marginal rate, for your salary of over £123k is the moment you decide it's important?
QE was the exchange of cash (a liquid asset) for instruments, mainly Gilts but also commercial bonds held by the financial institutions (illquid assets). Now the thing about were we are at the moment is that Gilts and other bonds pay a dividend. Cash "locked away in vaults" doesn't. If the banks had no intention of on-lending the cash and making a nice little profit on so doing, swapping it for their bonds made no commercial sense. So, that's just bollocks I'm afraid.
BTW, if the water companies were "stolen" back (how do you work out who bought shares when and at what price - the original transactions will be long gone) who do you think is going to be up for financing Jeremy's £500bn or whatever for his new National Investment Bank. He says he wants private money for that. Yeah good luck Jezza. Just ring up the people that have been burned on various re-nationalisations and see how you get on.
There is nothing wrong with stating that now I will focus on my own family.
May just be me then but if you have a choice between earning an extra £3-400 a month or not I would hazard most would vote in their best interests.
See Rob7lee's various posts on tax. It will never raise the billions the labour party seem to think it will, not even 10% as people are going to cut other things to have the same lifestyle
VAT receipts will go down as people spend less (unless I missed it the 95% aren't getting any more money to spend, the 5% will have less to spend). Couldn't see that mentioned anywhere.
The NHS will get the full 6.4bn of the additional income tax etc..... except it won't get receipts of anywhere near that amount and Labour know that.
Pensions, anyone with a pension fund with exposure to shares will see 30% wiped off the value over night when the stock market crashes if Labour get in. (My advice is to move into defensive now 'just' in case)
Education/university fee's - nothing in Labours costing document states how this will be paid for exactly. A sentence in the manifesto says 'corporation tax' ...... good luck with that......
Transport - don't worry we've come up with a 250bn fund for that.......
All that tongue in cheek aside, this is no more costed than my dear daughters plans of getting a new Audi A1 when she passes her test hopefully later this year on her £60 a week McDonalds salary........ in fact she'll be very annoyed at the removal of zero hours contracts.
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
We have been robbing the poorest in society for 7 years in an attempt to get the economy going and it has emphatically failed. Asking the rich to pay by comparison a much smaller (proportionally speaking) part of their income is worth a shot.
but I'm guessing from your postings you either already know that or already do!
My view on utilities is a personal one - the theft was privitisation in the first place. Labour is not advocating 'stealing' them from share holders anyway.
I'd say utility companies charging the erderly more money for the same electricity and gas because they are less likely to shop around for providers is a form of theft too!
People who earn money from their own endeavours are vital to the economy and Labour appreciates that. Many of them are more than happy to pay a bit more for a better Britain. It is just a case of asking those with the broadest shoulders to carry a little bit more.
At some level taxation becomes expropriation, especially when targeting those that no reasonable person would describe as rich.
Wealth creators are a vital part of any economy, but it often feels to me that it is a surrogate argument for trickle down economics. Economic theory has moved on and I suggest Capital in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty to see that economics of the left has moved on from the 1970's.
Can't believe I'm saying it but the lib dems are nearer the mark, 1p across all tax bands.
On NHS efficiencies, my sister (self employed) gets paid £750 a day by the NHS as a freelance psychologist, on more difficult cases £1k a day, compared to about £200 a day when they directly employed her. It was her boss who suggested she go self employed! As an aside she pays less tax now and works 3 days a week
In recent times the brief 50% tax rate did not generate any additional receipts.
There are many historic examples of how austerity policies have failed- in the aftermath of the great recession, many European countries implemented such policies: unemployment rose to higher levels and debt-to-GDP ratios increased, despite some reductions in budget deficits (relative to GDP). The date in which Austerity is no longer needed will always be pushed back!
We can all start worrying about not filling jobs paying £150k a year plus when there's nobody applying and I don't see that time coming any time soon.
I am split between thinking that higher tax bands are counter productive and would like the move to higher personal allowance and a flat rate above that whatever.
On the other hand I see many people on low to medium wages stuck on the same income for years and the bastards at the very top getting enormous rises irrelevant of performance.
The problem is that I can't see a workable solution to make income more equitable.
You honestly couldn't make some of it up.