General Election Is On

[Dy1geo]

Your first paragraph seems to suggest you think Erasmus is lying when he says he’d be happy to pay more tax to help the poor. Your second paragraph then suggests you, yourself, would be happy to pay more tax to help the poor. (I’m happy to be corrected on this as your post isn’t entirely clear to me)

Why should anyone believe you, when you don’t believe Erasmus?

I never made a suggestion regarding a certain individual poster and if it came across that way I apologise. My post was a more general one in that it’s easy to say people should pay more tax but when it affects them personally they moan. My father in law is a case on point in that he has a good pension and savings but is moaning over paying for a TV License and surely his winter fuel allowance could be better directed.

The point I was saying about me paying more taxes is by applying fiscal drag. As I earn above £50k if I earn more next year I am taxed on that increase at 40% so I don’t think it’s fair given the current economic climate that the high rate allowance should be raised so I pay an increase in income at 20%

[Lowbankclaret]

This article backs up what’s i have been witnessing on the door step and saying on here.

https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire- ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Paul Waine]

You’ve failed at point 1. That’s not what has been said.

Hi martin, what did I miss? I heard JC say "billionaires" many times.

We define "billionaire" and the same with "millionaire" with respect to wealth. Yes, some are known to be paid more than £1 million in a year. I'm not sure how many are paid more than £1 billion (or USD 1 billion, if you like) in a year - though wealth can increase (and decrease) by this amount and more by reference to asset valuations. (Look up "WeWork" for a fairly recent example).

[Paul Waine]

Paul seems to be going full Ringo this morning.

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE

The only point I’ve taken from it is that he doesn’t know what’s in the Labour manifesto.

You can’t expect folk to take you seriously if you just make stuff up, Paul.

You made a point in that post

More of a pound-shop dsr, IMO.

Btw, is it just me (and another poster) who think Paul Waine might be being a bit economical with the truth when it comes to his experience in the work place?

Quite a collection there, don't you think.

(Not necessarily in the order copy/pasted - I hope no one minds).

[jontybfc]

Btw, is it just me (and another poster) who think Paul Waine might be being a bit economical with the truth when it comes to his experience in the work place?

Still waiting on that economic forecast he's done.

[Paul Waine]

You don’t think someone earning £50-80k is well off?

The Bolton guy on QT last night was surprised to learn that his >£80k income is in the top 5%.

Has "social media" identified the guy, yet? What job do we think he has? Doctor? school headmaster? Hairdresser? Sales rep? Football coach (lower leagues, possibly).

[Paul Waine]

Still waiting on that economic forecast he's done.

Keep up, jonty. We were going to do something with all the posters on here who understand economic modelling. Are you in?

[jontybfc]

The Bolton guy on QT last night was surprised to learn that his >£80k income is in the top 5%.

Has "social media" identified the guy, yet? What job do we think he has? Doctor? school headmaster? Hairdresser? Sales rep? Football coach (lower leagues, possibly).

£8.80 a month more it would cost him. To try and improve services for all. Think he should be a tad embarrassed about that rant last night.

[jontybfc]

Keep up, jonty. We were going to do something with all the posters on here who understand economic modelling. Are you in?

Not quite the conversation I remember having. You asked where I got my opinion from, I linked a few experts. You then said you wanted my own forecast because you had one yourself. Which we never saw.

[Greenmile]

Quite a collection there, don't you think.

(Not necessarily in the order copy/pasted - I hope no one minds).

You’ve credited my post to Martin, and vice versa, but hey who cares about accuracy, right?

[Paul Waine]

You’ve credited my post to Martin, and vice versa, but hey who cares about accuracy, right?

Awfully sorry about that, Greenmile. There were so many of them.

But, hey, you will be using those words another time, possibly.

Apologies also to the members of the "group" that I didn't quote.

[Greenmile]

Awfully sorry about that, Greenmile. There were so many of them.

But, hey, you will be using those words another time, possibly.

Apologies also to the members of the "group" that I didn't quote.

So your assumption when loads of different people pull you up for talking ******** is that they’re all wrong and you’re right? Sounds about right.

[Greenmile]

Not quite the conversation I remember having. You asked where I got my opinion from, I linked a few experts. You then said you wanted my own forecast because you had one yourself. Which we never saw.

...and we never will, because it doesn’t exist outside of Paul’s fevered imagination.

[FactualFrank]

The Bolton guy on QT last night was surprised to learn that his >£80k income is in the top 5%.

Has "social media" identified the guy, yet? What job do we think he has? Doctor? school headmaster? Hairdresser? Sales rep? Football coach (lower leagues, possibly).

Bank robber?

[Paul Waine]

Not quite the conversation I remember having. You asked where I got my opinion from, I linked a few experts. You then said you wanted my own forecast because you had one yourself. Which we never saw.

If you check back at the posts, Jonty, you will see that I said I would debate economic models with other people who understand economic models, including those who could build their own model.

Very few on here showed they have that experience (a few did, which is encouraging).

If you are now ready, we can give it a go?

[Paul Waine]

So your assumption when loads of different people pull you up for talking ******** is that they’re all wrong and you’re right? Sounds about right.

No, my assumption is that there's a little group on here who echo each other.

Is that fair comment? Or, can you prove me wrong?

[Greenmile]

No, my assumption is that there's a little group on here who echo each other.

Is that fair comment? Or, can you prove me wrong?

They echo each other because they’re all right, Paul. Like the scientific community “echo each other” in respect of anthropogenic climate change, for example.

[Paul Waine]

£8.80 a month more it would cost him. To try and improve services for all. Think he should be a tad embarrassed about that rant last night.

How do you calculate that figure? Do we know how much above £80k his earnings are?

£8.80/month x 12 months = £100 (near enough). So, you reckon he's earning £82,000 a year?

What's this guy's total income tax and NIC payment?

[Paul Waine]

They echo each other because they’re all right, Paul. Like the scientific community “echo each other” in respect of anthropogenic climate change, for example.

Thanks, Greenmile. That's given me a little laugh.

Have a great day.

Can you let Lancs know, I'm going to get some lunch and then I've got work to do.

[Greenmile]

Thanks, Greenmile. That's given me a little laugh.

Have a great day.

Can you let Lancs know, I'm going to get some lunch and then I've got work to do.

Enjoy your lunch. Hope your afternoon is better than the car-crash of a morning you’ve had on here.

[jontybfc]

If you check back at the posts, Jonty, you will see that I said I would debate economic models with other people who understand economic models, including those who could build their own model.

Very few on here showed they have that experience (a few did, which is encouraging).

If you are now ready, we can give it a go?

Again, not quite what happened.

[martin_p]

Hi martin, what did I miss? I heard JC say "billionaires" many times.

We define "billionaire" and the same with "millionaire" with respect to wealth. Yes, some are known to be paid more than £1 million in a year. I'm not sure how many are paid more than £1 billion (or USD 1 billion, if you like) in a year - though wealth can increase (and decrease) by this amount and more by reference to asset valuations. (Look up "WeWork" for a fairly recent example).

You've missed the other tax rises that may impact some outside the top 5%, such as corporation tax.

[martin_p]

If you check back at the posts, Jonty, you will see that I said I would debate economic models with other people who understand economic models, including those who could build their own model.

Very few on here showed they have that experience (a few did, which is encouraging).

If you are now ready, we can give it a go?

And I’ll debate the Labour manifesto with people who know what’s in it. That doesn’t seem to include you.

[Damo]

A gang of Corbynistas, demonstrating kinder, gentler politics again I see

[martin_p]

A gang of Corbynistas, demonstrating kinder, gentler politics again I see

You really haven’t been paying attention if you think all the people disagreeing with Paul are ‘Corbynistas’. Come on, your Mensa sized brain is better than that!

[Greenmile]

A gang of Corbynistas, demonstrating kinder, gentler politics again I see

You ok, snowflake?

[Elizabeth]

Quiet on here today so I thought I'd start a sing song

' Andy, Andy, Give us a poll
Give us a poll
Give us a poll

Andy Andy , Give us a poll
Give us a poll
Give us a poll '

[jontybfc]

How do you calculate that figure? Do we know how much above £80k his earnings are?

£8.80/month x 12 months = £100 (near enough). So, you reckon he's earning £82,000 a year?

What's this guy's total income tax and NIC payment?

He'd be there or there about going off his tantrum. He didn't think he was in the top 5% (which he is). Say he was on £100K a year, would he begrudge £83 a month? Would you?

[Lancasterclaret]

So if Labour lose seats do you think they will come to the rationale that it was because of they were radical enough. Surely they will come to their senses that if they were more to the centre an electable Labour government is better than a Tory one.

I am fully aware of the dangers of a Tory govt but to me it outweighs the dangers of the current Labour Party.

I don't see it.

The rhetoric they come out with suggests there will be internal purges and they will move even further to the left.

Could be out of power for a couple of generations.

[Elizabeth]

No one joining in? Never mind, there will be a poll just round the corner.

Prediction : If Labour don't get a surge following the publication of their manifesto yesterday they are going to be wiped out in all of the many Brexit regions in England and Wales

[Lancasterclaret]

No, my assumption is that there's a little group on here who echo each other.

Is that fair comment? Or, can you prove me wrong?

If someone talks complete shite, you get jumped on.

It tends to happen a lot to people of a certain persuasion though, for reasons that they will claim are completely different to the reality.

When people back up their opinions with facts, or don't say anything completely ridiculous, then it doesn't happen.

See Dsr talking about the Labour manifesto as the perfect example.

[Lancasterclaret]

A gang of Corbynistas, demonstrating kinder, gentler politics again I see

You'd have to suspend reality a lot more than is normal to think I was a Corbynista.

[Tall Paul]

If someone talks complete shite, you get jumped on.

It tends to happen a lot to people of a certain persuasion though, for reasons that they will claim are completely different to the reality.

When people back up their opinions with facts, or don't say anything completely ridiculous, then it doesn't happen.

See Dsr talking about the Labour manifesto as the perfect example.

Or Ringo talking about anything.

[Cryssys]

Labour costings are not credible according to the IFS.

https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/1197504856761815041" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting that you reference the IFS. I take it you have confidence in them. Have you seen their views on Brexit? This what they say:

A ‘no-deal’ Brexit would be economically considerably worse, even under a relatively benign scenario. We assume this would happen under a Conservative-led government, which would implement further fiscal loosening totalling 2% of GDP. Interest rates are cut to zero alongside £50 billion of quantitative easing. Private consumption and investment growth falls while net trade is also a drag on growth. Overall, the economy does not grow over the next two years, and grows by just 1.1% in 2022, leaving it 2½% smaller in that year than under our base case.

Revoking Brexit would lead to the best economic outcome. We assume this would require a Labour-led government which, as well as revoking Brexit, would also implement significant tax and spending increases, an overall fiscal loosening and some tightening of labour market regulations. Interest rates would also rise more quickly. This might result in growth of 2% a year. Crucially, this scenario involves a Labour-led coalition rather than a majority Labour government.


https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14421" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Damo]

Well the corbynistas seem to know who they are.

I never had magic money tree Martin down for owning that level of self awareness to be honest

[aggi]

Starter homes wasnt mentioned in the post I responded to. It was about supply in the market and I think additional affordable homes built is really important. They are being built all the time under section 106 conditions.

I know a few people who've bought "affordable" homes (one bed flats in these cases). One cost £600k and the other £510k. Obviously these aren't really affordable so they were made affordable by giving the option to only buy 30% or 40% of the property and pay rent on the rest of it.

This is what plenty of those affordable homes are in reality.

[Paul Waine]

You've missed the other tax rises that may impact some outside the top 5%, such as corporation tax.

Hi martin, yes, a lot of tax rises. Isn't that the point that my ideas on JC/JMcD story board makes?

[Paul Waine]

And I’ll debate the Labour manifesto with people who know what’s in it. That doesn’t seem to include you.

Yes, count me out, please, martin.

Philip Collins in The Times:

Election 2019: Labour’s manifesto is mere wishful thinking
The opposition has ideas a sensible government might take up but they’re outnumbered by absurd promises of freebies

And, Matthew Parris:

Labour’s plan isn’t sinister, it’s just nonsensical
Anyone worried about the future of the free market should welcome Corbyn’s manifesto, because it would fail spectacularly

[taio]

I know a few people who've bought "affordable" homes (one bed flats in these cases). One cost £600k and the other £510k. Obviously these aren't really affordable so they were made affordable by giving the option to only buy 30% or 40% of the property and pay rent on the rest of it.

This is what plenty of those affordable homes are in reality.

The majority of affordable homes delivered in 18/19 were affordable rents provided by a registered provider which means the rent levels must be at least 20% lower than market value. Affordable homes for purchase are 20% of local market sales value.

[Paul Waine]

He'd be there or there about going off his tantrum. He didn't think he was in the top 5% (which he is). Say he was on £100K a year, would he begrudge £83 a month? Would you?

I guess our guy in Bolton was surprised that he was one of JC's top 5%. I wonder how many others will be disappointed to learn that they or their family/friends will also be in JC's extra taxes bracket? I guess we should assume Bolton guy's partner and family may also feel "put out."

Me? There are good things to spend my taxes on - and then some things I'd rather not be paying taxes towards. I doubt I'm any different from anyone else. It's how wisely, or otherwise, the taxes are spent, that I'm interested in.

[Lowbankclaret]

What do you mean it doesn't make sense?

All schools, even ones in nice areas, are struggling to make ends meet because of government policy.

I'm not sure I could make the point any clearer.

There was a great journalist article on this.

I have not googled it to provide a link.

I was getting ****** off with both parties making claims that seem to be one must be lying.

The article explains that Tories have increased spending on education, which they claim. It’s also true.

Labour claim the amount per child has dropped. Due to the number of kids increasing by I think about 15% again not google it. In real terms per child spending has dropped by about 10%.

So both parties are telling the truth, but no surprise schools are struggling.

[Paul Waine]

If someone posts something that me and others in my gang don't like, you get jumped on.

We share a common view on things It tends to happen a lot to people of a certain persuasion though i.e. who have different opinions, for reasons that they will claim are completely different to our view of reality. We aren't that keen on diversity.

When people back up their opinions with facts that fit in with our views then it doesn't happen - otherwise we claim it's ridiculous.

Let me amend it for you, Lancs.

[aggi]

Oh my god, you seriously believe a billionaire is going to let a government make them pay more tax.

They are so rich they pay people to avoid it.

Just like Lewis Hamilton, they move abroad and pay nothing.

Like Lord Sugar, they will just move abroad.

The debt will be left to us down trodden workers to pay off.

Just like the bankers **** up was left to us.

Do you believe that our current tax levels are perfect? That by a happy coincidence we are at the level where the most efficient level of taxes is in place to get the maximum tax take from HNW individuals and corporations?

[Paul Waine]

Interesting that you reference the IFS. I take it you have confidence in them. Have you seen their views on Brexit? This what they say:

A ‘no-deal’ Brexit would be economically considerably worse, even under a relatively benign scenario. We assume this would happen under a Conservative-led government, which would implement further fiscal loosening totalling 2% of GDP. Interest rates are cut to zero alongside £50 billion of quantitative easing. Private consumption and investment growth falls while net trade is also a drag on growth. Overall, the economy does not grow over the next two years, and grows by just 1.1% in 2022, leaving it 2½% smaller in that year than under our base case.

Revoking Brexit would lead to the best economic outcome. We assume this would require a Labour-led government which, as well as revoking Brexit, would also implement significant tax and spending increases, an overall fiscal loosening and some tightening of labour market regulations. Interest rates would also rise more quickly. This might result in growth of 2% a year. Crucially, this scenario involves a Labour-led coalition rather than a majority Labour government.


https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14421" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hi Cryssys, so are we all now agreed that IFS is right on JC/JMcD's manifesto?

Or, have we all now decided that "economic experts" sometimes get their forecasts wrong?

[Lowbankclaret]

You don’t think someone earning £50-80k is well off?

It’s all about disposable income.
I earn about 55k but have about £200 a month that I can spend as I like.

Due to issues beyond my control from a few years ago.

2020 will be a big change for me as things will change financially.

I would be happy to pay more tax if I felt it was being used wisely.

I don’t think Labour’s policies will spend it wisely

[Spijed]

More on Dominic Raab:

"The Dunns are the sort of hard-working people (the father is a maintenance engineer, the mother a GP’s receptionist) that the Conservative Party keeps telling us it cares about. Needless to say, they could be bankrupted if the case goes against them".


https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/do ... 1574402821" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lowbankclaret]

The Bolton guy on QT last night was surprised to learn that his >£80k income is in the top 5%.

Has "social media" identified the guy, yet? What job do we think he has? Doctor? school headmaster? Hairdresser? Sales rep? Football coach (lower leagues, possibly).

Just watched that clip on Facebook, he should have researched that before he spoke.

I am in the top 9% apparently.

[martin_p]

It’s all about disposable income.
I earn about 55k but have about £200 a month that I can spend as I like.

Due to issues beyond my control from a few years ago.

2020 will be a big change for me as things will change financially.

I would be happy to pay more tax if I felt it was being used wisely.

I don’t think Labour’s policies will spend it wisely

What would you like it spent on?

[Lowbankclaret]

And I’ll debate the Labour manifesto with people who know what’s in it. That doesn’t seem to include you.

What about the removal of the 25% single person council tax allowance. That’s going to hit single pensioners and single people pretty hard. That’s not the rich people being taxed.

[Paul Waine]

Do you believe that our current tax levels are perfect? That by a happy coincidence we are at the level where the most efficient level of taxes is in place to get the maximum tax take from HNW individuals and corporations?

Hi aggi, it is an interesting question (and, we know what happens when the Laffer curve is mentioned on here).

So, is the government's aim to collect in taxes the money it needs to spend? or is the government's objective to increase taxes on "billionaires" (I hope no one minds me repeating JC's favourite word)?

If it's the first aim, then I'd suggest that we want a situation when there are a large number of "high earners" - the more the better, because there will be more taxes collected.

If it's the second objective, then tax away and see how many "high earners" remain after a few years of that approach.

We already know that doctors don't like paying taxes because of the pension rules - so there is a shortage of doctors for NHS, as the doctors cut their hours and retire earlier to avoid the extra taxes. I assume it's reasonable to consider the doctors response isn't atypical.

So, my ideal system: 1) a tax free allowance that is the same for every tax payer (and not taken away when you reach £100k earnings); 2) a basic rate that applies above tax free allowance - up to double the national average earnings; 3) a higher rate that is double the basic rate - and applies on all earnings above double the national average earnings.

Think of it as a 0-1-2 tax formation. If the gov't wants/needs to spend more - both basic rate and higher rate are increased to pay it. Let's get away from this "toxic" idea that "only the top 5%" should pay.