UK General Election 12th December 2019 |OT1| Hindsight is 20/19 (Tory majority confirmed)

Rodelero

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,179
It's not just the top something-percent either. Like the little old lady I know whose sole and meagre income is dividends from the business she and her late husband built and that her grandchildren now run. Taxing her at 32% is not a good look.
Where does 32% come from? I thought the policy was to bring it into line with income tax?

Ultimately I can't help but feel like this is a case where any change in tax policy is going to have winners and losers but the essence of this change is correct: it isn't right for one means of earning wealth to be taxed far lower than others. That some relatively innocent people are exploiting this right now can't mean we can never fix the policy.
 

pswii60

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,505
UK
people who are affected:

Anyone earning more than £80k
Anyone with their own business
Anyone with their own company (more so than sole traders)
Anyone who earns dividends
Anyone with a million pound home
Anyone who has any capital assets to sell

What % that is, I can't say. If Labour say it's 5% you'd imagine it's actually more because they'll use the lowest estimate. And also it's a hard kind of thing to work out.
Well the supply chain will be affected too. Mr and Mrs £80k per year will need to downgrade their weekly shop to Sainsburys instead of Waitrose. Thus putting all those artisan bread suppliers out of business. Think of the artisan bread suppliers. That should be on a Tory billboard ad.
 

Zappy

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
3,738
If you are doing well enough to have a portfolio, you can deal with paying some extra tax as far as im concerned.
It is true - BUT there are many people who earn say 40K a year each who are living in nice houses but working long hours and commuting and starting families and all of those things.

Whilst these people know they are well off and whatever they also in the main aren't going on luxury holidays or living extravagant lifestyles. They probably know that many are worse off. But these people also aspire to earn more to have better lives - and they are oft put off by the idea of higher tax on their earnings or their savings or their property.

Its very hard to shake that "gut feeling" these people have. When you put to them the issues they almost always will accept higher taxation when they see how people suffer BUT over time that feeling of everyday life kicks in and they resent it.

I campaigned for Labour from 1992-2007 (as a 13 year old initially) and spent most of my time on the doorsteps of "middle class" folk in Northern England. These people are not actually in the main directly opposed to the policies Corbyn has in the main. BUT they do struggle with what they see as attacks on their lifestyle. Like it or not. That's how they feel. And ultimately whether the initial tax hikes affect them directly or not they fear it in the longer run. And an absolute truth is - if those people, many of whom will be Labour voters historically, reject a program - you likely will never be in a position to implement it.
 

Khoryos

Banned
Nov 5, 2019
313
Where does 32% come from? I thought the policy was to bring it into line with income tax?

Ultimately I can't help but feel like this is a case where any change in tax policy is going to have winners and losers but the essence of this change is correct: it isn't right for one means of earning wealth to be taxed far lower than others.
Either they or I have misunderstood what Marginal Rate means. To my mind, a marginal rate of 32% means that it's a progressive tax, and a standard value (Generally around £500,000, I think?) you would effectively be paying 32%. Actually, you're paying x% on earnings below a certain amount, y% on the next band, etc.
 

Flammable D

Member
Oct 30, 2017
13,518
This is from the Guardian blog rather than direct from the manifesto itself, so could be quoted wrong. Having said that it is increibly specific to be a typo:

Under Labour, the UK will also: continue to participate in the EU funding programmes on science and environment; scrap Operation Yellowhammer contingency planning and the current Brexit legislation; and hold referendum “within the first six months of a Labour government” (not within six months of a new deal).

So hold the referendum quickly and assume a new deal can be sorted that quickly but not holding for it to be done. Seems incredibly risky and a mite naive to me.

Labour should be able to get a new deal done quicker than the Tories because they actually want what the EU want, closer allignment but that doesn't mean it is guranteed. If you are going to make it a legal obligation, it should be based on something.
I mean let's not pretend manifestos are legal obligations now

The actual quote from the manifesto is "Within three months of coming to power, a Labour government will secure a sensible deal. And within six months, we will put that deal to a public vote alongside the option to remain.", so they're pretty explicit about the referendum being on their deal.
 

Facism

Member
Oct 25, 2017
788
if you're old enough to fuck or sign up for the armed services in the UK, you're old enough to vote.
 

Zappy

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
3,738
This is from the Guardian blog rather than direct from the manifesto itself, so could be quoted wrong. Having said that it is increibly specific to be a typo:

Under Labour, the UK will also: continue to participate in the EU funding programmes on science and environment; scrap Operation Yellowhammer contingency planning and the current Brexit legislation; and hold referendum “within the first six months of a Labour government” (not within six months of a new deal).

So hold the referendum quickly and assume a new deal can be sorted that quickly but not holding for it to be done. Seems incredibly risky and a mite naive to me.

Labour should be able to get a new deal done quicker than the Tories because they actually want what the EU want, closer allignment but that doesn't mean it is guranteed. If you are going to make it a legal obligation, it should be based on something.
There timetable for a referendum is incredibly ambitious given the electoral commission need time to formulate the question it needs to pass through parliament and then the logisitics of arranging a referendum take a month at least - then a date then a campagin. They'd effectively need a new deal on the table January to have any chance of a May referendum.
 

limerobot

Member
Apr 26, 2019
613
Austerity's a con. It's an economic policy based on a false zero-sum formula and is a proven failure. The majority of economic experts agree it's a failure, and the only time it was put forward by a government before 2008 European financial crash was by Italian fascists in the Twenties who feared the commies and immigrants as much as the Gammons today. Basically a policy to rile up the racists.
thats what i do in my household budget.

Instead of curbing my spending and paying back any cc debt, i borrow more at a slightly lower interest rate and give myself "free broadband".

my children will pay it back.
 

theaface

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,226
  1. Decreasing voting age to 16. Most people aren't even mature enough at 18, you want to decrease the voting age further? Madness.
I don't get it. There's plenty of people in their 40s, 50s, 60s and beyond lacking in maturity and intelligence, yet by some arbitrary measure they're OK? 16 year olds have an education, have formed world views and should have the right to have a say about how the next, and arguably most important chapter, of their lives takes shape (tuition fees, income tax, cost of living, housing, etc).

Why is right that a 16 year old can legally have sex, become a parent and care for/raise a child, and yet is somehow too immature to have an informed point of view about politics?

To this point, how can you possibly deny someone who has the ability to earn and pay tax the right to vote on how that tax is spent?
This as well.
 

Stuart444

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,452
  1. Decreasing voting age to 16. Most people aren't even mature enough at 18, you want to decrease the voting age further? Madness.
BULLSHIT.

In Scotland, 16s can vote and it works fine here. Many of them have even shown themselves to be more mature and informed than older voters. ie in the Indy Ref, many many 16 first time voters actually went out to try and inform themselves for their vote. That's a fuck load more than many older voters do in local and national elections.
 

Geoff

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,283
The 32% (actually 32.5%) thing is that the funding document says all divs to be taxed at the higher rate which is currently 32.5% for dividends. Current rate is 7.5% for basic rate tax payers.

It's not just about the headline income tax rate there is a lot more to this.
 

limerobot

Member
Apr 26, 2019
613
Anyone earning over £80k who actually objects to paying a little more tax to fund their share of what's in this manifesto can just fuck off.
Sure, tax me at more that 45%, make it 99% - in fact take ALL of my money!

Make it so taxed that i cant be bothered working hard, working long hours to get rewarded. I'll just drive an uber.
 

massivekettle

Banned
Aug 7, 2018
678
Anyone earning over £80k who actually objects to paying a little more tax to fund their share of what's in this manifesto can just fuck off.
A "little more" tax... is a huge understatement. The increase is massive, across income, dividends and CGT (the latter of which I sympatise with though), on top of other points I raised in an earlier post.

And yes, I do object to income tax increase out of principle. Government needs to be more efficient with what it has. And, raise corporate tax rates if it needs to plug the hole. Taxing the hell out of upper-middle class isn't going to magically solve everything.

What a thoughtful response... that precisely proves my point.
 

Dirtyshubb

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,683
thats what i do in my household budget.

Instead of curbing my spending and paying back any cc debt, i borrow more at a slightly lower interest rate and give myself "free broadband".

my children will pay it back.
Don't you ever get tired of coming into these threads to drop your shitty hot takes and blatant Tory shilling, only to disappear for days at a time, coming back when you can shit on Labour?
 

Stuart444

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,452
Sure, tax me at more that 45%, make it 99% - in fact take ALL of my money!

Make it so taxed that i cant be bothered working hard, working long hours to get rewarded. I'll just drive an uber.
Whenever this stuff comes up, you always pop into these threads to argue. Boo hoo, I may have to pay a little more in tax to make the country better boo hoo.

And when called out, you go back into hiding, yeah okay.
 

limerobot

Member
Apr 26, 2019
613
Whenever this stuff comes up, you always pop into these threads to argue. Boo hoo, I may have to pay a little more in tax to make the country better boo hoo.

And when called out, you go back into hiding, yeah okay.
I dont go back into hiding, i just get sick of being a lone voice and everyone piling in on me.

As has been pointed out, it would hammer the middle classes, isnt 45% tax enough? thats forgetting vat, NI, council tax and the rest.

For what i pay in, i just want the money to be used more responsibly.

100billion over 10 years on "free broadband" for example/
 

massivekettle

Banned
Aug 7, 2018
678
I don't get it. There's plenty of people in their 40s, 50s, 60s and beyond lacking in maturity and intelligence, yet by some arbitrary measure they're OK? 16 year olds have an education, have formed world views and should have the right to have a say about how the next, and arguably most important chapter, of their lives takes shape (tuition fees, income tax, cost of living, housing, etc).

Why is right that a 16 year old can legally have sex, become a parent and care for/raise a child, and yet is somehow too immature to have an informed point of view about politics?



This as well.
Let's agree to disagree. We have radically different views of the maturity levels of 16-year-olds.

As for your bit about cost of living, housing, etc., the vast majority of people (no matter the age) routinely mismanage their personal finances so I highly doubt that.
 

Ada

Member
Nov 28, 2017
1,744
All I see in that manifesto is a truck load of borrowing. Completely unrealistic.
 

alexiswrite

Member
Oct 27, 2017
581
Why should a 90 year old with borderline dementia who's completely detached from the modern world be able to vote, but a 17 year old isn't.

And to be frank, if you're already making over 80k you can well afford to be taxed more. This increase in taxes isn't to give people Xboxes, it's to make sure people have adequate access to healthcare and can live with a roof over their heads.
 

Thornton Reed

Member
Oct 30, 2017
729
Anyone earning over £80k who actually objects to paying a little more tax to fund their share of what's in this manifesto can just fuck off.
it's all relative. add 3 kids 2 cars and a mortgage then 80 isn't loads. I know people who earn 80k and they've no money by the end of every month. I know lots of people, especially in my industry, who earn a lot lot less who have more disposable income than they know what to do with at the end of every month
 

Profanity

Member
Oct 28, 2017
415
I dont go back into hiding, i just get sick of being a lone voice and everyone piling in on me.

As has been pointed out, it would hammer the middle classes, isnt 45% tax enough? thats forgetting vat, NI, council tax and the rest.

For what i pay in, i just want the money to be used more responsibly.

100billion over 10 years on "free broadband" for example/
Hmm maybe if you're a lone voice, that might clue you in to the fact that your opinions are reprehensible shite? Just a thought.
 

Goodlifr

Member
Nov 6, 2017
1,046
it's all relative. add 3 kids 2 cars and a mortgage then 80 isn't loads. I know people who earn 80k and they've no money by the end of every month. I know lots of people, especially in my industry, who earn a lot lot less who have more disposable income than they know what to do with at the end of every month
But if we invest in public transport, they might not need 2 cars etc etc
 

Zappy

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
3,738
it's all relative. add 3 kids 2 cars and a mortgage then 80 isn't loads. I know people who earn 80k and they've no money by the end of every month. I know lots of people, especially in my industry, who earn a lot lot less who have more disposable income than they know what to do with at the end of every month
But the extra tax would only be on the portion of earnings above £80K...but you are right that the way people feel about it is important and the "well you can afford it stop moaning" response isn't going to help convince anyone.
 

massivekettle

Banned
Aug 7, 2018
678
You didn’t address my point about taxation without representation.
A 16-year-old is highly unlikely to pay any tax. So it's a moot point.

Why should a 90 year old with borderline dementia who's completely detached from the modern world be able to vote, but a 17 year old isn't.

And to be frank, if you're already making over 80k you can well afford to be taxed more. This increase in taxes isn't to give people Xboxes, it's to make sure people have adequate access to healthcare and can live with a roof over their heads.
Not necessarily if you live in London. And also it isn't just about affordability as you can make the case that everyone should contribute their spare disposable income towards The Common Good. Corbyn's fiscal policy is the kind that will drive a LOT of people (and capital) out of the UK, making the country poorer as a whole.
 

solidussnaku

Member
Nov 29, 2017
1,446
To add to the backdrop of all of this, the Patel vid is fucking blowing up online. What a fuck up by the beeb and their masters pulling the vid.

Racing up to 40k tweets in less then 8 hours, sweet jesus.

Oh and I see the usual tory shills are out with the manifesto launch.


Just admit you fucking hate everyone below you and those who earn less then you.
 

WACCOE-1919

Member
May 9, 2019
100
But the extra tax would only be on the portion of earnings above £80K...but you are right that the way people feel about it is important and the "well you can afford it stop moaning" response isn't going to help convince anyone.
With respect if the last 9 years have told us anything its not folks on 80K that are feeling the pressure, those folks should at the very least be cognizant of this
 

empyrean2k

Member
Oct 27, 2017
341
like in 2017 I like the labour manifesto. Nice to hear a people focused manifesto than a business focused manifesto. Yes some people will pay more and some business substantially more but I feel it’s more than justified in order to fully rebuild our country.
 

danowat

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,300
it's all relative. add 3 kids 2 cars and a mortgage then 80 isn't loads. I know people who earn 80k and they've no money by the end of every month. I know lots of people, especially in my industry, who earn a lot lot less who have more disposable income than they know what to do with at the end of every month
Then they are doing something seriously wrong, or living WELL beyond their means.

As a couple, me and my wife earn way less than £80k a year, and we live an extremely comfortable life.
 

Thornton Reed

Member
Oct 30, 2017
729
But the extra tax would only be on the portion of earnings above £80K...but you are right that the way people feel about it is important and the "well you can afford it stop moaning" response isn't going to help convince anyone.
you've articulated it much better than i did. I'm a software engineer. I've been industry for a long time. I've seen people under 30 earn 50k a year. Living at home with their parents, no kids, no mortgage and next to no rent. People like that are in a better position to pay more tax
 

travisbickle

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,916
thats what i do in my household budget.

Instead of curbing my spending and paying back any cc debt, i borrow more at a slightly lower interest rate and give myself "free broadband".

my children will pay it back.

I gave you an out. Lots of people got fooled at the time but it is a now proven failure, economists agree, the IMF agrees, and it was previously used by fascists as less an economic policy and more a propaganda tool to incite resentment of the disadvantaged in society (remind you of something?) It doesn't work and the UK economy is not your household budget.
 

Zappy

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
3,738
With respect if the last 9 years have told us anything its not folks on 80K that are feeling the pressure, those folks should at the very least be cognizant of this
I'm sure they are. I'm also sure that they spend a lot of time working and their "feel" on something - if you just dismiss it means you probably lose them and many people they influence as well.