UK Election: 6 May 2010

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

A) Cut most university fees
B) "plans for a rail renaissance, reopening closed railway lines and new stations and building a High Speed Network"
C) "oppose all airport expansion serving London and the South East"
D) "buses and trains should be affordable and reliable so people can have a real choice about how to travel"
E) "increase the number of apprenticeships, and places on university and vocational higher education courses"
F) " raise the threshold at which people start paying income tax from current levels to £10,000, cutting the average working age person’s income tax bill by £700 and cutting pensioner’s income tax bills by £100."
G) "will give people the power to stop hospital closures in their area through elected local health boards"
H) "putting 3,000 more police officers on the beat"

That's just from going through their official platform.

---

Right. Ill attempt a relatively brief encounter with this, since its half 2am, lolli wont show me her boobs and ive drank a lot of whiskey.

First, a,b,c and d will not happen, will happen only in a vague way, or will happen in a way that doesnt reflect the realities of the issue.

e & f seem policies which the party would probably push. the first especially is already a priority for labour and so the lib dems if elected would prob be able to just hi-jack any progress made.

g is rediculous and i do not support it but it probably wont happen anyway.

h putting police officers on the beat is a standard promise. if they do it then i was prob right to vote for them, as police presence is linked strongly to a reduction in crime and if they do not do this then they are proven to be liars or not fit to be in charge.

More importantly, they will not get into power.

Secondarily, my constituency is fairly solidly tory (~#30 labour target) but the local guy is pretty good. thats my real dilemma. local vs national voting.

F is the one that would cost the most money...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

F is the one that would cost the most money...

---

yes but its purpose is to encourage people to work, which would raise revenue via other taxes rather than flat-out payments to people who dont work or only work like 11 hours a week or whatever it is. Its a policy created because people think there are 90000000000 people on welfare who could work but like living in filth and watching jeremy kyle.

So now you're buying into Reagonomics...

Am i? Who knew?

So. Do i now have to put up with leading one-line questions for the next three pages or what?

You already know im thinking of picking the lib dems because i dislike aspects of the other two parties more, rather than "buying into" anything.

Of course, you could explain yourself, and then i would know what i was buying into.

Typical LSE fatcat. Wont share anything! :o

I'd support F, in fact I don't think it should go far enough. I think that income tax should start at £12,500

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spawnie

Am i? Who knew?

So. Do i now have to put up with leading one-line questions for the next three pages or what?

You already know im thinking of picking the lib dems because i dislike aspects of the other two parties more, rather than "buying into" anything.

Of course, you could explain yourself, and then i would know what i was buying into.

Typical LSE fatcat. Wont share anything! :o

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

So now you're buying into Reagonomics...

---

Could be worse, I guess.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...funnymoney.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I'd support F, in fact I don't think it should go far enough. I think that income tax should start at £12,500

---

Cool, and that means the deficit can go up all the way to where?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Cool, and that means the deficit can go up all the way to where?

---

Long-term having a higher starting rate of tax would not have as much of an impact on the deficit as any of the wasted spending in recent years and would encourage more work and thus more tax and less benefits.

As an employer I pay above minimum wage, but still I am forced by law to pay a national minimum age that as of September this year will be essentially £6/hr - or approx. £12,500 pa for anyone working Full Time for the Minimum Wage. I have had employees quit and go back on the dole because they think its "not worth it" to work, or say they won't work above 16 hours a week because it isn't worth it. Work more than 16 hours a week and you get taxed 20% Income Tax, 12% National Insurance (if Brown's re-electioned), plus lose your means-tested benefits at an aggressive rate: At just 16 hours a week on minimum wage you're talking an effective income tax of 50% or more. And people wonder why so many are on benefits? Its because this governments convoluted tax system means that its not worth working for some people - a ridiculous situation. One that does not help cut benefits or raise tax.

Why should people on minimum wage be paying essentially 50% tax? Raise the income tax threshold over the course of a Parliament so that nobody on 40 hours/week or less on minimum wage pays tax.

--------------

Found this funny:
http://politicalbetting.s3.amazonaws...oting+tree.jpg

Is there 40 hours of work available for everyone that is capable?

What would that change?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/...99-labour.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spawnie

What would that change?

---

It's not that it would change anything. I'm just proposing a reason for having a tax structure geared to spread jobs around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Is there 40 hours of work available for everyone that is capable?

---

Probably. And more work can always be created.

I know plenty of companies that are always hiring. It may not always be the best work, but those who want it, can find it.

Anyway the reason I chose 40 hours per week is that is normal, full-time hours. The current tax system taxes those on 16 hours per week on minimum wage, that is ridiculous and not enough to live off unsupported.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Long-term having a higher starting rate of tax would not have as much of an impact on the deficit as any of the wasted spending in recent years and would encourage more work and thus more tax and less benefits.<snip>

---

In the real world in the meanwhile the UK has a humongous debt and budget deficit.

Absolutely it does. And the current deficit has ballooned due to ridiculous spending levels and tax rises, not due to tax cuts. Just the same as the failure of the last Labour government which resulted in the IMF being called in.

We haven't reached that low at least were we need the IMF, but what do you think happened last time? Did the following Conservative government, which left the country with a budget surplus, do so without cutting taxes?

When Labour f***s up the economy its the Conservatives job to fix the economy, fix the deficit and we can cut taxes at the same time. It happens every single time. Every Labour government runs out of money.

Except that mr Cameron doesn't want the Tories to be the nasty Tories of old. Which means you can't really cut entitlements either. And that means that tax cuts only add to the problem.

You don't need to nastily cut entitlements to cut spending. There are already a lot of commitments that will cut spending, a heck of a lot more than ever before an election normally.

Also better growth cuts the deficit.

No, better growth increases revenue. Lower taxes decrease it. The latter does not outweigh the former unless the tax rates are extreme, and Britain's are not.

I never said that we should immediately lower tax rates to cut the deficit. I said we should aim to balance the deficit and aim to cut taxes. In Cameron's slogan while he was campaigning for the Tory leadership "share the proceeds of growth".

Also what rates would you describe as extreme? Ballpark estimate, for those at the fringes of work - between working and not working, what rate starts to be an extreme rate of tax to you that you think would discourage people from taking up work, if the state fully provided if they chose not to work.

When a country runs a double digit deficit, I think it's more important to worry about reducing that deficit than about minor increases in economic growth. If your tax cuts increase the number of years it takes to get to a sane deficit number, then you're simply increasing the chance that Britain ends up in the same situation Greece currently finds itself in.

It would very heavily by country and time period, but I'd say anything over 50-60% of income.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I never said that we should immediately lower tax rates to cut the deficit. I said we should aim to balance the deficit and aim to cut taxes. In Cameron's slogan while he was campaigning for the Tory leadership "share the proceeds of growth".

Also what rates would you describe as extreme? Ballpark estimate, for those at the fringes of work - between working and not working, what rate starts to be an extreme rate of tax to you that you think would discourage people from taking up work, if the state fully provided if they chose not to work.

---

In the real world again, the Tories are talking about rolling back an increase in the NI contribution (which is a tax-cut).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Long-term having a higher starting rate of tax would not have as much of an impact on the deficit as any of the wasted spending in recent years and would encourage more work and thus more tax and less benefits.

As an employer I pay above minimum wage, but still I am forced by law to pay a national minimum age that as of September this year will be essentially £6/hr - or approx. £12,500 pa for anyone working Full Time for the Minimum Wage. I have had employees quit and go back on the dole because they think its "not worth it" to work, or say they won't work above 16 hours a week because it isn't worth it. Work more than 16 hours a week and you get taxed 20% Income Tax, 12% National Insurance (if Brown's re-electioned), plus lose your means-tested benefits at an aggressive rate: At just 16 hours a week on minimum wage you're talking an effective income tax of 50% or more. And people wonder why so many are on benefits? Its because this governments convoluted tax system means that its not worth working for some people - a ridiculous situation. One that does not help cut benefits or raise tax.

---

Wow that sounds crazy. No wonder there are so many British immigrants in Australia (well in my city from what i've noticed).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

When a country runs a double digit deficit, I think it's more important to worry about reducing that deficit than about minor increases in economic growth. If your tax cuts increase the number of years it takes to get to a sane deficit number, then you're simply increasing the chance that Britain ends up in the same situation Greece currently finds itself in.

---

Indeed. But we need to do both - as the party has done both in the past and will do again no doubt.

Quote:

---

It would very heavily by country and time period, but I'd say anything over 50-60% of income.

---

Fair enough, thanks for the answer. I've Googled it to get some hard figures:

For someone on £6,480 pa the real rate of direct income tax is 71%:
12% National Insurance (if Labour get re-elected) - NI is a second form of Income Tax in all but name at a threshold of £90 per week (£4680 pa)
20% Income Tax (Threshold £6035)
39% Loss of 'Tax Credits' (a benefit that has nothing to do with tax paid, tax credits are withdrawn at 39% of all income above £6,480- this is on top of NI and Income Tax)

Direct total without loss of any other benefits: 71%

On top of that benefits put at risk/removed/reduced: Council Tax Benefit (worth £1000+ pa), Housing Benefit (pays your rent) etc and a plethora of others and its easy in some cases to get a rate of tax of 90%+. In addition, NI is a payroll tax - both the employee and the employer pay NI - thus making it a tax that we off course have to consider dampening wages/hiring less people.

So do you still believe that we don't have an extreme tax rate that can make people think work doesn't pay? I see it all the time in real life and the figures show why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

In the real world again, the Tories are talking about rolling back an increase in the NI contribution (which is a tax-cut).

---

Technically they're talking about not implementing a tax rise that hasn't happened yet. And a good thing too, the economy is struggling so lets waste government money and increase the tax on jobs. Great idea :rolleyes:. They have announced where the money to pay for that tax cut (if you want to call it that) is coming from, what spending they are going to cancel to afford it.

Well, get used to it, you can't spend yourselves out of the hole you've dug. Of course there always is the possibility of defaulting/restructuring. But I don't think you'll like what that will do to your long term perspectives.

I'm not talking about spending ourselves out, that's Labour's idea and how they got us into this mess - and they're set to be rewarded by being ranked third place for the first time since before WWI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

For someone on £6,480 pa the real rate of direct income tax is 71%:
12% National Insurance (if Labour get re-elected) - NI is a second form of Income Tax in all but name at a threshold of £90 per week (£4680 pa)
20% Income Tax (Threshold £6035)
39% Loss of 'Tax Credits' (a benefit that has nothing to do with tax paid, tax credits are withdrawn at 39% of all income above £6,480- this is on top of NI and Income Tax)

---

Instead of cutting taxes, you could just cut benefits. :noob:

It's funny to see how partisan UK newspapers are on their sites. If I'm to believe the Telegraph the Conservative victory is in the bag already and has been for a week or so.

I'd say there's about a 45% chance David Cameron will be PM by the end of Friday, about a 25% chance he'll be PM by Monday, about a 20% chance he'll be PM by 25/5 and about a 9% chance someone else will be by 25/5. About a 1% chance Brown is still PM by the end of the month. The main question is if it will be a majority Conservative government or a minority one, unless all the polls are wrong.

But yes the papers are all incredibly partisan. The Mirror in this election is the funniest though, just because its so out of step with reality. It is the only paper left to still support Labour, all the "swing" papers have gone to the Tories, while all the firm left-wing papers besides the Mirror have gone to the Lib Dems. After each debate virtually every single poll put either Cameron or Clegg first, the other second with Brown dead last but if you were to only read the Mirror you'd believe Brown had conquered everyone in the debates and be convinced that Labour were about to be returned with an increased majority.