Current Affairs 2017 General Election

[Sarnia Kevin]

Yep, they withdraw your tax allowance pro rata at a rate of £1 for every £2 earned once you hit £100k, and if that happens in a tax year where it's already been allocated from the start, you get a nice bill on the mat.

So all this does is encourage anyone who falls into that bracket to do, is to stick the excess over £100k into their pension pot and save the 60% penalty, so the revenue get nothing.

Not quite true, as their pension is taxed when they retire. It's not tax avoided but rather tax deferred.

 

[flibbyflob]

Imagine tories increase their majority but labour don't do too bad and Corbyn decides to say on...lol

That is a likely scenario though. Immediately give us 10 years of Tory rule if it does.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Not quite true, as their pension is taxed when they retire. It's not tax avoided but rather tax deferred.

Not necessarily, as you can take 25% of your pension pot in a tax free lump sum, and how much tax you will pay annually depends on how you decide to draw down the remainder. If you stay under the personal allowance level annually you'll pay nothing.

 

[evilwebby]

Yep, they withdraw your tax allowance pro rata at a rate of £1 for every £2 earned once you hit £100k, and if that happens in a tax year where it's already been allocated from the start, you get a nice bill on the mat.

So all this does is encourage anyone who falls into that bracket to do, is to stick the excess over £100k into their pension pot and save the 60% penalty, so the revenue get nothing.

Correct.. it's just very stark example of how government fiscal policies distort markets and leads to massive misallocation of resources over the long term, all of which adds up to poor economic growth and eventually bubbles and recessions. But this is an point of economics that is lost on most people, so no wonder we are up sh1t creek as a country.

 

[Sarnia Kevin]

Not necessarily, as you can take 25% of your pension pot in a tax free lump sum, and how much tax you will pay annually depends on how you decide to draw down the remainder. If you stay under the personal allowance level annually you'll pay nothing.

Which is why I said "not quite true". If you can afford to structure your retirement to live on less than the personal allowance you're doing well

 

[The Cowboy]

And lest we need reminding.. this is precisely what Brown DIDN'T do and look how that turned out for him and his party.

I think it's great that she has called this GE. Opportunistic? Of course - she's a politician, after all. But that said, I'm pleasantly surprised with May as PM. I think she comes across well, and is more old school and traditionalist - less presidential - than we have been used to in more recent years.

I'm not particularly happy about her calling an election purely to capitalise on favourable polling. The Fixed Term Act was meant to prevent that, and the get-out clause shouldn't be used in this way.

What if the Tories and SNP end up with 2/3rds of the commons - if polls are still favourable next year will they call another GE to extend their residency for a further year?

 

[evilwebby]

Well I some more digging, and the figures show that indeed the poor do spend more of their income in taxes.. something like 45% vs about 36% for the high income, so that's put me in my place.

I personally don't see a problem with this, and there is plenty about the tax system that is very unfair on high earners.. the band between 100k-122k the marginal rate of tax on income is >50% as the personal allowance is withdrawn is VERY bad and catches a lot of relatively well-off but not filthy rich people.

But yes there are plenty of overextended people from all income brackets, which should not be a surprise to anyone. It's hypocritical to expect the people to live within their means when all your macroeconomic policies destroy the any incentive to save and encourage endless borrowing and debt.

Just getting back to the tax thing, I wonder how much these figures for "high-earners" are distorted by the super-rich.. I mean, being a salaried 100k-200k earner is one thing, but if you are super wealthy who has millions to throw around then it's a given that you derive most of your income from other means will be more tax efficient. It's probably very difficult to gauge properly as the super-rich don't really welcome a full analysis of their tax status.

 

[evilwebby]

I'm not particularly happy about her calling an election purely to capitalise on favourable polling. The Fixed Term Act was meant to prevent that, and the get-out clause shouldn't be used in this way.

What if the Tories and SNP end up with 2/3rds of the commons - if polls are still favourable next year will they call another GE to extend their residency for a further year?

I wasn't a fan of the fixed term act, because it was put in place mainly as a safeguard to keep the Coalition in place, and I think elections should be called as and when the country needs a fresh mandate, but as this snap election has shown it seems to effectively be a lame piece of legislation as, from the point of view of the opposition,why would you want to oppose it if it gives you the chance to get the governing party out sooner? Urm, yes, your own party might be in disarray, but you could never actually admit to that politically so you would have to support no matter what

 

[neil999]

Not too bad a speech from Corbyn, going down the anti-establishment route..prob best to try and shore up as much left wing support as possible as he isn't gonna win the centre ground back

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Just getting back to the tax thing, I wonder how much these figures for "high-earners" are distorted by the super-rich.. I mean, being a salaried 100k-200k earner is one thing, but if you are super wealthy who has millions to throw around then it's a given that you derive most of your income from other means will be more tax efficient. It's probably very difficult to gauge properly as the super-rich don't really welcome a full analysis of their tax status.

To be in the top 1% of earners, a 6 figure salary gets you in.

However, salary isn't the measure of true wealth. To get into the top 1% in terms of actual net worth i.e. asset and cash value after borrowings, you've got £2.8m to your name. To get in the top 10% of that bracket you're a net millionaire.

 

[evilwebby]

For me, this election is REALLY important.. not from the point of view of who is going to govern our country for the next 5 years, but for what it means for the Labour party. Corbyn is going to lose, but he needs to show that Labour can still be a credible opposition. There is a big difference between a worst case scenario of polling 25-26% and being smashed way below 200 seats or managing to rally the traditional Labour core vote, getting 31-32% and beginning to regain a foothold against the SNP in Scotland. I don't think it's too far fetched to say that the first scenario would probably mean the end of Labour as the main opposition party with no realistic expectation for them to be able to return to power within a generation (their path back would be immeasurably more complex than it was in 1983), whereas the latter scenario they would still retain credibility and could possibly hope to mount a serious challenge to return to government in a couple of terms, around 2026-27.

Whatever happens Labour will properly HURT after the the election - FAR more so than in 2015 - in the way that once does when you are on the brink of despair and facing complete ruin, but it's only from these depths that a true soulsearching and reform can take place. People change when their roosters truly come to roost.

As the socialist experiment has demonstrably failed, I fully expect Corbyn to given his marching orders after June 8th to be to eventually be replaced with someone from the moderate wing of the party. It would be extraordinary if he remained as leader after the election. But in many ways he will go down as one of the most important figures in the history of the Labour party because he forced them to the brink of despair which then shaped their future from this point.

 

[Joey66]

Not too bad a speech from Corbyn, going down the anti-establishment route..prob best to try and shore up as much left wing support as possible as he isn't gonna win the centre ground back

Great rhetoric no details on how it will be funded or how he will negotiate a deal with Brexit - great principles, £10.00 minimum wage crackdown on the tax avoiders etc etc the missing ingredient how it will be paid for in a sustainable way - warning big companies they won't like his Labour government in - tell me where all his jobs will come from?
No mention of his half a trillion infrastructure budget, and how that will be paid back ?
great principles , but its a pity he is out of his depth - I voted for Ed Miliband as he financed it all, and looked intellectual - this is a leader who has sat on the Labour backbenches, and opposed labour's proposals of past governments!
If they had selected a half decent candidate, the MPS who nominated him just to have a left wing candidate at the last minute have a lot to answer for imo!

 

[Milkman]

For me, this election is REALLY important.. not from the point of view of who is going to govern our country for the next 5 years, but for what it means for the Labour party. Corbyn is going to lose, but he needs to show that Labour can still be a credible opposition. There is a big difference between a worst case scenario of polling 25-26% and being smashed way below 200 seats or managing to rally the traditional Labour core vote, getting 31-32% and beginning to regain a foothold against the SNP in Scotland. I don't think it's too far fetched to say that the first scenario would probably mean the end of Labour as the main opposition party with no realistic expectation for them to be able to return to power within a generation (their path back would be immeasurably more complex than it was in 1983), whereas the latter scenario they would still retain credibility and could possibly hope to mount a serious challenge to return to government in a couple of terms, around 2026-27.

Whatever happens Labour will properly HURT after the the election - FAR more so than in 2015 - in the way that once does when you are on the brink of despair and facing complete ruin, but it's only from these depths that a true soulsearching and reform can take place. People change when their roosters truly come to roost.

As the socialist experiment has demonstrably failed, I fully expect Corbyn to given his marching orders after June 8th to be to eventually be replaced with someone from the moderate wing of the party. It would be extraordinary if he remained as leader after the election. But in many ways he will go down as one of the most important figures in the history of the Labour party because he forced them to the brink of despair which then shaped their future from this point.

Don't want to rehash old battles and all that, but Labour is a socialist party at it's core. It's not just flirting with the idea.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Don't want to rehash old battles and all that, but Labour is a socialist party at it's core. It's not just flirting with the idea.

A party that has a social conscience and formulates it's policies with fairness and the desire to reduce poverty and improve living standards at it's core, doesn't equate to it necessarily having to mirror the traditional idea of a Socialist party though.

 

[Tubey]

Oh wow, Kezia Dugdale is awful!