More executives back Tory National Insurance plans

Spartacus_Mills

StevieJ wrote: »

Taxes have to go up, I am neutral on where this comes from, I personally do think people will lose jobs from this 1% increase but it does make a good soundbite and as the article says the majority of those businessmen are contributors to the Tory purse.

That is just cheap politics though as many used to contribute to Labour. Just pointing at them and claiming they are Tories when they are making a valid point on something that will hurt their business is absurd.

I do agree the tax take has to go up, I do not believe a rise in NI makes sense as I do agree it is a tax on jobs.

Gordon Brown used to be against a rise in NI.

Gordon Brown used to think that national insurance was "a tax on ordinary families"

Yes, Gordon Brown really did once say the following:

"National Insurance is a tax on ordinary families".

He said it during the Budget debate in the House of Commons in 1996, just six months before he became Chancellor. Clearly his tune has changed since then, given his insistence on increasing NI, while the Conservatives' proposed block of that rise is set to make seven out of ten people from ordinary families better off.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

First of all it is not a tax cut, it is not implementing a change to the tax system that is currently planned. In no way is it a cut as it is not currently taking place. However the issue is NI is a tax on not only the employee but also the employer and as such it is a tax on jobs.

Its being spun as a tax cut - cutting the proposed rate of NI back to where it currently is. And yes, I know its a tax on jobs, I'd rather see VAT up as a tax on consumption. Lord knows we need to restrain consumption not employment.

So its not scrapping the NI rise that I object to - it makes sense. Its how its being spun. Had the Tories said they would put up VAT instead of NI that would be fine. Instead its paying for it with efficiency savings that only last week Osborne described as "bogus". We all know that efficiency savings won't pay for this. We know that business isn't going to pay its bit. We know the Tories want to scrap the 50p band and any taxes on bankers. At the same time they want to cut somewhere close to £150bn out of the deficit.

Where is this money coming from? Labour are being reasonably honest in their obsfucation - we know its a combination of tax rises and cuts from 2011. The Tories are cutting tax revenues thus increasing the total needed still further. The only way they can raise that kind of cash is that big swingeing axe to public services.

So we're back to them finding a way of getting turkeys to vote for Christmas. the NI row is a carefully orchestrated distraction which is tactically brilliant. When the issue is replaced with the next issue, it leaves them without the narrative they have run for the last couple of years. And thats when it - just like the IHT cut - become a major pain for them.

As I've said in other posts I'm looking at this with some bemusement - as a higher rate tax payer I'll probably be better off personally under the Tories despite not wanting them to win. As a student of politics I am baffled by their campaign - a few tactical flashes of brilliance, but a strategy thats contradictory and incoherent. The fact that we're sat here days before the election is called and we have a spread of likely results ranging from small Tory majority to Labour as the largest party is living proof of just how much of a failure the Tory strategy has been. they should be miles ahead.

Spartacus_Mills

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Its being spun as a tax cut -

That still does not make it a tax cut.

Labour are not being honest. They are as shabby and as dishonest as you think the Tories are. Only the Lib Dems are being honest. Labour and the Tories are claiming they can make efficiency savings. The Lib Dems say this is BS and if they efficiency savings were there why have they not already been taken.

I doubt you are a student of politics, more a partisan commentator as you do not post anything other than pro-labour comment. If you were a student of politics when I made a comment about the narrowing of the Yougov polling being questioned due to their change in weightings you would have accepted that rather than accuse me of making a statement that the poll was biased which I never did.

Odd then that Yougov have since agreed their polling in Scotland was wrong and have amended their weighting as well as in the UK. Had you been a student of politics you would have been interested in looking behind the headline figure instead of trotting out partisan nonsense.

You Gov admitted their methodology in Scotland was haywire, and that after numerous complaints over a great deal of time from James et al they finally tweaked it; whether it is simply less inaccurate than before and still wrong is open to debate.

My issue is simple. As You Gov were wrong in Scotland and did not have their methodology right, they were dragged kicking and screaming to admit the bleeding obvious and admit it and consequently looked ludicrous. Experts on scotland? I think not.

Even if they know they are wrong now, and as Scotland contributed to say 9% of the sample then that means the results are out by at least 0.3% for the last 12 months pro rata, then is it easier just to tweak the results internally and avoid another embarassing admission that they have been wrong for months compared to everyone else.

If they were wrong in Scotland by say 6%, with the SNP on 27% and not 21% as they were regularly claiming, overestimating labour, then even if England has been weighted correctly that means the UK result was out by 0.6% or thereabouts. In the schme if things that would ba woeful, and thus whilst it has happened it is a grey area and not emphasised. Have they amended their old results by say half a per cent across the board against labour or are they all still on the books as it were.

If Scotland is wrong then the UK as a whole is wrong. Saying it is only a marginal effect and not worth worrying about does not work for me sorry.
If the weighting process in Scotland and England to judge labour voters was similar, then that might explain why they were out by as much as say 4%; that is what I think but I am sure somebody can tell me why that logic is wrong.
So if You Gov get it right on the day is everyone supposed to forget? I think not. The Euros were a good example where labour share was overemphasised. I expect the same again.

and

When YouGov changed their methodology Mr Kellner said that the change did not make “a systematic difference to our results”.
In my view it did have some impact. Consider their weekly weighting from Conservative to Labour…
Week-ending 19/02 7.69%
Week-ending 26/02 6.51%
Week-ending 05/03 5.50%
Week-ending 12/03 7.22%
Week-ending 19/03 1.63% (new methodology)
Week-ending 26/03 3.62%
3 days to 31/03 3.07%

StevieJ

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

He said it during the Budget debate in the House of Commons in 1996, just six months before he became Chancellor. Clearly his tune has changed since then, given his insistence on increasing NI, while the Conservatives' proposed block of that rise is set to make seven out of ten people from ordinary families better off.

That all came from that stupid tax promise when they were elected in 97.

StevieJ

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

So its not scrapping the NI rise that I object to - it makes sense. Its how its being spun. Had the Tories said they would put up VAT instead of NI that would be fine. Instead its paying for it with efficiency savings that only last week Osborne described as "bogus". We all know that efficiency savings won't pay for this. .

Especially as he is using Brownies efficiency advisor

CLAPTON

No party can afford to be honest about tax rises... as all recent history and this this board shows.
Blair had many faults but he absolutely banned his people from talking about taxation.
Cameron is a keen student of Blair and won't make that mistake.

Even though voters know that the politicians aren't being honest nevertheless they react badly to specific tax rises as those adversely affected will vote against and the others won't support just because they aren't affected. A lose lose situation.
The only defoense is that the alternatives are just as bad or worse... difficult argument to make.

The 'leaders of industry' story should be a total non-story but it will run and run which just shows the error of being up front about tax rises.

So the spin is a tax on jobs .. well of course it is but a VAT rise will choke off demand for goods and services which will reduce profits and employment.. although in my view a better option as it hits imports equally as home production.... but jobs will be lost too.
And of course VAT rise will hit poor people whereas the personal NI rise only affect those earning over 20k... so that would be spun differently and those same captains of industry would be writing to the papers to say this will hit industry and jobs and the poor too.

But this is election time so lets all enjoy it.

Spartacus_Mills

StevieJ wrote: »

Especially as he is using Brownies efficiency advisor

Perhaps he needs to read Brown's book on courage as well.

Not that Gordo paid any attention to it.

Kohoutek

When Peter Gershon (the Tory's new efficiency advisor) worked for Brown, he achieved long term savings of £21.5 billion. Therefore actually it's not as implausible as the Nu-Labour frothers are saying that he could find £6 billion of savings to offset not increasing national insurance.

lvader

In a weak economy is it better to cut government spending or increase taxes? That is the choice in a nutshell.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Kohoutek wrote: »

When Peter Gershon (the Tory's new efficiency advisor) worked for Brown, he achieved long term savings of £21.5 billion. Therefore actually it's not as implausible as the Nu-Labour frothers are saying that he could find £6 billion of savings to offset not increasing national insurance.

Fine - dont believe Labour and listen to the Tories instead. Just last week Osborne described planned Labour savings of half this amount as bogus. Government efficiency savings used to fund anything are, according to Cameron, a con trick.

If people like me were describing Gershon as a con trick you'd be up in arms. But its not me is it, its CamerOsborne. So were they lying last week or are they lying this week?