Con-Lib agreement on a £10k personal allowance for income tax?

StevieJ

zygurat789 wrote: »

A very snide and factually incorrect statement. If you doubt this look up some of my previos posts.
If you can't add intelligent comments it would be best if you kept quiet.

Wait a minute, so you have an index linked pension but you want it scrapped, very magnanimous of you

zygurat789

StevieJ wrote: »

Wait a minute, so you have an index linked pension but you want it scrapped, very magnanimous of you

Not really - I already have it.
But that's not the point. They are way too generous.
Wildly benefitting one section of the country at the expence of the other.
They are also uneccessary because as youi grow older, you will find, your desire to spend decreases. You don't move house as frequently, you don't buy a car so often etc so all this money is stockpiled for the "next generation" , presumeably you, instead of being spent and reviving the economy.

carolt

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

On Newsnight Michael Gove let slip the Conservatives had agreed with the Lib Dems on a personal allowance of £10,000.

Kirsty Wark, quoting David Cameron pre-election, on this policy stated it adds £17bn to the deficit.

As John Redwood later pointed out to Wark this will have been agreed based on other tax hikes. However, imho, they'd have to be very big tax hikes.

The 'easy' options to raise such a huge amount of money that the Tories could live with? My two guesses are:

1. A 25% basic rate income tax rate would bring in £12-13bn per annum afaik. 25% would mean anyone earning under £24,100 would pay less income tax overall while those earning >£24,100 would pay more income tax*.

2. 20% VAT would bring in around £10bn per annum.

Smaller tax raising measures such as reducing tax credits for the higher paid to supplement the above are no-brainers.

These tax rises could leave room for the NIC hike to be abolished and/or 50p tax rate and/or the implementation of a £1m IHT allowance.

While hardly 'radical' the above would mean a far larger and transparent change in tax regime than anything done under New Labour. The losers, as usual, will be those middle income bracket earners who could possibly be appeased by greater benefit cuts.


*This calc does ignore inflation, since the 10k pa would probably come in April 6th 2011 the real cost to the exchequer will be eroded by ~3% inflation. The quickie sums: £10,000-£6,475 = £3,525 * 0.2 = £705 less tax paid by those earning £10k and £705 / 0.05 = £14,100 more required to give up the personal allowance gain, so, £24,100 is the break-even point.

I really hope this is true, as I thought this was the single best financial policy the 3 parties had.

We need to make work pay, esp for the low paid,, if we are to encourage people off benefits and into work. It will also benefit millions of familes where the women work part-time or would like to = about 85% of the mums I know. I know v few homes where the mums can afford not to work at all, and also v few where they are the main earner.

StevieJ

zygurat789 wrote: »

Not really - I already have it.
But that's not the point. They are way too generous.
Wildly benefitting one section of the country at the expence of the other.
They are also uneccessary because as youi grow older, you will find, your desire to spend decreases. You don't move house as frequently, you don't buy a car so often etc so all this money is stockpiled for the "next generation" , presumeably you, instead of being spent and reviving the economy.

I am with you now, you already receive an index linked pension but you want them scrapped for the younger members of society, makes more sense now BTW stockpiled cash can be used to invest in new businesses or to lend via banks to consumers ( to revive the economy ) unless of course you have been listening to Asheron and you have those gold bars under your bed:eek:

ninky_2

carolt wrote: »

I really hope this is true, as I thought this was the single best financial policy the 3 parties had.

We need to make work pay, esp for the low paid,, if we are to encourage people off benefits and into work. It will also benefit millions of familes where the women work part-time or would like to = about 85% of the mums I know. I know v few homes where the mums can afford not to work at all, and also v few where they are the main earner.

although the stats show that actually 50 percent of women now earn as much or more than their husband/partner. i earn way more than mine.

StevieJ

carolt wrote: »

I really hope this is true, as I thought this was the single best financial policy the 3 parties had.

We need to make work pay, esp for the low paid,, if we are to encourage people off benefits and into work. It will also benefit millions of familes where the women work part-time or would like to = about 85% of the mums I know. I know v few homes where the mums can afford not to work at all, and also v few where they are the main earner.

That was the idea (later adopted by the party) of my local LibDem candidate, unfortunately she wasn't elected :eek:

zygurat789

StevieJ wrote: »

I am with you now, you already receive an index linked pension but you want them scrapped for the younger members of society, makes more sense now BTW stockpiled cash can be used to invest in new businesses or to lend via banks to consumers ( to revive the economy ) unless of course you have been listening to Asheron and you have those gold bars under your bed:eek:

The old are notoriously conservative , it will all go int bank deposit accounts and we all know that banks don't led to new businesses.

mbga9pgf

carolt wrote: »

I really hope this is true, as I thought this was the single best financial policy the 3 parties had.

We need to make work pay, esp for the low paid,, if we are to encourage people off benefits and into work. It will also benefit millions of familes where the women work part-time or would like to = about 85% of the mums I know. I know v few homes where the mums can afford not to work at all, and also v few where they are the main earner.

I agree. I would support this policy, despite it costing me around 1500 extra a year in income tax, if we also went and cut LONG TERM benefits to a level of around 50% of the minimum wage, 70% if you were to consider similar living standards, Eg free council tax, free rental etc.

No-one should be able to choose a life on the state indefinately. I would prefer to see the workshy starve than accept this.

zygurat789

mbga9pgf wrote: »

I agree. I would support this policy, despite it costing me around 1500 extra a year in income tax, if we also went and cut LONG TERM benefits to a level of around 50% of the minimum wage, 70% if you were to consider similar living standards, Eg free council tax, free rental etc.

No-one should be able to choose a life on the state indefinately. I would prefer to see the workshy starve than accept this.

But there are those, single parents with two pre-school age children, who are totally unable to go to work.
This is taking your tory dogma too far.

kabayiri

There is a theme emerging in this thread which probably has wider appeal.

A lot of us here will be tapped for extra funds one way or another over the coming years. Via one tax or many, it doesn't matter. The net effect will be consistent.

And I think we can cope with that...IF we see structural reforms aimed at simplifying the system, and encouraging people to earn income and reduce their dependence on the state.

It's one thing I never did understand with the last big system introduced :- tax credits. It felt like a cumbersome way of taking away with one hand only to hand back with the other hand to me.