We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The budget - not quite live
Comments
-
If they had have stayed in power I doubt it would have been reduced. Now the 50% is suported by the current people in charge of the Labour party. I would only have believed a Labour party would have reduced it later with perhaps David M in charge rather than Ed. No chance with Ed, he is more likely to go the French way and start whacking taxes up higher.They were happy with the 40% rate for 13 years of their administration then raised it 1 month before they were due to lose power.
In opposition, they've opposed the government's actions because, well, they're the opposition.0 -
It's always amusing to see the forum 'experts' know exactly what politicians were thinking and the reasons for their actions.
The joys of the internet...0 -
Labour would never have reduced it back. They opposed the reduction to 45%. No assumptions about what might have happened with labour, they increased it to 50%.
They never would have increased it to 50% had they not been on their way out. You are also claiming that their promise that it was temporary was a lie. They knew it was a bad idea.
You seem determined to avoid the fact that this was clearly not an economic policy. If they believed that a 50% tax rate was a good idea they'd have brought it in years earlier, as they know their base supports it. It was a political trap; giving the conservatives a bad tax rate that they could not reverse without upsetting the masses who want the wealthier punished.0 -
-
No avoiding. It happened.They never would have increased it to 50% had they not been on their way out. You are also claiming that their promise that it was temporary was a lie. They knew it was a bad idea.
You seem determined to avoid the fact that this was clearly not an economic policy. If they believed that a 50% tax rate was a good idea they'd have brought it in years earlier, as they know their base supports it. It was a political trap; giving the conservatives a bad tax rate that they could not reverse without upsetting the masses who want the wealthier punished.0 -
Labour would never have reduced it back. They opposed the reduction to 45%. No assumptions about what might have happened with labour, they increased it to 50%.
With respect, that's absolute garbage. Labour never believed the rate should be 50% that's why they kept it at 40% while they were in office.
To be honest you're embarrassing yourself trying to claim anything else, even the most die-hard Labour supporter recognizes that this was just politics of the vilest kind.0 -
Judge them by their actions. They increased it. It is worse if it was for the reasons you claim as that implies it was malicious which I'm sure they will not like such claims.With respect, that's absolute garbage. Labour never believed the rate should be 50% that's why they kept it at 40% while they were in office.
To be honest you're embarrassing yourself trying to claim anything else, even the most die-hard Labour supporter recognizes that this was just politics of the vilest kind.0 -
So you're saying they were lying through their teeth when they said it was temporary?0
-
Going by their actions to date with regards to them opposing its reduction then temporary would appear to be very grey. Ed is a bit different from some of the previous labour leaders. I think he would be a bit more aligned with Hollande and his tax policies. However the implication is the action was malicious, but that is an assumption. What is clear is it was raised and it was far higher than the current level not even taking into account the much higher tax free allowance.So you're saying they were lying through their teeth when they said it was temporary?
Balls wants to bring back the 50p tax. Miliband also doesn't like the personal tax allowance helping higher earners. Not really giong to help aspirations.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards