the snap general election thread

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I've mentioned this before; when Merkel says no, she means no. She doesn't mean 'ask me again in a few days/weeks/months and I'll give in'.

Merkel is 'Strong and stable', May isn't.

Merkel will say what ever is necessary to save her political neck. Just like any other politician. We are not German and don't follow events closely. Profound statements are meaningless. As we simply cannot comment. No different to holding a view of Trump. Public personality is often very different to someone doing their day job. I've met plenty of great actors. Behind the veneer is a totally different character out of camera.

michaels

steampowered wrote: »

This is taken into account by Labour's costing document. They included a £3.9 billion "Allowance made for additional behavioural change and uncertainty, reducing total
tax take."

If you have yet had the chance to read Labour's costing document, please do so. It is only 2 pages. It is available here: http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Funding%20Britain%27s%20Future.PDF. It is worth taking 2 minutes to actually understand what the main policy proposals are before voting, no matter where you sit on the political spectrum.


What about every other European country? What about the UK for the past several decades? You can't seriously be suggesting that the UK is fiscally unable to fund universities without charging students £9.25k per year.

Yeah, we have always had 46% of young people going to university rather than leaving school at 16 and paying tax for the next 6 years.

Currently we have a graduate tax so that those who benefit from university, mostly the middle class kids, pay a higher tax rate. Labour propose putting this burden onto general taxation so those who work at 18 because they come from a working class background can pay for those who don't to improve their prospects. Taking from the poor to benefit the middle classes - can't get much more (champagne) socialist than that.

lobbyludd

michaels wrote: »

I can not understand why people think that increasing a tax rate by x% will increase the take by x% - Of course it won't, people will respond, either by 'avoiding' or simply by working less. More tax on employment makes working less valuable so all things being equal people will work less. Hardly rocket science.

Or people will work more to maintain their lifestyle/choices, just as they do when profits/pay are squeezed or costs increased in other ways?

kabayiri

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Yes, however when you're about to enter a series of very important discussions that could affect the country for many years, the worst thing you can do is give in under pressure.

I've mentioned this before; when Merkel says no, she means no. She doesn't mean 'ask me again in a few days/weeks/months and I'll give in'.

Merkel is 'Strong and stable', May isn't.

You illustrate a large chunk of the problem. 'Merkel' is not the EU, even though she might think she is.

The EU was not supposed to become Germany 2.0.

Sadly, it is still dominated by those at the core, and soon enough Ireland and Greece and Portugal will find out that they are in the second tier.

michaels

lobbyludd wrote: »

Or people will work more to maintain their lifestyle/choices, just as they do when profits/pay are squeezed or costs increased in other ways?

So all that economic research on the laffer curve is the usual 'experts' so can be ignored.

The govt tried to tax me an extra 2.5k by taking away child benefit. Since then I have changed my behaviour and have paid about 100k less in tax and will retire 5 years earlier than I would have done.

Thrugelmir

michaels wrote: »

The govt tried to tax me an extra 2.5k by taking away child benefit. Since then I have changed my behaviour and have paid about 100k less in tax and will retire 5 years earlier than I would have done.

Then you are fortunate to have the ability to make that choice.

lobbyludd

.string. wrote: »

They, the civil servants, will have worked on general stuff which will be useful but aimed at supporting a certain negotiation strategy. It would not be a quick start for a different team.

almost all of it will be carried out by lawyers and civil servants, untold hoards of them. They will have spent 11 months pulling together information, strategies and plan B's for all possible negotiation strategies. This will have factored in possible regime changes here and in the EU, and they will continue to do so. The very very top line agreements may be articulated by the PM and brexit lead, with their opposite sides, but that really is it. Mostly, their role will be managing their own parliament and media, through domestic speeches and press conferences.

lobbyludd

michaels wrote: »

The govt tried to tax me an extra 2.5k by taking away child benefit. Since then I have changed my behaviour and have paid about 100k less in tax and will retire 5 years earlier than I would have done.

seems like an entirely reasonable response to contributing an extra £2.5K for the benefit of your country. Curious how you managed to get any tax credits when being in a position to cut your tax bill by £100K, but hey ho.

I'm no expert* but as an expert group economists don't agree on anything other than at 0 and 100% are revenue nadirs. The magnitude of uncertainty and error inherent in the modelling to produce laffer curves is huge. Even when based on empirical data peak revenue can be modelled between 30-70% tax rates, depending on the assumptions made.

* in case the brexiteers are worried.

michaels

People respond to the rules they are faced with. The more they are taxed the more they will study the rules in order to work out how to pay less. The best way to raise revenue is to tax low and middle earners who can not afford to forgo income or employ accountants to avoid taxes. Proposing extra taxes on high earners and companies is the best way to erode the tax base.

Yah_Boo_Sux

lobbyludd wrote: »

I'm no expert*

* in case the brexiteers are worried.

Yes, that much is patently obvious from your post.

Oh and by the way, Michaels whom you quote said nothing about receiving Tax Credits.
I politely suggest you read that post again.