the snap general election thread

System

westernpromise wrote: »

If you are in favour of the 50% rate, it's not about whether the tax take from it goes up or down. It's about expropriating people you're envious of. As long as they're personally worse off, and a bit closer to your own level of impotent misery, that's a good result.

Interestingly this is exactly how I feel about those "disenfranchised" voters who wanted brexit. Expertly worded.

Do we know what T is on this laffer curve is or where we are on it now? If we're to the left then it would mean more tax. If we don't know T or where we are now then posting a picture of it proves nothing.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

Supposes it raises more ?

Speculation like that is pointless.

If it were that easy the budget deficit would have been eradicated by now. No such thing as a free lunch. What does Corbyn up his sleeve? Given that the Labour party have struggled with any creditable economic policy for the best part of 10 years.

Mr_Costcutter

westernpromise wrote: »

The average Labour voter wants a government that spends and spends on himself using other people's money. They are in effect voting to keep as much as possible of what they didn't earn.
.

I'm retired and a higher rate tax payer. In my spare time I work voluntarily with adults who have physical or learning difficulties. Believe me when I say that working in this capacity has been 'an eye-opener'. The struggle some people have to endure on a day-to-day basis is unbelievable. The 'austerity' cuts have hit many extremely vulnerable people exceedingly hard and I would challenge anyone to say that this is acceptable.
I genuinely believe that the 'average' labour voter wants to see a fairer society. They want to live in a world where life is no longer a matter of struggling to survive. Of course they do!

Yah_Boo_Sux

I find it interesting that yet again the anti-Tory vehemence is increasing as we get nearer to election day, just as the pro-EU vehemence increased towards pro-Brexit supporters just before Article 50 was put forward and also the same prior to the referendum.
Look at the result in each case.
Some of the assumptions and comments on both sides are, to be quite honest and as polite as possible, myopic at best. Delusional may be more appropriate in many instances.

Just a thought but the best bosses I have ever worked for have been brilliant, performing admirably and increasing their businesses in often difficult circumstances with the support of a good team. Not one has been a good orator. No I'm not pro-May but I am less pro-Corbyn, & most certainly much less pro-Farron.

Rinoa

BobQ wrote: »

Yes an act of compassion that is worthy of a caring Tory Leader.

How do you know she didn't immediately offer to put someone in her place but Rudd insisted she wanted to carry on.

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

If it were that easy the budget deficit would have been eradicated by now. No such thing as a free lunch. What does Corbyn up his sleeve? Given that the Labour party have struggled with any creditable economic policy for the best part of 10 years.

Either the change raises the target amount or it does not. Even experts can only estimate the outcome. It could be more or less than expected and any deviations addressed as they arise.

If May cuts the WFA it will raise how much? Nobody knows since she will not explain who will get it and who will not. Is that any worse than Corbyn saying his tax will raise a given amount?

What does May have up her sleeve? Charges for NHS services? Like Hunt has speculated on for 10 years now.....

Yah_Boo_Sux

Rinoa wrote: »

How do you know she didn't immediately offer to put someone in her place but Rudd insisted she wanted to carry on.

I read somewhere that Rudd did indeed insist upon attending the debate after her sad news - one of the major sources, certainly.
Ah

A family friend said he took "great pride" in his daughter, the Home Secretary, and Ms Rudd felt sure he would have wanted her to carry on.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/31/amber-rudd-appears-election-debate-just-48-hours-father-died/

Now please, I have said I'm not pro-May but this "wibbly-wobbly" "flip flop" nonsense about Theresa May is mostly just that, nonsense. Theresa May said way back in April that she would not take part in TV debates ahead of the general election. So far she hasn't. That seems pretty clear to me.

Theresa May will not take part in TV debates ahead of the planned general election, she has told the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39633696

fun4everyone

Mr_Costcutter wrote: »

he 'austerity' cuts have hit many extremely vulnerable people exceedingly hard and I would challenge anyone to say that this is acceptable.
I genuinely believe that the 'average' labour voter wants to see a fairer society.

Agreed. The vulnerable and needy in society need to be properly cared for. Also the police force actually has to serve the public. At the moment they are "too busy" to bother responding to robberies in progress, arson attacks or violent incidents in progress.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-23/police-told-businessman-were-too-busy-to-help-when-he-could-see-his-office-being-burgled-live-on-cctv/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3827728/Arson-evidence-police-tell-fire-crews-Force-claims-busy-attend-couple-s-home-petrol-bombed-slept.html

God help you if you need an urgent operation on the NHS. These cuts are savage and unacceptable for any decent country. Yet the Torys keep making them deeper and deeper whilst at the same trying to bring back fox hunting. Weak and wobbly May has made a huge error of judgement taking us all for granted.

posh*spice

kabayiri wrote: »

My question is simple re: the Labour plans.

Suppose the income tax hike does not raise £6.4bn, only half of that.

Where do they get the additional £3bn from?

Or, are the ambitious spending plans dependent on all the savings delivering their expected targets?

Good question as they have made a manifesto promise not to tax the 95%.

kabayiri

BobQ wrote: »

Either the change raises the target amount or it does not. Even experts can only estimate the outcome. It could be more or less than expected and any deviations addressed as they arise.
...

No, you look at recent history for guidance and build in a buffer in case things don't go as planned.

So...remind me. Did the 50p hike introduced by the Tories go to plan? I don't think so, so why should Labour fare better?

Oh , and "deviations addressed" ....it's just waffle innit.

[Tell you what...if the change raises more than £6.4bn we split the difference and keep sshtumm ]