Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

Filo25

Herzlos wrote: »

I agree that university shouldn't be the only option and that we should be making a lot more vocational/practical courses available (are those free in England?). But I also don't agree that university education should only be the reserve of the wealthy, or that the current student loan set up actually makes any sense (it costs a lot of money to administer, lots of people have debts written off anyway, and those that pay the graduate tax are already paying more tax, so it'd be more cost effective and less stressful to just make it free in the first place).


I'm not sure I get the 62% +NI marginal tax rate. Is that for those earning £59,999/year and losing all the child tax benefits? I don't agree with how the child tax benefit system works either, but I'm not sure how typical it is. Highest rate now is 45%, and by the time you hit the 40% tax band NI contributions drop to 2%. It's all a bit too complicated, too.


As for the taxing the rich more chases them off, sure it does to an extend, but trickle down economics don't work either - giving a tax break to the rich will normally mean the money is squirreled away somewhere (investment funds, offshore accounts, etc), giving a tax break to the poor almost always means the money gets pushed back into the economy (because they'll spend it).


I think we'd do a lot better as a country if we invested properly in public services. It could actually save us a lot of money in the long run (catching issues whilst cheap to fix, improving mobility/efficiency, losing less working days waiting for treatment and so on). For instance, home carers aren't *that* expensive, but by getting rid of them you push someone from needing a few home visits a day into a care home or hospital ward costing significantly more. On paper it looks like cutting their budget saves money but it just pushes the problem onto a more expensive balance sheet.

On University education, I actually don't have an issue with targeted relief on say those from lower income families (in a similar way to how the old grant system worked), I do have an issue with it being fre to everyone given the numbers we now send to university and the demographics of the the background of the typical university student (it basicalyl just ends up being a massive middle class bung).

For tax once you reach £100k you start getting tapering of your personal allowance, which takes the marginal tax rate to 60% plus the 2% NI, that applies to salaries between 120-123k, we have a couple of weird anomalies like that in the tax system, child benefit is another obvious one, which affects a lot of people.

As I said I don't argue that we do need to invest more in certain areas, where I think Labour are hugely flawed is in thinking you can do that without everyone having to contribute, albeit clearly with those who are earning more or have greater wealth contributing more, the current Labour leadership seems more comfortable with all of the old school class war rubbish though.

I agree trickle down economics doesn't work, unless you are already at high rates of tax to start with, but equally while people overstate the impact of the Laffer curve it does exist, and it certainly exists where tax rates feel punitive, and 62% already feel pretty punitive to me, personaly I think you start seeing issues with rates over 50%, if only because psychologically you start to think you are working more for the state than yourself.

scaredofdebt

Joan_number_1 wrote: »

It's like watching someone adrift in an ocean clutching at any nearby flotsam & jetsam in a desperate bid to stop themselves from going under.

Project Fear continues ......... and I for one will be glad when it's long over and so many of these stories continue to be proven groundless.

Not sure about you, but I am about £1,000 down since the referendum vote due to the weakened pound pushing up the price of diesel. I do a lot of mileage so I put £50 odd quid of fuel in my car every week. In June 2016 that was £40 odd a week, so about £10 a week extra due to the referendum vote.

Project fear indeed.

scaredofdebt

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

So he just gets his own people to lie?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/key-ally-of-jeremy-corbyn-caught-on-video-making-pledge-to-wipe-off-student-debts-a3595646.html

And one thing they can never understand is that by taxing the high earners higher they lose that tax because they simply relocate. They do not have to hang around in this country. The lower taxes bring in more money because they stay in this country.

More nonsense, if that was the case all "high-earners" would live in Monaco or other tax havens.

Joan_number_1_2

scaredofdebt wrote: »

Not sure about you, but I am about £1,000 down since the referendum vote due to the weakened pound pushing up the price of diesel. I do a lot of mileage so I put £50 odd quid of fuel in my car every week. In June 2016 that was £40 odd a week, so about £10 a week extra due to the referendum vote.

Project fear indeed.

Yes, Project Fear.
Don't blame prices at the pump on Brexit when oil prices are far more volatile than the £.
From 2011 to 2014 your diesel cost you just as much or more per litre than it does now.
It was over £1.40/litre for most of 2012.

As it happens I use petrol not diesel and I'm about a tenner a week better off than I was back then.
Should I be thanking Brexit for that, using your logic?

cogito

scaredofdebt wrote: »

Not sure about you, but I am about £1,000 down since the referendum vote due to the weakened pound pushing up the price of diesel. I do a lot of mileage so I put £50 odd quid of fuel in my car every week. In June 2016 that was £40 odd a week, so about £10 a week extra due to the referendum vote.

Project fear indeed.

The price of oil has increased from $45 to $72 a barrel since the referendum so it's not £10 a week extra due to the vote.

cogito

scaredofdebt wrote: »

More nonsense, if that was the case all "high-earners" would live in Monaco or other tax havens.

You've obviously never heard of the Laffer Curve.

ben501

Herzlos wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/may/16/what-would-labours-manifesto-cost-pledges-money-guide-details


What bits of it do you think won't work?

For a start I think the corporation tax idea is fanciful. Surely if we're leaving the EU we want to encourage investment, not drive it away by increasing taxes. I'm assuming the figures are averaged out, as the full tax increase was proposed to take 3 years, presumably to allow companies to move away before it hits in full.

I highly doubt they'd succeed in clamping down on the tax avoidance either. With plans to increase taxes companies will be looking for even more ways to avoid paying it.

With income tax on the highest earners likely to hit similar barriers, that's the threes biggest parts of their idea likely to fall far short of their targets.




Let's not ignore the biggest problem of all. They have to get into power before they can start bankrupting the country.


I'm not against investment and tax increases. I'm not a high paid exec, but would not mind if I had to pay more tax. There are certainly places that need the investment, I just don't think Labour have a clue. (not that the Tories have either, but I do believe they're currently the lesser of two evils)

Moby

Steve Baker commends a report from the Open Europe thinktank today claiming a no deal Brexit would be “a relatively mild negative economic event”. It says:
So the best, let me repeat that - the BEST that the brexiteers can offer is that we will suffer only a "relatively mild economic event" until 2030.
As opposed to the rest of the EU growing between 2 and 3% over the same period.
Oh well it's all worth it then!
Billions and Billions of pounds, lost global stature, increased vulnerability to Russian aggression, tenuous food supplies, diverted investment and research - all so a bunch of sweaty pink men waving flags can only inflict a "relatively mild" amount of damage on us for the next 12 years -at best!

Lungboy

I seem to remember that the proposed tax increases would still leave us lower than anywhere else in the EU. Is that not the case?

Moby

In the Commons just now..........
Sir Bill Cash, the Tory Brexiter, asks May to confirm that, if the UK extends the transition beyond December 2020, it will have to contribute to the next EU budget.
May says she wants to make sure that any deal is the best for the future of the UK.....AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH