[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

dsr-burnley said:

If the rich don't pay tax, then who are these 1% of earners who pay 28% of the total income tax revenues?

Do the top 1% of earners pay 28% of the tax burden? - Full Fact

There aren’t any readily available figures for what proportion of all taxes the top 1% pays. This claim is just referring to income taxes.

fullfact.org

Click to expand...

The top 1% of those who pay income tax are paying 28% of total income tax.

Of course they are.

Now tell me what % of total income tax the top 1% of earners pay.

It is nothing like it should be. "The rich don't pay tax" is shorthand for "thanks to all the tory wheezes cooked up over decades the rich can offset their income tax in a variety of different ways. All perfectly legal, but rendering the bleating and threats to quit the UK every time labour gets in sound like a load of soppy wet hubris".

You are most welcome to the longer version.

Harry Wilson's tackle said:

The top 1% of those who pay income tax are paying 28% of total income tax.

Of course they are.

Now tell me what % of total income tax the top 1% of earners pay.

It is nothing like it should be. "The rich don't pay tax" is shorthand for "thanks to all the tory wheezes cooked up over decades the rich can offset their income tax in a variety of different ways. All perfectly legal, but rendering the bleating and threats to quit the UK every time labour gets in sound like a load of soppy wet hubris".

You are most welcome to the longer version.

Click to expand...

They've been cracking down (not necessarily effectively) on tax avoidance over recent years, not facilitating it. Most government-issue tax avoidance strategies are aimed at the less-than-top earners, eg. ISAs and pension reliefs. Obviously the cracking down isn't particularly effective, which is why Lineker and others can still get away with the (I'm not an employee, I'm a personal service company" dodge which is the most high-profile tax avoidance scheme that the Tory government spent years trying to block.

dsr-burnley said:

They've been cracking down (not necessarily effectively) on tax avoidance over recent years, not facilitating it. Most government-issue tax avoidance strategies are aimed at the less-than-top earners, eg. ISAs and pension reliefs. Obviously the cracking down isn't particularly effective, which is why Lineker and others can still get away with the (I'm not an employee, I'm a personal service company" dodge which is the most high-profile tax avoidance scheme that the Tory government spent years trying to block.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Albeit the tories were trying to block what Lineker is doing because Lineker doesn't like the Tories, perhaps.

Those I know who work in the sector say pursuit of unpaid tax is underfunded and patchy, while wheezes still exist.

Any government making 'pay more tax' their platform is likely to find their voter share fall, so we are where we are.

The bit I find odd is that apparently lots of people vote for who they think will lower tax, and yet the total tax burden hardly changes.

Note the graph below is visually misleading because the Y axis does not start at zero. That tomfoolery does my head in

Source https://obr.uk/box/the-uks-tax-burden-in-historical-and-international-context/

dsr-burnley said:

They've been cracking down (not necessarily effectively) on tax avoidance over recent years, not facilitating it. Most government-issue tax avoidance strategies are aimed at the less-than-top earners, eg. ISAs and pension reliefs. Obviously the cracking down isn't particularly effective, which is why Lineker and others can still get away with the (I'm not an employee, I'm a personal service company" dodge which is the most high-profile tax avoidance scheme that the Tory government spent years trying to block.

Click to expand...

Self employed is not 'getting away with it'. He is not on PAYE as HMRC tried to say. Other tv presenters have also been investigated this way, but it's interesting that you single out Gary Lineker.

Thunder Bolt said:

Self employed is not 'getting away with it'. He is not on PAYE as HMRC tried to say. Other tv presenters have also been investigated this way, but it's interesting that you single out Gary Lineker.

Click to expand...

I single out Lineker partly because he's probably the most high-profile of these cases, but also because he's known as being far from Tory and it's only fair to realise that tax avoidance isn't just something Tories do.

To be fair to Lineker and the other presenters caught in the same web - some of whom got away with it and others who didn't - the BBC has been aggressively pushing this form of tax avoidance for years. The benefit for the BBC as employer is that they save NIC for all concerned and they also, as non-employers, are saved from the responsibility of paying sick pay or holiday pay or any other of the protections that employees get.

Thunder Bolt said:

Click to expand...

I think the sting in the tail is 'if the change were fiscally neutral'.

It could be moderated with easily-curated adjustments.

And of course it would reel in the Lord Vesty's of this world (OK, he's no longer of this world) if accompanied by an end to the wheezes.

In the present system the philosophy about tax seems to be that it is essentially bad so whatever you can do to mitigate, from gift aid to offshoring is all regarded as not just acceptable but responsible financial management.

I know I haven't got all the details right, but FFS.

And anyway, now Badenough has grasped the nettle it is likely that only a perverse rubric is likely. So for now I remain out.

dsr-burnley said:

If the rich don't pay tax, then who are these 1% of earners who pay 28% of the total income tax revenues?

Do the top 1% of earners pay 28% of the tax burden? - Full Fact

There aren’t any readily available figures for what proportion of all taxes the top 1% pays. This claim is just referring to income taxes.

fullfact.org

Click to expand...

I think he means the super rich.

And a lot of people have their 'wealth' tied up in non-taxable assets. Football clubs for example. And you're not gonna pay much tax on a Rembrant hanging on your wall.

Anyhow, a flat rate would lead to government absolving itself of responsibility. It's only a hop skip and a jump from then saying that everyone should pay for their own health care. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

I seem to have blocked all the silly arse threads so I'll put this here:

I am listening to an exquisitely entitled woman ranting on the radio about six years of lost pension that she didn't know about.

The problem here is that she is objecting to a change she didn't know about, not about the change itself (which was flagged 15 years ago - I remember that even though I am not presently a woman).

The bad look is that lots of Labour including Starmer backed the waspie women (I haven't heard of them so apologies for spelling). Now they are in government they have had to change their tune.

So on the one hand we have Labour engaging with the geriatric version of student politics, and on the other, apparently millions of women who were blissfully unaware of the pension age changes that were introduced years ago, and announced years before that.

Someone complaining that a friend had to take out a second mortgage when the pension was cut without them knowing. And that they will never vote Labour again. Nicky Campbell missed the opportunity to ask her if she had ever voted labour at any time ever, before.

Apparently the ombudsmen survey, done in the early noughties, says that 90% of women know about the change to state pension age in 2020. However it sounds like the announcements Labour made between 2003 and 2006 were missleading. They sent letters to women about the changes to the state pension without apparently saying when the change would happen. (But this had already been announced).

Another woman is now calling in to say all the info was provided from the 1990s and some women simply didn't bother to engage. "The whole (waspie) campaign was based on a false premise". "A very simple calculation well publicised". "If I read the infor and didn't understand it I would have spoken to someone who could explain it".

A lot of heads in sand here.....followed by a lot of howling at the moon. Fancy that. I'd be interested to know how many voted labour because they thought they would get back the money they 'thought' they would get.]

Final rant from waspie "It isn't about the fact we weren't told, the change itself is an injustice". So she is simply moaning about the change - that she willfully pretended wasn't going to happen. What about us poor old men who don't get our pensions till 66? Eh? EH! Now she's saying the equalization of the pension age is in fact fair. And she's conflating state pension with workplace pension. And she's laughing at the caller saying 'we all have to take personal responsibility for our finances'. Laughing. WTF? Oh dear.

They need to get their argument ducks lined up or they they will lose all support for their correct assertion that Labout have gone back on what they apparently supported before the general election.

Final word - "I knew about this in 95. I planned. We have equality with men and that means retirement too. Why did you stop working at 60? I carried on working till I was 65." a 70 year old woman. "I don't feel let down (by Labour's change) because |I never expected it (this windfall)". Good for her.

Harry Wilson's tackle said:

I seem to have blocked all the silly arse threads so I'll put this here:

I am listening to an exquisitely entitled woman ranting on the radio about six years of lost pension that she didn't know about.

The problem here is that she is objecting to a change she didn't know about, not about the change itself (which was flagged 15 years ago - I remember that even though I am not presently a woman).

The bad look is that lots of Labour including Starmer backed the waspie women (I haven't heard with them so apologies for spelling). Now they are in government they have had to change their tune.

So on the one hand we have Labour engaging with the geriatric version of student politics, and on the other, apparently millions of women who were blissfully unaware of the pension age changes that were introduced years ago, and announced years before that.

Someone complaining that a friend had to take out a second mortgage when the pension was cut without them knowing. And that they will never vote Labour again. Nicky Campbell missed the opportunity to ask her if she had ever voted labour at any time ever.

Apparently the ombudsmen survey, done in the early noughties, says that 90% of women know about the change to state pension age in 2020. However it sounds like the announcements Labour made between 2003 and 2006 were missleading. They sent letters to women about the changes to the state pension without apparently saying when the change would happen. (But this had already been announced).

Another woman is now calling in to say all the info was provided from the 1990s and some women simply didn't bother to engage. "The whole (waspie) campaign was based on a false premise". "A very simple calculation well publicised". "If I read the infor and didn't understand it I would have spoken to someone who could explain it".

A lot of heads in sand here.....followed by a lot of howling at the moon. Fancy that. I'd be interested to know how many voted labour because they thought they would get back the money they 'thought' they would get.]

Final rant from waspie "It isn't about the fact we weren't told, the change itself is an injustice". So she is simply moaning about the change - that she willfully pretended wasn't going to happen. What about us poor old men who don't get our pensions till 66? Eh? EH! Now she's saying the equalization of the pension age is in fact fair. And she's conflating state pension with workplace pension. And she's laughing at the caller saying 'we all have to take personal responsibility for our finances'. Laughing. WTF? Oh dear.

They need to get their argument ducks lined up or they they will lose all support for their correct assertion that Labout have gone back on what they apparently supported before the general election.

Click to expand...

I agree with that. I was spared the rise in age qualification by 20 months, but I remember talking about it to a friend in the 90s, who was born in March 1950, thereby with just a month to qualify.
Men are also protesting, albeit a lot more low key, because the pension age changed from 65, to 66, and thence to 67.
So, there have been at least four changes to the pensionable age in the last 30 years, so anybody saying they didn't know is either wilfully head in the clouds or lying.

Harry Wilson's tackle said:

Indeed. Albeit the tories were trying to block what Lineker is doing because Lineker doesn't like the Tories, perhaps.

Those I know who work in the sector say pursuit of unpaid tax is underfunded and patchy, while wheezes still exist.

Any government making 'pay more tax' their platform is likely to find their voter share fall, so we are where we are.

The bit I find odd is that apparently lots of people vote for who they think will lower tax, and yet the total tax burden hardly changes.

Note the graph below is visually misleading because the Y axis does not start at zero. That tomfoolery does my head in

Source https://obr.uk/box/the-uks-tax-burden-in-historical-and-international-context/

View attachment 193833

Click to expand...

Interesting that tax is described as a 'burden' - I'd have thought that any genuine patriot would gladly and willingly pay their taxes to fund decent public services, infrastructure, pensions and social housing. I certainly am.

If only we devoted even 1% of the energy, anger and resources to tackling tax evasion that we expend on endless welfare clamp-downs to tackle social security fraud.

Thunder Bolt said:

I agree with that. I was spared the rise in age qualification by 20 months, but I remember talking about it to a friend in the 90s, who was born in March 1950, thereby with just a month to qualify.
Men are also protesting, albeit a lot more low key, because the pension age changed from 65, to 66, and thence to 67.
So, there have been at least four changes to the pensionable age in the last 30 years, so anybody saying they didn't know is either wilfully head in the clouds or lying.

Click to expand...

The list of better ways for the Government to spend £10bn is astonishingly extensive. Particularly after 14 years of austerity and poor governance under the Tories.

Optics though, isn’t it? After the WFA cut, it looks (rightly or wrongly; and I agree with HWT here wrongly) like another attack on pensioners.

Labour have big messaging issues.

@Harry Wilson's tackle

In short, is Labour’s position in Government on this topic the same as it was in opposition?

If so then it’s no story

Thunder Bolt said:

I agree with that. I was spared the rise in age qualification by 20 months, but I remember talking about it to a friend in the 90s, who was born in March 1950, thereby with just a month to qualify.
Men are also protesting, albeit a lot more low key, because the pension age changed from 65, to 66, and thence to 67.
So, there have been at least four changes to the pensionable age in the last 30 years, so anybody saying they didn't know is either wilfully head in the clouds or lying.

Click to expand...

I remember when my pensionable age went up. I raised an eyebrow.
I also remember when my workplace pension was switched from 'final salary' to 'average salary'. I was one year too young to be exempted so the last 10 years of my pension pot has grown around my average income over the last 10 years rather than final salary. That's probably cost me at least £50K. It is what it is.

There was a lot of complaint when the workplace pension final salary arrangement change came in because it hits young staff hard. It is estimated they will have only 60% the pension pot I have when they retire (with inflation etc taken into account).
This is why the uni lecturers went on strike some years ago.
Except our silly arse union conflated this real issue with the 'gender pay gap'.
(There is no pay inequality in my sector - we are paid according to grade.)
And then grinned on the picket line with Jeremy Corbyn.
But this is workplace pension.

To be honest, my state pension (which I now get, age 66) is not going to affect whether I can pay the mortgage (er, which I paid off 20 years ago) or pay the bills. I have a workplace pension. As do......many of us. We were vigorously encouraged to get one back in the 80s. Mine came with the job.

Which means that women (or men) who know they have no workplace pension, no savings and are still paying a mortgage, must know when their state pension will start (because this will be their sole income), and will plan their retirement around that.

So the 'typical' woman who somehow didn't know about the change in pension age, have no workplace pension, have a mortgage, had plans to spend the £40K they imagined they would get at age 60, and also planned to retire at 60 because they think they can, and is now blown away by the false promises of Starmer, is a complete fiction.

Stand by for Farage and Badenough to weaponize it.

(I do wish Labour not attach itself to 'good causes' without due diligence, though. It has improved hugely since Corbyn shared a platform with Islamoterrorists, and Starmer's refusal to join the anti-Israel pile-on before mature reflection was a good thing - albeit the left hammered him for it. Politics is a funny old game).

I presume you will be back at the Amex now we have flushed away the Palace stink-fest. Come on football, give us a goal

Rdodge30 said:

@Harry Wilson's tackle

In short, is Labour’s position in Government on this topic the same as it was in opposition?

If so then it’s no story

Click to expand...

The position is not the same. So there is a story. But it is not that 'Labour have stolen our pensions' as it is being presented by Labour's detractors.

They made a mistake giving the impression they supported a 'fair and just solution' before the election (Starmer's words)
It is naive to make financial commitments when in opposition.
However they were hammered from the right by not providing full details of tax and spend before the election.
Sometimes, with some people, you just can't win.
And it is not a sin to change your mind (and make difficult choices).
But the 'optics' can be presented as bad.

In the great scheme of things, promises and betrayals, I can't get worked up about this.
But I don't like the fact it looks like a rushed decision.
And we don't know if Badenough would have made the same decision.

Mmmmmm.......it will take a huge amount more tomfoolery from Labour for me to turn elsewhere, yet.
Others, who never supported Labour will of course have a field day.
But they would, wouldn't they.

Harry Wilson's tackle said:

I remember when my pensionable age went up. I raised an eyebrow.
I also remember when my workplace pension was switched from 'final salary' to 'average salary'. I was one year too young to be exempted so the last 10 years of my pension pot has grown around my average income over the last 10 years rather than final salary. That's probably cost me at least £50K. It is what it is.

There was a lot of complaint when the workplace pension final salary arrangement change came in because it hits young staff hard. It is estimated they will have only 60% the pension pot I have when they retire (with inflation etc taken into account).
This is why the uni lecturers went on strike some years ago.
Except our silly arse union conflated this real issue with the 'gender pay gap'.
(There is no pay inequality in my sector - we are paid according to grade.)
And then grinned on the picket line with Jeremy Corbyn.
But this is workplace pension.

To be honest, my state pension (which I now get, age 66) is not going to affect whether I can pay the mortgage (er, which I paid off 20 years ago) or pay the bills. I have a workplace pension. As do......many of us. We were vigorously encouraged to get one back in the 80s. Mine came with the job.

Which means that women (or men) who know they have no workplace pension, no savings and are still paying a mortgage, must know when their state pension will start (because this will be their sole income), and will plan their retirement around that.

So the 'typical' woman who somehow didn't know about the change in pension age, have no workplace pension, have a mortgage, had plans to spend the £40K they imagined they would get at age 60, and also planned to retire at 60 because they think they can, and is now blown away by the false promises of Starmer, is a complete fiction.

Stand by for Farage and Badenough to weaponize it.

(I do wish Labour not attach itself to 'good causes' without due diligence, though. It has improved hugely since Corbyn shared a platform with Islamoterrorists, and Starmer's refusal to join the anti-Israel pile-on before mature reflection was a good thing - albeit the left hammered him for it. Politics is a funny old game).

I presume you will be back at the Amex now we have flushed away the Palace stink-fest. Come on football, give us a goal

Click to expand...

Thank you. It will depend on my health on the day.