General Election 2015

[Deleted member 22389]

You're joking surely? As I've said, this was a tame environment. He's aspirations to lead this country, he SHOULD have bullied his way on that show - and I disagree about the potential negative headlines. There would have been no headlines about the show if he'd forced control of the show. Question Time has politicians shouting down singers all the time - no headlines. He made a very broad point but his response was weak and let Myleene have the last word - which is what the viewers will remember. This is basic stuff. He's not up to the job.

Your right he is not up to the job. He is another career politician like the rest of them, who in reality has never really done a good days job in his life. Even if he did work in the real world it was only briefly before getting a god job in politics.

 

[BLOCK F]

He did argue back - he made his point and left it at that. If he had pressed further, the papers would have been full of "Miliband bullies singer " stories this morning - he couldn't win.

The real mistake was putting him on it. The guy has terrible press advisors: any decent PR person would have kept him away from bacon sandwiches, homeless people and tame panel shows - it would never have happened with Alistair Campbell around.

If he can't deal with bacon sarnies,homeless people and tame panel shows,how the hell could he run the country..........besides the fact that he can't even run the Opposition!

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

...raising the the NI contributions. Its the fairest way to do it. Its what much of the money is already raised on. Plus it fairly evenly spread so that if you earn more, you pay more. That was the point of it.

But where the system falls down is allowing rich people to employ accountants who mitigate earnings so the NI contribution is less than their domestic cleaner contributes.

 

[Stoo82]

But where the system falls down is allowing rich people to employ accountants who mitigate earnings so the NI contribution is less than their domestic cleaner contributes.

So the solution is to 'tax' people who might only be asset rich but cash poor?

In on minimum wage. I pay around £20 a month in NI. I doubt someone earning £40,000 a year is paying only £20 (or less as you put it) a month in NI.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

I was going to watch this programme last night. I don't know who advises him, but everything they do for him is wrong.
Milliband is lost like his party I'm afraid, and nothing they say or do from this point forward will make me want to vote for them again.

All the polling suggests that the party is doing fine but Milliband is dragging them back. Sadly Alan Johnson would win the election for Labour but unfortunately doesn't want the job.

BTW, why is bacon sandwich-eating held to be such a vital skill?

 

[Gwylan]

He made a very broad point but his response was weak and let Myleene have the last word - which is what the viewers will remember. This is basic stuff. He's not up to the job.

Just looked at the clip again. He didn't let her have the last word, the moderator stopped the debate after her point. Poor moderating (and again, something Campbell would not have let happen)

In on minimum wage. I pay around £20 a month in NI. I doubt someone earning £40,000 a year is paying only £20 (or less as you put it) a month in NI.

But this is not aimed at people earning £40k a year - I doubt that there are any people on that sort of money living in a £2m gaff. As SOG rightly says, the trouble with taxing income is that it's too easily avoided - you can't hide bricks and mortar.

All the polling suggests that the party is doing fine but Milliband is dragging them back. Sadly Alan Johnson would win the election for Labour but unfortunately doesn't want the job.

BTW, why is bacon sandwich-eating held to be such a vital skill?

That's only partly true about the polling. There was a You Gov poll last week that suggested, yes, Labour would have a bigger lead if Alan Johnson was in charge, but it's not true that the Ed effect drags the party down. The survey suggested that Balls, Cooper, Harman would all score worse than him. The only one better (and that by just a few percent) was David M - and I suspect that lead would disappear when the the banana picture was reprinted again.

I've contended for the last few weeks that there's nothing wrong with Ed M; the real problem is the Labour party and I can't see swapping Miliband for Balls, say, would change anything

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

So the solution is to 'tax' people who might only be asset rich but cash poor?

In on minimum wage. I pay around £20 a month in NI. I doubt someone earning £40,000 a year is paying only £20 (or less as you put it) a month in NI.

It isn't high earners (£40k+ pa) I'm on about but those with a 7 or 8 figure salary/income who use an accountant to use loopholes to write off their tax liability down to the level of someone on minimum wage.

 

[Stoo82]

It isn't high earners (£40k+ pa) I'm on about but those with a 7 or 8 figure salary/income who use an accountant to use loopholes to write off their tax liability down to the level of someone on minimum wage.

Tax mansions or close tax loopholes.

I wouldn't mind mind paying my fair share of tax if I earned £200k a year. I don't want to pay extra tax on a £2m property I may one day earn that I have already paid tax on.

Not a vote winner for me.

Close the loopholes.


Don't punish aspiration.

 

[User removed 4]

Just looked at the clip again. He didn't let her have the last word, the moderator stopped the debate after her point. Poor moderating (and again, something Campbell would not have let happen)



But this is not aimed at people earning £40k a year - I doubt that there are any people on that sort of money living in a £2m gaff. As SOG rightly says, the trouble with taxing income is that it's too easily avoided - you can't hide bricks and mortar.



That's only partly true about the polling. There was a You Gov poll last week that suggested, yes, Labour would have a bigger lead if Alan Johnson was in charge, but it's not true that the Ed effect drags the party down. The survey suggested that Balls, Cooper, Harman would all score worse than him. The only one better (and that by just a few percent) was David M - and I suspect that lead would disappear when the the banana picture was reprinted again.
_I've contended for the last few weeks that there's nothing wrong with Ed M; the real problem is the Labour party and I can't see swapping Miliband for Balls, say, would change anything

Or this one, there's plenty of pictures out there that make him look as weird as his brother.

 

[Ernest]

All the polling suggests that the party is doing fine but Milliband is dragging them back. Sadly Alan Johnson would win the election for Labour but unfortunately doesn't want the job.

BTW, why is bacon sandwich-eating held to be such a vital skill?

Alan Johnson is USELESS, a MEDIA made campaign when he was shite as shadow chancellor

 

[beorhthelm]

But this is not aimed at people earning £40k a year - I doubt that there are any people on that sort of money living in a £2m gaff. As SOG rightly says, the trouble with taxing income is that it's too easily avoided - you can't hide bricks and mortar.

you're right, its not aimed at people earning 40k, its not aimed at any earning. thats the problem. it takes no account of whether someone is earning £10k (say on a pension) or £100k. just property value. so someone buying a house in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's now has this tax, by shear misfortune of living where they do. it ignores that significant earnings no not actualy mean disposable income, or even wealth as many will not own their property outright. nevermind all that, thats their problem.

then to avoid the obvious problem this causes, that pensioners and middle income families who happen to live in such properties wont be able to afford the tax, they've condecended to allow them to defer the payment until they die/move. something to look forward to. meanwhile all those with the smart accountants will be finding ways to avoid or most likely deduct the tax from their earnings elsewhere (owned by companies seems obvious). the upshot is this policy is expect to raise only a fraction of the expected amount. now thats all our problem because something will have to be cut, another tax raised or more borrowing to cover the shortfall.

 

[Simster]

you're right, its not aimed at people earning 40k, its not aimed at any earning. thats the problem. it takes no account of whether someone is earning £10k (say on a pension) or £100k. just property value. so someone buying a house in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's now has this tax, by shear misfortune of living where they do. it ignores that significant earnings no not actualy mean disposable income, or even wealth as many will not own their property outright. nevermind all that, thats their problem.

then to avoid the obvious problem this causes, that pensioners and middle income families who happen to live in such properties wont be able to afford the tax, they've condecended to allow them to defer the payment until they die/move. something to look forward to. meanwhile all those with the smart accountants will be finding ways to avoid or most likely deduct the tax from their earnings elsewhere (owned by companies seems obvious). the upshot is this policy is expect to raise only a fraction of the expected amount. now thats all our problem because something will have to be cut, another tax raised or more borrowing to cover the shortfall.

A Tory apologist whining about the fairness of a Labour tax policy - you couldn't make it up.

The Tories, who binned child benefit for any single earner earning over £44k. So now, two adults each earning £40k can claim £120 per month in child benefit, whereas a family with one single earner on £70k and one stay-at-home parent can't.
The Tories who tried to implement the Poll Tax - nothing to do with earnings or ability to pay.
The Tories who have done precious little about closing income tax loop-holes meaning the super rich rarely pay their fair share.

The Mansion tax has it's flaws, but really, we've seen a lot worse.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Tories blaming Labour, Labour blaming the Tories, the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems all having a pop at UKIP

The country is the way it is now, because of the crappy decisions made by the Tories and Labour. This country needs a change.

It needs a serious change in thinking, and it needs a change in direction, it needs some radical thinking, otherwise I'm afraid it will be more of the same.

 

[beorhthelm]

The Mansion tax has it's flaws, but really, we've seen a lot worse.

we can find flaws in other taxes all day long. my objection is on the principle and the application of a daft tax, that has only been proposed for political reasons (rather than economic): tax perceived wealth for the sake of it. are you saying that an obviously flawed policy should go ahead because there are other flawed policies? I'd suggest this is why we end up with such a complex, labyrinthine tax system, with so many holes to escape through for those that look for them.

that said, do you think it is right to tax people based on where they chose to live couple of decades ago?

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Just looked at the clip again. He didn't let her have the last word, the moderator stopped the debate after her point. Poor moderating (and again, something Campbell would not have let happen)



But this is not aimed at people earning £40k a year - I doubt that there are any people on that sort of money living in a £2m gaff. As SOG rightly says, the trouble with taxing income is that it's too easily avoided - you can't hide bricks and mortar.


It's not a £2m gaff UNTIL you sell.
As it stands it's already paid say £20/40k stamp duty when bought previously exceeding smaller buyers contribution to the tax pot
It may have a £400k mortgage with a 'value' of £2.1m when next door is unencumbered with a 'value' of £1.9m. Who should pay extra per month?
It may have increased to the £2.1m by spending £100k employing a dozen people and helping the local economy, is that money well spent and will others in future do so to take over threshold?
It is already in the highest council tax band
Who will prove it is £2.1m value when No'one is paying more than £1.99m in the open market for borderline properties?
Suppose the house has fallen in value from a poor purchase of £3m to £2.1m, therefore sitting on a LOSS of £900k, should they pay when someone has bought at £500k and it' now 'worth' £1.5m, a £1,000,000 PROFIT does not?

 

[jimbob5]

Just looked at the clip again. He didn't let her have the last word, the moderator stopped the debate after her point. Poor moderating (and again, something Campbell would not have let happen)



But this is not aimed at people earning £40k a year - I doubt that there are any people on that sort of money living in a £2m gaff. As SOG rightly says, the trouble with taxing income is that it's too easily avoided - you can't hide bricks and mortar.


It's not a £2m gaff UNTIL you sell.
As it stands it's already paid say £20/40k stamp duty when bought previously exceeding smaller buyers contribution to the tax pot
It may have a £400k mortgage with a 'value' of £2.1m when next door is unencumbered with a 'value' of £1.9m. Who should pay extra per month?
It may have increased to the £2.1m by spending £100k employing a dozen people and helping the local economy, is that money well spent and will others in future do so to take over threshold?
It is already in the highest council tax band
Who will prove it is £2.1m value when No'one is paying more than £1.99m in the open market for borderline properties?
Suppose the house has fallen in value from a poor purchase of £3m to £2.1m, therefore sitting on a LOSS of £900k, should they pay when someone has bought at £500k and it' now 'worth' £1.5m, a £1,000,000 PROFIT does not?

One of the reasons it's a 2million squid gaff is cos the London property maket has been flooded with foreign buyers money which until I know otherwise is presumably clean money.

 

[Simster]

we can find flaws in other taxes all day long. my objection is on the principle and the application of a daft tax, that has only been proposed for political reasons (rather than economic): tax perceived wealth for the sake of it. are you saying that an obviously flawed policy should go ahead because there are other flawed policies? I'd suggest this is why we end up with such a complex, labyrinthine tax system, with so many holes to escape through for those that look for them.

No, I'm saying you dodn't make half the fuss when Tory flawed policies are made - ridiculous child benefit changes for example:

The sort of comments you had to make on it when it was first announced was that it was OK because it's only used by middle class families saving for Georgina's gap year, or getting involved in side-arguments over the morality of inheritance tax:
https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?184793-Child-Benefit-Changes/

And here you are being utterly ambivalent when the impact was first felt:
https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?263960-Child-Benefit-Changes/

You only ever whinge when it's a Labour tax being proposed.

that said, do you think it is right to tax people based on where they chose to live couple of decades ago?

Fairness doesn't come into it. There is clearly a hole that needs to be plugged. If no mansion tax, what's the alternative? Personally I think there might be something to be said for introducing a property tax of sorts. You can't hide a building, and perhaps it is redress for those who pay a whacking great tax on their earnings but still struggle to keep their heads above water.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

The Tories who tried to implement the Poll Tax - nothing to do with earnings or ability to pay.

Nor does Council Tax. Poll Tax was actually fairer - everyone who used council services would have paid. Sadly too many people who had paid nothing before didn't like the idea of paying their way - especially students.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Nor does Council Tax. Poll Tax was actually fairer - everyone who used council services would have paid. Sadly too many people who had paid nothing before didn't like the idea of paying their way - especially students.

Council tax seems fairer surely? You pay tax on the impact of your house and the people who live in it?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Council tax seems fairer surely? You pay tax on the impact of your house and the people who live in it?

No, you pay tax on the value banding of your house and only the owner / tenant pays. So for example, take two houses of equal value within the same council boundary - one has 2 adults living in it and one has 4 adults. Both would pay the same yet the second house could effectively use twice as much council resource.