Tories - Lying about Labour's tax plans.
Discussion
Du1point8 said:
Labour have now said that they are looking to raise taxes on banding from £50k - £80k in £10k increments... They have officially said that anyone on £80k or above is 'rich'.
So a family with a stay at home parent on a household income of £80k is going to get screwed over compared to a family were both parents work and are on £40k.
How lovely that Labour are looking to do that, sometimes I wonder why I go to work at all.
Do you have a link for this?So a family with a stay at home parent on a household income of £80k is going to get screwed over compared to a family were both parents work and are on £40k.
How lovely that Labour are looking to do that, sometimes I wonder why I go to work at all.
Already screwed over by child benefit stopping at £60k for some idiotic reason.
How can the Tories be lying? So far Labour has only three tax plans of which I am aware:
reintroduce the 50% tax band (supposedly a temporary emergency rate when Brown introduced it), a measure that the IFS estimates will raise between £0 and £1.5bn;
introduce a mansion tax that most property market experts believe would have to be levied at £1.25m, not the promise £2m to raise just £2bn; and
a tax on bankers' bonuses (which are now much smaller, because their basic pay and allowances have increased) that Miliband has already spent at least ten times and which would raise very little.
They will therefore have to tax ordinary "hard-working families" a lot more in order to pay the interest on the borrowings that they plan to increase, given they have no intention to reduce the deficit.
Unless, there is some great plan that has not yet been revealed and that plan is going to have to be a lot more impressive than "borrow for infrastructure projects that will generate growth and employment and eliminate the deficit."
reintroduce the 50% tax band (supposedly a temporary emergency rate when Brown introduced it), a measure that the IFS estimates will raise between £0 and £1.5bn;
introduce a mansion tax that most property market experts believe would have to be levied at £1.25m, not the promise £2m to raise just £2bn; and
a tax on bankers' bonuses (which are now much smaller, because their basic pay and allowances have increased) that Miliband has already spent at least ten times and which would raise very little.
They will therefore have to tax ordinary "hard-working families" a lot more in order to pay the interest on the borrowings that they plan to increase, given they have no intention to reduce the deficit.
Unless, there is some great plan that has not yet been revealed and that plan is going to have to be a lot more impressive than "borrow for infrastructure projects that will generate growth and employment and eliminate the deficit."
Welshbeef said:
Du1point8 said:
Labour have now said that they are looking to raise taxes on banding from £50k - £80k in £10k increments... They have officially said that anyone on £80k or above is 'rich'.
So a family with a stay at home parent on a household income of £80k is going to get screwed over compared to a family were both parents work and are on £40k.
How lovely that Labour are looking to do that, sometimes I wonder why I go to work at all.
Do you have a link for this?So a family with a stay at home parent on a household income of £80k is going to get screwed over compared to a family were both parents work and are on £40k.
How lovely that Labour are looking to do that, sometimes I wonder why I go to work at all.
Already screwed over by child benefit stopping at £60k for some idiotic reason.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3018518/Ba...
I was told it in conversation.
How can the Tories be lying? So far Labour has only three tax plans of which I am aware:
reintroduce the 50% tax band (supposedly a temporary emergency rate when Brown introduced it), a measure that the IFS estimates will raise between £0 and £1.5bn;
introduce a mansion tax that most property market experts believe would have to be levied at £1.25m, not the promise £2m to raise just £2bn; and
a tax on bankers' bonuses (which are now much smaller, because their basic pay and allowances have increased) that Miliband has already spent at least ten times and which would raise very little.
They will therefore have to tax ordinary "hard-working families" a lot more in order to pay the interest on the borrowings that they plan to increase, given they have no intention to reduce the deficit.
Unless, there is some great plan that has not yet been revealed and that plan is going to have to be a lot more impressive than "borrow for infrastructure projects that will generate growth and employment and eliminate the deficit."
reintroduce the 50% tax band (supposedly a temporary emergency rate when Brown introduced it), a measure that the IFS estimates will raise between £0 and £1.5bn;
introduce a mansion tax that most property market experts believe would have to be levied at £1.25m, not the promise £2m to raise just £2bn; and
a tax on bankers' bonuses (which are now much smaller, because their basic pay and allowances have increased) that Miliband has already spent at least ten times and which would raise very little.
They will therefore have to tax ordinary "hard-working families" a lot more in order to pay the interest on the borrowings that they plan to increase, given they have no intention to reduce the deficit.
Unless, there is some great plan that has not yet been revealed and that plan is going to have to be a lot more impressive than "borrow for infrastructure projects that will generate growth and employment and eliminate the deficit."
Zod said:
How can the Tories be lying? So far Labour has only three tax plans of which I am aware:
reintroduce the 50% tax band (supposedly a temporary emergency rate when Brown introduced it), a measure that the IFS estimates will raise between £0 and £1.5bn;
introduce a mansion tax that most property market experts believe would have to be levied at £1.25m, not the promise £2m to raise just £2bn; and
a tax on bankers' bonuses (which are now much smaller, because their basic pay and allowances have increased) that Miliband has already spent at least ten times and which would raise very little.
They will therefore have to tax ordinary "hard-working families" a lot more in order to pay the interest on the borrowings that they plan to increase, given they have no intention to reduce the deficit.
Unless, there is some great plan that has not yet been revealed and that plan is going to have to be a lot more impressive than "borrow for infrastructure projects that will generate growth and employment and eliminate the deficit."
Its a good Tory tactic competition states they have agreed to reduce by £30billion half of which is tax cuts the other half tax rises. reintroduce the 50% tax band (supposedly a temporary emergency rate when Brown introduced it), a measure that the IFS estimates will raise between £0 and £1.5bn;
introduce a mansion tax that most property market experts believe would have to be levied at £1.25m, not the promise £2m to raise just £2bn; and
a tax on bankers' bonuses (which are now much smaller, because their basic pay and allowances have increased) that Miliband has already spent at least ten times and which would raise very little.
They will therefore have to tax ordinary "hard-working families" a lot more in order to pay the interest on the borrowings that they plan to increase, given they have no intention to reduce the deficit.
Unless, there is some great plan that has not yet been revealed and that plan is going to have to be a lot more impressive than "borrow for infrastructure projects that will generate growth and employment and eliminate the deficit."
Assuming that still stands then why not simply divide £15billion by the working households/working people. Roll up over the life of the next parliament job done.
Torys while still coy about where cuts will land they have broken the £30billion down pretty clearly into departments and identified some clear areas already.
Zod said:
How can the Tories be lying? So far Labour has only three tax plans of which I am aware:
reintroduce the 50% tax band (supposedly a temporary emergency rate when Brown introduced it), a measure that the IFS estimates will raise between £0 and £1.5bn;
introduce a mansion tax that most property market experts believe would have to be levied at £1.25m, not the promise £2m to raise just £2bn; and
a tax on bankers' bonuses (which are now much smaller, because their basic pay and allowances have increased) that Miliband has already spent at least ten times and which would raise very little.
Surely the mansion tax has been committed multiple times as per the bonus tax?!reintroduce the 50% tax band (supposedly a temporary emergency rate when Brown introduced it), a measure that the IFS estimates will raise between £0 and £1.5bn;
introduce a mansion tax that most property market experts believe would have to be levied at £1.25m, not the promise £2m to raise just £2bn; and
a tax on bankers' bonuses (which are now much smaller, because their basic pay and allowances have increased) that Miliband has already spent at least ten times and which would raise very little.
Even the LibDims had spotted that by Sept 2013 it had been spent 3 times and they're not exactly the sharpest bunch.
If the 'truth' were known about Labour and tax the odds must be that it'd be worse than the claimed 'lies'.
don4l said:
MarshPhantom said:
don4l said:
MarshPhantom said:
Shock horror, Tory claims that Labour will cost everyone £3k was a "guess", I'd say that's another for a lie, really.
www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/mar/30/elec...
The only thing that I know is that every Labour government, since 1945, has left office with higher unemployment than when they took office.www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/mar/30/elec...
They are clearly the party of the "non-working" man.
Higher unemployment makes everyone worse off - including you.
Labour have raised expectations that not only will austerity be moderated but that the good times will be here once again. Public sector workers are expecting generous pay awards and welfare claimants are expecting a return to the more generous regime under Labour.
The question is how will this be paid for?. Labour like to pretend that all this can be paid for by bashing the rich. But in reality a “mansion tax” will raise peanuts after the costs of raising it and increases in the 45p rate, new bonus taxes, are as likely to reduce revenue as increase it.
The reality is that if there are any efforts to reduce the structural deficit it will fall on taxation. If increases in rates have been ruled out then it will be the Labour “stealth” favourites, fuel duty, council tax, fiscal drag and the rest.
The question is how will this be paid for?. Labour like to pretend that all this can be paid for by bashing the rich. But in reality a “mansion tax” will raise peanuts after the costs of raising it and increases in the 45p rate, new bonus taxes, are as likely to reduce revenue as increase it.
The reality is that if there are any efforts to reduce the structural deficit it will fall on taxation. If increases in rates have been ruled out then it will be the Labour “stealth” favourites, fuel duty, council tax, fiscal drag and the rest.
JagLover said:
Labour have raised expectations that not only will austerity be moderated but that the good times will be here once again. Public sector workers are expecting generous pay awards and welfare claimants are expecting a return to the more generous regime under Labour.
The question is how will this be paid for?. Labour like to pretend that all this can be paid for by bashing the rich. But in reality a “mansion tax” will raise peanuts after the costs of raising it and increases in the 45p rate, new bonus taxes, are as likely to reduce revenue as increase it.
The reality is that if there are any efforts to reduce the structural deficit it will fall on taxation. If increases in rates have been ruled out then it will be the Labour “stealth” favourites, fuel duty, council tax, fiscal drag and the rest.
So we are going back to exactly what they did to make the country bankrupt and undoing all the hard work one over the last few years?The question is how will this be paid for?. Labour like to pretend that all this can be paid for by bashing the rich. But in reality a “mansion tax” will raise peanuts after the costs of raising it and increases in the 45p rate, new bonus taxes, are as likely to reduce revenue as increase it.
The reality is that if there are any efforts to reduce the structural deficit it will fall on taxation. If increases in rates have been ruled out then it will be the Labour “stealth” favourites, fuel duty, council tax, fiscal drag and the rest.
I still remember the public workers getting massive pay rises during the boom years, then it all went tits up, the private sector adjusted for 2 years (unto 25% cuts) before pay rises were given out again, all the time the public sector said no, then went on strike as they saw that the public sector were getting pay rises again and thought it unfair that they had to have pay cuts when the private sector was not... this whilst completely ignoring the fact private sector had done cuts, it just reacts in months instead of years to the situation.
They say they have learned from their mistake and yet they are doing it all over again and not improving the UK in anyway, just buying votes.
I watched a few PMQs and when labour was in power, they wouldn't answer a single failing, now they are not in power and asking the questions, they get factually correct answers out of CMD, yet they still ridicule the Tories for not fixing the Labour screw ups fast enough.
Still at least I know one thing, the more ambitious and hard working you are to better yourself, the more Labour want to pull you down to make things fair with those who don't have the same mindset. It should be the other way round and giving people a boot up the arse to make them better themselves and not give them free money just cause.
RAFsmoggy said:
Do you think distorting peoples names will help normal people here take you seriously or perceive you as childish immature trolls ?
Millibland
BallsUp
What is the point ?
The point is it appeals to their inner keyboard warrior, having said that, I do regress that I my self use the terms Camoron and Gideot when describing the less than dynamic duo. Millibland
BallsUp
What is the point ?
xjsdriver said:
RAFsmoggy said:
Do you think distorting peoples names will help normal people here take you seriously or perceive you as childish immature trolls ?
Millibland
BallsUp
What is the point ?
The point is it appeals to their inner keyboard warrior, having said that, I do regress that I my self use the terms Camoron and Gideot when describing the less than dynamic duo. Millibland
BallsUp
What is the point ?
Guybrush said:
don4l said:
MarshPhantom said:
don4l said:
MarshPhantom said:
Shock horror, Tory claims that Labour will cost everyone £3k was a "guess", I'd say that's another for a lie, really.
www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/mar/30/elec...
The only thing that I know is that every Labour government, since 1945, has left office with higher unemployment than when they took office.www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/mar/30/elec...
They are clearly the party of the "non-working" man.
Higher unemployment makes everyone worse off - including you.
103 business leaders - being accurate about Labour's threat to Britain's recovery.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11...
turbobloke said:
103 business leaders - being accurate about Labour's threat to Britain's recovery.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11...
Whilst I agree with their point about encouraging investment in business and creating jobs it is also easily argued that they would say this as shareholders. Higher corp. tax does mean lower incomes for shareholders.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11...
Of course those shareholders are likely the big funds that will be paying one's pension.
There is a balance with taxes. In these days of global companies Britain has to compete as a tax regime that the big firms want to pay their taxes in because it's cheaper than paying in France, Germany or the USA.
Don said:
turbobloke said:
103 business leaders - being accurate about Labour's threat to Britain's recovery.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11...
Whilst I agree with their point about encouraging investment in business and creating jobs it is also easily argued that they would say this as shareholders. Higher corp. tax does mean lower incomes for shareholders.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11...
Of course those shareholders are likely the big funds that will be paying one's pension.
There is a balance with taxes. In these days of global companies Britain has to compete as a tax regime that the big firms want to pay their taxes in because it's cheaper than paying in France, Germany or the USA.
Like it or not, for major global corporations, tax jurisdiction is just another supply chain decision. The current government broadly gets that the UK has to compete to attract business with advantageous tax regimes for corporations and their senior execs. The Labour Party do not get this and, for that reason alone, they are unfit to govern
REALIST123 said:
Of course. One only needs to ask which party needs as many unemployed, employed on benefit, dependent on benefit, self pitying and envious as it can get to have a chance of being in power?
Nail on the head. This is exactly why Brown embarked on a deliberate strategy of spreading the welfare net as wide as possible. I have always felt that the Tories try to buy your vote with your money ( lower taxes ) Labour try to buy your vote with someone elses money ( welfare and handouts ).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff