Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 3)
Discussion
wobert said:
IIRC the current annual cost of covering our existing debt is c£48bn per year.
Given the increase in spending planned is coming mainly from additional borrowing , I don’t see any calculations as to what the interest payments will be, I’m guessing somewhere near £100bn a year, or more than the current annual education spend.....
Madness
That’s 15% of govt spend. It’s beyond madness. Given the increase in spending planned is coming mainly from additional borrowing , I don’t see any calculations as to what the interest payments will be, I’m guessing somewhere near £100bn a year, or more than the current annual education spend.....
Madness
greggy50 said:
My issue is it most people won't pay the full amount why not just lower it to an acceptable amount to begin with.
As mentioned I will clear all mine by about 34/35 as it's Plan 1 and I earn decent money for my age for someone well outside of London.
On the Plan 2 you need to earn £25k to pay anything and really need to be on about £40k just to cover the interest so I can see the vast majority being wrote off.
£3k per annum for Uni seemed fair but £9k and the loss of earnings for 3 years is just not worth it imo for a lot of the people who go.
Isn't that the point that it is essentially a graduate tax. It must be set up to target those most likely to pay and on terms and at a rate that maximises returnAs mentioned I will clear all mine by about 34/35 as it's Plan 1 and I earn decent money for my age for someone well outside of London.
On the Plan 2 you need to earn £25k to pay anything and really need to be on about £40k just to cover the interest so I can see the vast majority being wrote off.
£3k per annum for Uni seemed fair but £9k and the loss of earnings for 3 years is just not worth it imo for a lot of the people who go.
jakesmith said:
Isn't that the point that it is essentially a graduate tax. It must be set up to target those most likely to pay and on terms and at a rate that maximises return
Why not implement a graduate tax? If you have a degree and earn over x you pay an extra 1%. University is free at point of use.Bussolini said:
Why not implement a graduate tax? If you have a degree and earn over x you pay an extra 1%. University is free at point of use.
I earn more because of my degree therefore I already pay plenty more tax.There comes a point when extra tax means people just don't see the point in working hard- that point isn't far from where we are now.
Bussolini said:
jakesmith said:
Isn't that the point that it is essentially a graduate tax. It must be set up to target those most likely to pay and on terms and at a rate that maximises return
Why not implement a graduate tax? If you have a degree and earn over x you pay an extra 1%. University is free at point of use.Why would they set it at 1% when they can get 9%
Just realised something else - there is a pledge to keep state pension age at 66. Am interesting side effect of that will be that all state employees will get bigger pensions for service since April 2015. If I remember correctly there is a 3% actuarial reduction in pension if you retire before state pension age - for each year. So someone currently having to wait to age 68 to get full unreduced pension can now get same amount at 66 - avoiding a 6% reduction. Hey presto, state employee pension schemes all just got more expensive by 3% (those w state pension age 67) or 6% (sp age 68).
Edited by oop north on Thursday 21st November 23:29
Marginal tax rates for high (but not very high) earners will be pretty dissuasive. I know several self-employed people that earn about £100-120k, and there’s already basically no point in them working to earn towards the top of that band rather than the bottom.
The point that people miss is that it’s the last 15-25% of income that requires hard work. I could earn 80% of what I do fairly easily. It’s the last bit that costs me weekends, family time and my hair. If you taxed that chunk of income at a much higher rate than the rest, I would decide not to earn it in the first place.
The whole argument seems to be premised on the idea that every pound is no easier or harder to earn than every other. That’s perhaps true in a public sector employment, where high earners work 35 hours per week, but it’s completely alien to the people who actually generate wealth.
The point that people miss is that it’s the last 15-25% of income that requires hard work. I could earn 80% of what I do fairly easily. It’s the last bit that costs me weekends, family time and my hair. If you taxed that chunk of income at a much higher rate than the rest, I would decide not to earn it in the first place.
The whole argument seems to be premised on the idea that every pound is no easier or harder to earn than every other. That’s perhaps true in a public sector employment, where high earners work 35 hours per week, but it’s completely alien to the people who actually generate wealth.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
Is this correct?
Assume a gross dividend of £10,000 and you already have income of £100,000.
Corporation tax at 21% = £2100
Dividend tax at 45% = £3555
Loss of PA at 20% = £1580
Total tax £7235
Yeah but NHS right. Assume a gross dividend of £10,000 and you already have income of £100,000.
Corporation tax at 21% = £2100
Dividend tax at 45% = £3555
Loss of PA at 20% = £1580
Total tax £7235
Never mind that, 11bn raid on Oil and Gas ... Rights to de list companies from the stock exchange.
State theft basically
Stay in Bed Instead said:
Is this correct?
Assume a gross dividend of £10,000 and you already have income of £100,000.
Corporation tax at 21% = £2100
Dividend tax at 45% = £3555
Loss of PA at 20% = £1580
Total tax £7235
No - not sure how Imyou worked out the loss of PA - but the loss of PA (which is half the 7900, ie, £3,950) is taxed at 45% not 25% so I get 1777.50 for that so total tax around £7400!Assume a gross dividend of £10,000 and you already have income of £100,000.
Corporation tax at 21% = £2100
Dividend tax at 45% = £3555
Loss of PA at 20% = £1580
Total tax £7235
Bussolini said:
Classic blame Labour for everything. Tories have been in power for ten years. Tories introduced right to buy.
As a point of fact you are wrong. Please read the first paragraph on History here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Buy
An apology will be expected.
oop north said:
Stay in Bed Instead said:
Is this correct?
Assume a gross dividend of £10,000 and you already have income of £100,000.
Corporation tax at 21% = £2100
Dividend tax at 45% = £3555
Loss of PA at 20% = £1580
Total tax £7235
No - not sure how Imyou worked out the loss of PA - but the loss of PA (which is half the 7900, ie, £3,950) is taxed at 45% not 25% so I get 1777.50 for that so total tax around £7400!Assume a gross dividend of £10,000 and you already have income of £100,000.
Corporation tax at 21% = £2100
Dividend tax at 45% = £3555
Loss of PA at 20% = £1580
Total tax £7235
Labour are deliberately conflating the %age rate of tax with tax avoidance & evasion. They are managing to trick huge numbers of people into thinking that if the tax rate goes up, 'tax dodgers', especially those 'dirty billionaires and giant corporations' will pay more in tax
The reality is of course that if you are dodging tax to start with (legally or illegally) then the rate of tax makes no difference to how much, or more pertinently how little, you pay
If you don't dodge tax, putting the rate of tax up makes it more likely you will look to find ways to reduce your tax bill. That;s especially true for those earning £100-125k p.a. as they are already hit with a hefty marginal rate of tax and now labour want to add to that with the 45% rate dropping down to 80k p.a.
There should be no loss of personal allowance and actually, there should be one rate of tax that applies to income, dividends, CGT, etc to remove the incentive for those with a choice as to how they declare their income to do so in the most tax efficient manner.
But that's not a vote winner for labour as it doesn't pull on emotional heartstrings in easy soundbites
Labour play on the fact that to the average person earning £15-30k p.a., a person on 80k is seen as being so spectacularly rich that they may as well be earning £1M p.a. so they are an easy target and who cares about fairness. After all labour aren't a party of aspiration so they don't want to encourage people to dream of getting jobs that pay 80k, they just want to use such people as a target to pay for everyone else
andymadmak said:
Looks like Secondary Picketing will be coming back if Labour win. Oh the joy of returning to 1970s style Union practices...
If you're too young to remember what this means, please google it before you vote for Labour!
Indeed. Country held to ransom by the unions. If you're too young to remember what this means, please google it before you vote for Labour!
Labour also state "Strong trade unions are the best and most effective way to enforce rights at work"
Except they aren't. They have a place for some workers, but more progressive companies get along just fine with Works Councils.
You can have workers participation and even part ownership without a single union being involved.
vaud said:
andymadmak said:
Looks like Secondary Picketing will be coming back if Labour win. Oh the joy of returning to 1970s style Union practices...
If you're too young to remember what this means, please google it before you vote for Labour!
Indeed. Country held to ransom by the unions. If you're too young to remember what this means, please google it before you vote for Labour!
Labour also state "Strong trade unions are the best and most effective way to enforce rights at work"
Except they aren't. They have a place for some workers, but more progressive companies get along just fine with Works Councils.
You can have workers participation and even part ownership without a single union being involved.
Problem is they will have workers on the board and workers wanting a strike. It will be a race to get the arms in the air for a vote then they will all get stuck in the door on the way out trying to be first.
Anyone got shares in firelighters and oil drums and donkey jackets? Should be a good bet if they get in.
Zirconia said:
One of the reasons Len has been backing this horse for so long. He has a kindred spirit. Question will be when does Len find a convenient bus.
Ah yes, Len, who's Union stumped up 400k to help him buy his London flat (for balance, since repaid)Repaid from part of his £140,000 pay deal (2014)
vaud said:
Labour also state "Strong trade unions are the best and most effective way to enforce rights at work"
Except they aren't. They have a place for some workers, but more progressive companies get along just fine with Works Councils.
Unions, like any other construct, are neither inherently good or bad and, even then, the relative goodness and badness is subjective.Except they aren't. They have a place for some workers, but more progressive companies get along just fine with Works Councils.
However, the way the unions in the UK evolved, is generally worse than the way they have evolved and helped shape industry in Germany.
Digga said:
Unions, like any other construct, are neither inherently good or bad and, even then, the relative goodness and badness is subjective.
However, the way the unions in the UK evolved, is generally worse than the way they have evolved and helped shape industry in Germany.
You make the point better than I do.However, the way the unions in the UK evolved, is generally worse than the way they have evolved and helped shape industry in Germany.
Unions do have a place, especially for workers that can be exploited. I am less convinced that the civil service or university academics really need a union.
The unions started as a progressive function and deteriorated over time to an "us" vs "them".
jonby said:
oop north said:
Stay in Bed Instead said:
Is this correct?
Assume a gross dividend of £10,000 and you already have income of £100,000.
Corporation tax at 21% = £2100
Dividend tax at 45% = £3555
Loss of PA at 20% = £1580
Total tax £7235
No - not sure how Imyou worked out the loss of PA - but the loss of PA (which is half the 7900, ie, £3,950) is taxed at 45% not 25% so I get 1777.50 for that so total tax around £7400!Assume a gross dividend of £10,000 and you already have income of £100,000.
Corporation tax at 21% = £2100
Dividend tax at 45% = £3555
Loss of PA at 20% = £1580
Total tax £7235
Labour are deliberately conflating the %age rate of tax with tax avoidance & evasion. They are managing to trick huge numbers of people into thinking that if the tax rate goes up, 'tax dodgers', especially those 'dirty billionaires and giant corporations' will pay more in tax
The reality is of course that if you are dodging tax to start with (legally or illegally) then the rate of tax makes no difference to how much, or more pertinently how little, you pay
If you don't dodge tax, putting the rate of tax up makes it more likely you will look to find ways to reduce your tax bill. That;s especially true for those earning £100-125k p.a. as they are already hit with a hefty marginal rate of tax and now labour want to add to that with the 45% rate dropping down to 80k p.a.
There should be no loss of personal allowance and actually, there should be one rate of tax that applies to income, dividends, CGT, etc to remove the incentive for those with a choice as to how they declare their income to do so in the most tax efficient manner.
But that's not a vote winner for labour as it doesn't pull on emotional heartstrings in easy soundbites
Labour play on the fact that to the average person earning £15-30k p.a., a person on 80k is seen as being so spectacularly rich that they may as well be earning £1M p.a. so they are an easy target and who cares about fairness. After all labour aren't a party of aspiration so they don't want to encourage people to dream of getting jobs that pay 80k, they just want to use such people as a target to pay for everyone else
ks. It's correct. No imputation and no allowance. Even if your under 100k, say 80k it's still 58% effective. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff