Budget, Tax & NI

[JohnL]

Higher rate tax payers - don't celebrate your windfall to soon.

Upper limit of NI will pull back at least half of it and Phil didn't even mention it in his speech. Of course he shouldn't be giving tax reductions to those who are OK when there are real issues with the poorest so not unexpected .. but what else is in the small print.

[diable rouge]

Corbyn's ineptitude shown once again re. Budget tax cuts at PMQ's.

Good grief man, just retire and tend to your allotment...

[JohnL]

The response to the budget is one of the most difficult speeches to give as you've only just heard it or maybe it's provided just beforehand (possibly).

Corbyn's response did sound pre-written which can (and did) catch him out, thinking on his feet has never been his strength - maybe that's McDonnell's to be honest.

[diable rouge]

The response speech is indeed difficult, but that's made directly after the Budget speech, I'm referring to today's PMQ's. Labour's front bench divided on tax cuts, yet Corbyn steams ahead into it. Amateur hour...

[Angelina]

They're all amateurs.

You'd think there would be a basic politician's introductory pack into what it means to be responsible/ honourable/ honest etc.

Never mind.

Interesting you turn the comments about the budget into a dig at Corbyn. He didn't set the budget.

[diable rouge]

I know. He sets no effective opposition either...

[JohnL]

Horrible thought happened at lunch (maybe cos it's Halloween)

Theresa May is putting money into the NHS to fatten it up for selling as part of a US trade deal. Oh No!

[rendelharris]

I missed it, but Andrew Sparrow in The Guardian (who never, ever misses an opportunity to bash Corbyn, and usually rates PMQs a win for May even if it's rated a win for Corbyn elsewhere) said:

That sounded like a high-score draw; May and Corbyn were both on form, and they will probably both head off for lunch chalking that up as a success. May?s line taunting Corbyn for saying in the past that the extra money for the NHS would require tax increases when it didn?t in this budget (but only because the OBR?s better-than-expected forecasts magicked up some extra money ? which may well disappear as forecasts get revised in the years ahead) was effective, and she milked Labour?s confusion about whether or not it backs tax cuts for higher-rate payers for all it was worth. Tory MPs liked her performance, and their cheers at the end were the loudest May has heard for some time.

But if May was hoping to properly up-end Corbyn over the tax issue, she failed. He brushed aside her attack relatively easily (largely by ignoring it), and his own questions were pertinent and powerful. May did not even try to answer his question about welfare cuts, and his point about community policing was particularly effective. It is a sign of how much Corbyn has evolved as a leader that he can now stand at the dispatch box championing more spending for the police, and no one thinks he sounds inauthentic (because he doesn?t). Today he never quite managed to deliver a knockout blow, but the very fact that he held May to a draw only two days after the government unveiled the highest-spending budget for a decade or more probably counts as a win of sorts.

[JohnL]

I'm surprised McDonnell said he agreed with tax cuts on Monday - I think he might have mean't he approves of the raising of the standard rate allowance but not of the higher rate allowance. Even Hammond said he did this as it was in the manifesto (but he still did it a year early which makes it look like he wanted to give middle earners more money).

As I mentioned in the OP though NI higher limit is now 50K too - clawing about half back, strangely you'd think he'd want to increase the lower limit which is 8.5K approx as effectively those on ?9K are still paying tax in the form of NI.

[diable rouge]

With this showerofshit of a Tory Gov, Labour should easily be 15-20pts clear in the polls, not lagging behind. But not to worry, Corbybabes managed a 'draw' at PMQ's...

[Alan Medic]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The response to the budget is one of the most

> difficult speeches to give as you've only just

> heard it or maybe it's provided just beforehand

> (possibly).

>

> Corbyn's response did sound pre-written which can

> (and did) catch him out, thinking on his feet has

> never been his strength - maybe that's McDonnell's

> to be honest.

I heard they get it 3 hours beforehand. Am I mistaken as I thought the shadow Chancellor used to respond to the budget speech?

[JohnL]

Labour are now introducing an amendment to the budget to effectively state their policy :)

"This would target the highest earners, reducing the threshold for the 45% additional rate of tax from ?150,000 to ?80,000 and introducing another band on top, of 50%, for incomes of ?125,000 or more."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/31/labour-seeks-budget-change-to-increase-tax-on-top-5-of-earners

[robbin]

Muppets. As if earning 80k or even 125k in London would make someone one of the 'highest earners' in the country.

[rendelharris]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Muppets. As if earning 80k or even 125k in London

> would make someone one of the 'highest earners' in

> the country.

Eh? Not taking the piss robbin, how does being in the top 3% pay bracket not make one of the "highest earners" in the country? Confused.

[Mick Mac]

I hope Labour never get in. Ever.

[robbin]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> robbin Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Muppets. As if earning 80k or even 125k in

> London

> > would make someone one of the 'highest earners'

> in

> > the country.

>

> Eh? Not taking the piss robbin, how does being in

> the top 3% pay bracket not make one of the

> "highest earners" in the country? Confused.

I probably don't have a good answer for that Rendel! I suppose was viewing it from the perspective of a London income. If someone earns ?80k or ?125k in London in wealth terms it's not really comparable with someone making ?80k or ?125k in say Sunderland. Money doesn't go far down here and so simply applying a percentage measure on a nationwide basis isn't very informative or accurate. For example, if you live in Sunderland your mortgage for a similar house in London would be something like a quarter or less. If you live in London and pay 4 or 5 times as much each month as someone in Sunderland (on your biggest single outgoing), then in my eyes that renders average nationwide figures pretty meaningless.

[rendelharris]

Yes, I see your point - what you mean is that that level of income doesn't put you amongst "the wealthiest" even if you are in the "highest earners." Anything approaching that would do me very nicely mind.

[diable rouge]

I thought I'd Google average salaries, and the first article I looked at (legit source) also had other averages listed, including penis size. So just remember guys, it's not the size of your salary that matters, but what you do with it...

[DovertheRoad]

A 50% top rate for over ?125k though? Feck that. I'm all up for paying my fair share but if you penalise job creators who - in a tech enabled world - dont need to live here they really will leave.

[StraferJack]

Genuine question. Where would they go to?

[rendelharris]

DovertheRoad Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A 50% top rate for over ?125k though? Feck that.

> I'm all up for paying my fair share but if you

> penalise job creators who - in a tech enabled

> world - dont need to live here they really will

> leave.

Is everyone earning over ?125k a job creator? Do their wages come from the magic money tree or would they perchance be paid from profits made through the work of those lower down the pay scale?

[DovertheRoad]

The childless digital nomads or tech owners go to where they are welcomed best. Currently: Malta, Portugal, Cyprus, Estonia...Even Berlin or Barcelona look attractive hubs at 50%.

[DovertheRoad]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DovertheRoad Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > A 50% top rate for over ?125k though? Feck

> that.

> > I'm all up for paying my fair share but if you

> > penalise job creators who - in a tech enabled

> > world - dont need to live here they really will

> > leave.

>

> Is everyone earning over ?125k a job creator? Do

> their wages come from the magic money tree or

> would they perchance be paid from profits made

> through the work of those lower down the pay

> scale?

Obviously not. But if you think a 50% top band for ?125k+ earners (about 750,000 people) is the best answer for greater wealth distribution you're dreaming.

[Sephiroth]

.

[StraferJack]

But would paying 50% above 125k materially impact those people

I?m at the low end of the 40% bracket. I would happily pay 50%. Because I think that?s what?s required of a country like ours (it clearly needs the income)

But if lower earners need to pay more it does need the higher earners not to bail