General Election Pre-Thread (3 of 6)

[DaoDeMings]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Minor quibble, perhaps, but it's true that overall taxes are now at their highest rate in 70 odd years. And the reason is that the middle and more wealthy folks are paying more in taxes. Stuff like the multi year freeze on 40% rate income thresholds has got loads more people paying higher rate tax. Corporation tax went up and so on and so forth.

The problem is more complex than "billionaires and shareholders bankrupting the country" - they're not. We might like them to pay more taxes, still, but a heck of a lot of the tax take comes from them (and the sort of mid level earners, too).

Where the Greens are right is that if you have a system that is based (only) on economic growth powering services and stuff, but you have little or no growth, then you're ****. The system firstly should not just be about "how many pounds?" something is worth. Currently if you dig up a peat bog and turn it to arable farmland, say, they the economy grows in £ from the new farm products being moved and sold etc. But you've lost nature, you've lost carbon capture by the peat, you've lost flood reduction measures, etc and so forth. There's more to life than torynomics.

I do agree it's much more complex than just tax the rich. But the super-rich still don't pay enough. They pay more tax than they ever have because they're richer than they ever have been. They pay less tax than the rest of us proportionally.

They kind of are bankrupting the country, though. Our public services, such as transport and energy, are absolute shite and are becoming increasingly expensive. The shareholders who own these companies are getting more and more rich off the back of this. Again, it's more complex than that, but it's certainly a large part of the problem.

Measuring the value of a society on economic growth is fundamentally the issue, though, as you said, and the solution is beyond complex. God knows how to solve it!

[chrisp65]

There was a little tory policy slipped out yesterday under the drama caused by Sunak sacking off D Day early.

They announced a revision to child benefit, to help people earning £120,000 p.a..

 

[chrisp65]

 

imagine Labour leaders sacking off DDay veterans a bit early, or using Yiddish slurs, the press would demand they were swinging from lamp posts.

[meregreen]

Johnson lost his moral compass years ago. He’s very much a man of the gutter.

[Xann]

Not all psychos are about stabbing people in the shower.

That said, who'd be massively surprised if he bowed out in the Lucan style?

[Davkaus]

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

There was a little tory policy slipped out yesterday under the drama caused by Sunak sacking off D Day early.

They announced a revision to child benefit, to help people earning £120,000 p.a..

 

I think this is ok tbh, it's an improvement to the current way of the world.

Currently there is a charge for any individual earning 60,000+ and receiving child benefit, and it's assessed on the individual, not the household. So a household with one income of 60,000+ is taxed for it, but a household with two earners at 59k is fine, they don't pay the High Income Child Benefit Charge, even though their household net income far surpasses the single income household.

This policy would change the tax threshold for child benefit to £120k, but also changes it to assess it based on household income, not each individual salary.

There is of course a fair question of "does a household bringing in 120k really need taxpayer support?", but many already do, this just brings some parity between households with a single high income and a household with two incomes.

Edited June 8 by Davkaus

[wishywashy]

Sunak apparently not doing any media engagements today.

[bickster]

9 minutes ago, wishywashy said:

Sunak apparently not doing any media engagements today.

Probably his most effective strategy, they'll lose votes less quickly that way  

[bickster]

They are now resorting to the old tactics, SM Coms still hilarious though

 

[DCJonah]

4 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

 

imagine Labour leaders sacking off DDay veterans a bit early, or using Yiddish slurs, the press would demand they were swinging from lamp posts.

I will be celebrating this man's death with a nice whiskey. 

Same for when Trump goes as well. 

[villa4europe]

My grandad, who is 100 years old and a WW2 veteran, says he's voting for farage

Says he fights for the same values as he fought for during the war

Mind you, he was in the SS

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

I think this is ok tbh, it's an improvement to the current way of the world.

Currently there is a charge for any individual earning 60,000+ and receiving child benefit, and it's assessed on the individual, not the household. So a household with one income of 60,000+ is taxed for it, but a household with two earners at 59k is fine, they don't pay the High Income Child Benefit Charge, even though their household net income far surpasses the single income household.

This policy would change the tax threshold for child benefit to £120k, but also changes it to assess it based on household income, not each individual salary.

There is of course a fair question of "does a household bringing in 120k really need taxpayer support?", but many already do, this just brings some parity between households with a single high income and a household with two incomes.

Yeah, soft lefty as I am, I couldn’t see the first Republican jamahiriya of chrisp65 giving people on £60k any child benefit whilst there were people using foodbanks and living in b&b rooms.

[Mark Albrighton]

 

[bickster]

41 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

 

The movements are interesting. I’m not sure the Savanta modelling sends the Dont knows to the right party though, no way should the Tories be that high

[wishywashy]

 

[bickster]

 

[Davkaus]

Can't **** help themselves can they. Bullshitters from the top to the bottom.

[bickster]

For those that are sceptical about how important tactical voting will be… an article about it and how both Labour and the LibDems are organising in Hertfordshire. The parallels with 1997 where tactical voting gave us The Portillo Moment are strong and you’d have to suspect in the internet age will make it much more prevalent this time around.

Quote

The Lib Dems are pretty open about not bothering in the neighbouring seats where Labour is fighting hard. As Collins points out to some Labour-inclined voters, Labour appears to have quietly retreated on her patch. Indeed, anyone who types a Berkhamsted or Harpenden postcode into Labour’s volunteering website is directed to either Hemel Hempstead or Welwyn and Hatfield. It’s not so much a secret pact between the two parties as an open call for activists on both sides to deploy their common sense.

Guardian

[bickster]

A few more Tory candidate nutters mentioned in this article

 

[bickster]

And this Tory Councillor really wasn’t reading the room was he…