• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Theresa May calls General Election on 8th June.

Status
Not open for further replies.

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,510
I never knew there was a Nigel Farage show. Turns out ignorance is bliss.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,539
Location
UK
Can we stop with this delusion that Corbyn's labour is some sort of hard-left candidate, the economic policies are based on sound Keynesian Theory, and have been proven to be effective multiple times, Previously in the UK, and even in the United States of America.

However considering the smearing that's been going on in the tabloids. (there are scholarly articles, look it up!) I can't say I've any idea how all this will turn out in the polls...
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,562
Can we stop with this delusion that Corbyn's labour is some sort of hard-left candidate, the economic policies are based on sound Keynesian Theory, and have been proven to be effective multiple times, Previously in the UK, and even in the United States of America.

Sure Keynesian theory is a good way to describe the economy, but it falls down somewhat when used as a planning tool. It is what caused Britain to fall into the recession of the 1970s.

Whilst having a veneer of fairness and stimulus, it is anything but fair. It creates an environment that deters saving and conventional forms of investment; it also deters taking necessary risks and even doing more than the bare minimum. In fact, it merely spreads inefficiency and misery.

And that's before I get onto some of Corbyn's past links to certain Irish Republican figures.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Taxpayers with net income over £100,000 per annum do not receive the £11,500 personal allowance.

It's now £123,000 as I've already pointed out which highlights that the Conservatives have given tax cuts to the rich at the same time as there's been a lack of public spending.

See below.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
It's now £123,000 as I've already pointed out which highlights that the Conservatives have given tax cuts to the rich at the same time as there's been a lack of public spending.

Why do you keep repeating out-of-date figures?

You're both right!

Above £100k, the personal allowance reduces by £1 for every £2 income, so it is correct to say that above £100k you do not receive he £11,500 personal allowance, because you receive less.

At £123k, the personal allowance is zero.

A by product of this is that between £100k and £123k there is a marginal tax/NI rate of 62%.

Personally I think this creates an artificial barrier and makes the tax system complicated. If it was up to me I would abolish the personal allowance taper, and reinstate the additional rate at 50%.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
You're both right!

Above £100k, the personal allowance reduces by £1 for every £2 income, so it is correct to say that above £100k you do not receive he £11,500 personal allowance, because you receive less.

At £123k, the personal allowance is zero.

A by product of this is that between £100k and £123k there is a marginal tax/NI rate of 62%.

Personally I think this creates an artificial barrier and makes the tax system complicated. If it was up to me I would abolish the personal allowance taper, and reinstate the additional rate at 50%.

Ah OK I wasn't aware of that and it isn't clearly explained on the government website. As tspaul26 gave out-of-date figures for the 40p tax rate earlier on in the thread I thought he'd done the same with the threshold for not getting a personal allowance.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
I see Labour and the Conservatives will choose their election candidates centrally not locally.

The Lib Dems had already found around 400 candidates in the event of a General Election being called, so still need to find another 250, including one for Southport to replace John Pugh which the local group in Southport will pick. They are expected to select a few LGBT candidates for seats they are targeting.

In NI none of the parties have taken any action yet due to what's going on in Stormont.
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
Ah OK I wasn't aware of that and it isn't clearly explained on the government website. As tspaul26 gave out-of-date figures for the 40p tax rate earlier on in the thread I thought he'd done the same with the threshold for not getting a personal allowance.

I have given the current figures.

The cause of your confusion appears to be the distinction between a n income tax threshold and an income tax band.

In summary, the threshold is the level over which income tax becomes payable at the relevant rate. The band is the range of income subject to the relevant rate.

The thresholds and bands for England in the current tax year are:

Income tax threshold: £0
Personal allowance: £11,500 taxed at 0%
(unless net income exceeds £100,000 per annum)
Basic rate threshold: £11,500
Basic rate band: £33,500 taxed at 20%
(i.e. applies to incomes from £11,500.01 to £45,000)
Higher rate threshold: £45,000
Higher rate band: £105,000 taxed at 40%
(i.e. applies to incomes from £45,000.01 to £150,000)
Additional rate threshold: £150,000
Higher rate band: £150,000.01 and above taxed at 45%
(i.e. applies to incomes from £150,000.01 without any upper limit)

NB I have deliberately omitted income from savings interest and dividends, which are subject to different allowances, tax credits and rates.

By way of example, suppose a taxpayer domiciled in England during the entire 16/17 tax year has a net annual income of £50,000. We will assume that this is his salary from employment, he has no deductible expenses and no other income.

This net income of £50,000 would be subject to income tax as follows.

Income tax threshold: £0
Personal alllowance: £11,500 taxed at 0% = £0
Basic rate threshold: £11,500
Basic rate band: £33,500 taxed at 20% = £6,700
Higher rate threshold: £45,000
Higher rate band: £5,000 taxed at 40% = £2,000

Overall effective income tax rate: 17.4%
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
Let us take the same taxpayer, but with a salary of £150,000 per annum.

This net income of £150,000 would be subject to income tax as follows.

Income tax threshold: £0
Personal alllowance: £0 taxed at 0% = £0
Basic rate threshold: £0
Basic rate band: £45,000 taxed at 20% = £9,000
Higher rate threshold: £45,000
Higher rate band: £105,000 taxed at 40% = £42,000

Overall effective income tax rate: 34%
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
You mean that there is a possibility that some parts of the NHS might be contracted out but still provided as a public service?

If that doesn't worry you then you may want to look at what is currently happening in parts of Bath, Somerset, Wiltshire and the surrounding area regarding care that has been taken over by Virgin Care. Not good at all.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
If that doesn't worry you then you may want to look at what is currently happening in parts of Bath, Somerset, Wiltshire and the surrounding area regarding care that has been taken over by Virgin Care. Not good at all.

And if we do a trade deal with Trump:

The Art of the Deal said:
The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you’re dead.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
If that doesn't worry you then you may want to look at what is currently happening in parts of Bath, Somerset, Wiltshire and the surrounding area regarding care that has been taken over by Virgin Care. Not good at all.

Well they've got a solution to understaffing - ensure some virgins lose their virginity and they've reduced their number of prospective patients. ;)
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
I'm not sure that £400 per year really qualifies as a "big tax cut".

Most people would welcome a £400 a year tax cut. Your suggestion that £400 is nothing to the rich suggests the government had unnecessarily cut it's revenue by giving that tax cut to higher earners.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Additional rate taxpayers do not benefit from an income tax personal allowance at all

I have given the current figures.

The cause of your confusion ..

Income tax threshold: £0
Personal allowance: £11,500 taxed at 0%
(unless net income exceeds £100,000 per annum)
Basic rate band: £33,500 taxed at 20%
(i.e. applies to incomes from £11,500.01 to £45,000)
Higher rate threshold: £45,000

No you've written your own posts in a way which didn't convey the message you were trying to get across.

You earlier said 'additional rate tax payers' - it's logical to assume you meant anyone who has to pay more than the standard 20p rate. However, you actually meant 'additional rate taxpayers who earn at least £55,000 more than the threshold for the 40p tax rate.'
 

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,510
Turning into a blood bath for Labour. Masses of well known MP's are withdrawing from standing. How bigger loss will it take for Corbyn and the Labour Party core to admit they have gone to far to the left to be electable?

Let's just review this post again, shall we. Statistics from the BBC website.

12 incumbent Labour MPs are not standing. (5.1% of sitting Labour MPs). This is the lowest number since the election of October 1974. Here's the numbers. I've calculated the percentages myself, to give indicate the proportion of MPs who left - this demonstrates that it's not just lower because there are fewer Labour MPs - this is the smallest for some time.

2015 election - 38 Labour MPs stood down (14.7%)

2010 - 100 (28.1%)

2005 - 58 (14.0%)

2001 - 38 (9.1%)

1997 - 38 (14.0%)

1992 - 19 (9.1%)

1987 - 41 (19.6%)

1983 - 38 (14.1%)

1979 - 35 (11.4%)

October 1974 - 3 (0.9%)

February 1974 - 28 (10.0%)

Again, hardly a blood bath. To be fair, October 1974 was a peculiar election because we had two in that year, so understandably very few MPs would have been contemplating retiring. The same could be said of this election to an extent, but we are now 40% of the way through the year so it's not impossible to think that some candidates would retire early rather than face another five years in the house. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly unusual about the numbers leaving, so no story here.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
No you've written your own posts in a way which didn't convey the message you were trying to get across.

You earlier said 'additional rate tax payers' - it's logical to assume you meant anyone who has to pay more than the standard 20p rate. However, you actually meant 'additional rate taxpayers who earn at least £55,000 more than the threshold for the 40p tax rate.'

'additional rate' is a fairly specific term in UK income tax.
  • 20% is the basic rate.
  • 40% is the higher rate, which generally kicks in at an income of £45000
  • 45% is the additional rate, which generally kicks in at an income of £150000
See for example here.
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
You mean that there is a possibility that some parts of the NHS might be contracted out but still provided as a public service?

Spin it how you wish but in the end its Mrs May saying she will offer the NHS up to American health companies in return for the trade deal she desperately needs if she is elected PM again. Friends of mine in the US have told me the American health care system is second to none if you pay for it. So please don't try and tell me that letting US health companies be involved in the NHS is somehow a good thing. It's one step away from health care being charged for at point of service.
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
Let's just review this post again, shall we. Statistics from the BBC website.

12 incumbent Labour MPs are not standing. (5.1% of sitting Labour MPs). This is the lowest number since the election of October 1974. Here's the numbers. I've calculated the percentages myself, to give indicate the proportion of MPs who left - this demonstrates that it's not just lower because there are fewer Labour MPs - this is the smallest for some time.



Again, hardly a blood bath. To be fair, October 1974 was a peculiar election because we had two in that year, so understandably very few MPs would have been contemplating retiring. The same could be said of this election to an extent, but we are now 40% of the way through the year so it's not impossible to think that some candidates would retire early rather than face another five years in the house. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly unusual about the numbers leaving, so no story here.

Just like May is trying to rid herself of moderates from DC's tenure as PM and telling all her candidates they must be fully up for 'hard Brexit', the Labour Party is trying to rid itself of any Blairites which is utter nonsensical as Labour won a thumping great majority under Blair targeting the centre left. Some never learn though.
 

southern442

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
2,186
Location
Surrey
Just like May is trying to rid herself of moderates from DC's tenure as PM and telling all her candidates they must be fully up for 'hard Brexit', the Labour Party is trying to rid itself of any Blairites which is utter nonsensical as Labour won a thumping great majority under Blair targeting the centre left. Some never learn though.

Did the Blairites win a thumping great majority in 2010 and 2015?
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
Very very interesting looking at the French elections. There is mass unemployment particularly among younger people with globalisation to blame for many job losses through factory closures. I think the world is on the cusp of protectionism, with politicians who offer to bring jobs and manufacturing back into their own countries set to prosper just like Trump did in the US elections.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Did the Blairites win a thumping great majority in 2010 and 2015?

Blairites weren't the challengers in 2015. It was the soft left Ed Miliband, who the unions backed over his brother who the general public thought was a better politician and they lost a lot of votes in Scotland.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
Very very interesting looking at the French elections. There is mass unemployment particularly among younger people with globalisation to blame for many job losses through factory closures. I think the world is on the cusp of protectionism, with politicians who offer to bring jobs and manufacturing back into their own countries set to prosper just like Trump did in the US elections.

So what happens when protectionism fails? Or at least fails to deliver on the expectations certain people have. Bringing jobs and manufacturing back from cheaper countries will increase costs which will increase prices. Will people continue to back such policies when the cost of things they buy increases?
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
No you've written your own posts in a way which didn't convey the message you were trying to get across.

You earlier said 'additional rate tax payers' - it's logical to assume you meant anyone who has to pay more than the standard 20p rate. However, you actually meant 'additional rate taxpayers who earn at least £55,000 more than the threshold for the 40p tax rate.'

I see that DynamicSpirit has kindly addressed the terminological point at post 439.

The sad thing is that this particular topic (income tax rates, thresholds and bands) is one of the simpler parts of the tax code. When it comes to taxation, I would normally caution the unwary about trying to apply logic to it - that way madness lies!
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
Most people would welcome a £400 a year tax cut. Your suggestion that £400 is nothing to the rich suggests the government had unnecessarily cut it's revenue by giving that tax cut to higher earners.

The key point is that taxpayers (especially the better off) do not simply sit there like statues waiting for tax demand notices: people will change their financial arrangements and personal habits in response to fiscal stimuli.

If the behavioural change following an increase in the higher rate threshold leads to higher wages being paid (rather than income being artificially suppressed or deferred), increased commercial investment or higher discretionary consumer spending (with increased tax receipts to the Exchequer as a result) then the increase is a rational choice.

For what it's worth, my personal view on the matter of the tax burden is that taxes should be levied at the most efficient rate possible. The main priority should be to get the money in, not the headline tax rate. This is subject to the proviso that capital, usuries and dividenda should be taxed in preference to other earnings.

Finally, any man who pays the plumber in cash should be executed summarily with his goods forfeit.
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
So what happens when protectionism fails? Or at least fails to deliver on the expectations certain people have. Bringing jobs and manufacturing back from cheaper countries will increase costs which will increase prices. Will people continue to back such policies when the cost of things they buy increases?

You are into catch 22 senarios here. Manufacturing all goes to countries where Labour costs are low to exploit globalisation, but then high unemployment in countries like France means no one can afford to buy stuff. So then the big companies will lose market share as protectionism kicks in and people buy local to try and keep jobs in their countries, and politicians that promise to bring jobs back are voted in. Companies that then promise to bring jobs back to that country become popular again etc etc. At the end of the day if people aren't employed and earning a wage how can they afford to buy goods and services from companies that have moved jobs out of the country to lower costs? That's why Trump got voted in in the US because he vowed to bring jobs back to America.
 
Last edited:

southern442

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
2,186
Location
Surrey
That's why Trump got voted in in the US because he vowed to bring jobs back to America.

He won't go all the way though, as shown with his abandonment of US isolationism as policy and trade deals with China etc. Realistically speaking globalisation has to exist in some form in the modern world.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Two SNP MPs facing police investigations have been deselected - Michelle Thomson and Natalie McGarry. Ms Thomson (Edinburgh West MP) will not stand for election as an Independent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top