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.
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.
Why do you keep repeating out-of-date figures?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%.
NHS will be sold off to the Americans under a May lead Tory Government
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...hs-us-trade-deal-brexit-torture-a7548156.html
On a mobile so can't do required format for links.
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 As tspaul26 gave out-of-date figures for the 40p tax rate earlier on in the thread I thought he'd done the same with the threshold for not getting a personal allowance.
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.
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 youre dead.
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.
I'm not sure that £400 per year really qualifies as a "big tax cut".
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
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?
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%)
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.'
You mean that there is a possibility that some parts of the NHS might be contracted out but still provided as a public service?
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.
Did the Blairites win a thumping great majority in 2010 and 2015?
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.
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.'
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.
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?
That's why Trump got voted in in the US because he vowed to bring jobs back to America.