Well for starters building affordable housing now could save housing benefit money in the future.
Or in a company I worked for they decided to buy the cheaper lift to save money in the short run but ended up spending more in call out charges as the lift they bought wasn't fit for service.
It gets very difficult to accurately come up with some NPV calculations on a relatively simple project. Borrowing to invest could be limitless in theory, so where does the value for money come into Smith's calculations?
It gets very difficult to accurately come up with some NPV calculations on a relatively simple project. Borrowing to invest could be limitless in theory, so where does the value for money come into Smith's calculations?
Maybe he could take lessons from Abe in Japan who has announced today a £200 billion stimulus package to fix Japan's economy. It seems there will be tax cuts and increased public spending.
It isn't clear but it reads that Japan will be increasing the money supply to hopefully weaken the yen and increase the inflation rate. Be interesting to see it if it works this time.
Maybe he could take lessons from Abe in Japan who has announced today a £200 billion stimulus package to fix Japan's economy. It seems there will be tax cuts and increased public spending.
It isn't clear but it reads that Japan will be increasing the money supply to hopefully weaken the yen and increase the inflation rate. Be interesting to see it if it works this time.
As you rightly say, "be interesting to see it if it works this time".... why should we think that Owen's plan will work and we won't be repeating it again and borrowing more?
You can read the relevant budget speeches should you wish and you'll see that even in 1979 the following was said
"The top rate of 60 per cent. on earned income I now propose fulfils our commitment to reduce the top rate to the European average. For example, the top rate in France is 60 per cent., in Germany it is 56 per cent., and in the United States it is only 50 per cent. The new top rate will still be reached at an income level which is lower, and in some instances significantly lower, than is common elsewhere. This is a matter to which we may need to return on a future occasion."
I wonder when people will realise that if you want to live in a decent country you have to pay for it?
I don't actually mind paying taxes if I knew they were going to be used for improved public services and to help the most vulnerable, but I would not trust Corbyn or Smith to resist the temptation to use waste our money on daft pet projects.
Well for starters building affordable housing now could save housing benefit money in the future.
Or in a company I worked for they decided to buy the cheaper lift to save money in the short run but ended up spending more in call out charges as the lift they bought wasn't fit for service.
Possibly but where will they build this housing ? where it is needed or where they find some cheap land. We have a Labour Mayor in London he claimed housing was a priority as of yet we have hardly heard a word from him on the subject and luxury developments are continuing to spring up all over the place when he could be taking some action.
Talk is cheap and all politicians (from any party) are good at that.
I wonder when people will realise that if you want to live in a decent country you have to pay for it?
Perhaps when we swing it round so 60% of the country are net contributors rather than net beneficiaries. Till then the majority will always expect someone else to pay for it
Yeah It amazes me that people support the notion that others should have to surrender half of their working wage to the government. Extortion is what it is not tax.
I agree, it sounds insane to me. Imagine working your ass off, putting yourself into debt to go to uni, or risking your home to start a business, and making a million. Then the government comes along and take half of it.
Way to put off aspirational thinking.
Why not tackle tax avoidance better? That pisses most people off much more than millionaires being taxed at only 40-45%
Very high earners would surrender more than 50% when NI is taken into account
Good. They are in a position where they can contribute to the public good. They should be happy about that. It's certainly a much better position than living in poverty.
Can you explain why and to what level of borrowing?
You really need someone to explain to you how investment works? How the hell am I supposed to know what level of borrowing is required? Stupid question.
You really need someone to explain to you how investment works? How the hell am I supposed to know what level of borrowing is required? Stupid question.
Anyone can spout banalities. Understanding and projecting returns on government borrowing at varying levels is however more complex and it appears that this is something you're not familiar with.
I'd seriously consider voting for Thatcherite levels of tax (30p) for a set period if it was being used to mainly address the deficit, and for improved investment. It has to be better than borrowing. But raising the higher level too much is stupid. If you're earning enough to pay higher rate, you can probably pay people to find loopholes.
I wonder when people will realise that if you want to live in a decent country you have to pay for it?
Amazing, isn't it?
It doesn't matter how hard you work, or if you piled up debt as a student, you might still want decent roads, or hospitals, or want to send your kids to a half-decent school without having to shell out some of your hard-earned cash to go private.
Rich people might be able to afford bigger houses with bigger gardens, but they still like to take trips to the public park and find it in a decent condition, or to be able to walk down their wide, tree-lined avenue without it being filled with rubbish. Big houses need fire engines to put out fires too.
Maybe he could take lessons from Abe in Japan who has announced today a £200 billion stimulus package to fix Japan's economy. It seems there will be tax cuts and increased public spending.
It isn't clear but it reads that Japan will be increasing the money supply to hopefully weaken the yen and increase the inflation rate. Be interesting to see it if it works this time.
I agree, it sounds insane to me. Imagine working your ass off, putting yourself into debt to go to uni, or risking your home to start a business, and making a million. Then the government comes along and take half of it.
Way to put off aspirational thinking.
Why not tackle tax avoidance better? That pisses most people off much more than millionaires being taxed at only 40-45%
Tax avoidance is legal.
I think you mean tax evasion.
And it isn't half your income, only half your income after it reaches a certain threshold. I think the 50p tax rate came in on any earnings over £150,000.. Just like if you're a "standard" taxpayer you only pay 20% income tax on earnings after the first £10,000 or so, not all of your income.
The first minister insisted that she had rejected a 50p top rate because Scottish government analysis suggested it would lead to a flight out of Scotland by business executives. If only 6% of Scotland’s 17,000 additional rate tax payers left Scotland, a 50p rate would raise nothing extra at all; if 7% left, Holyrood would lose £30m in revenues.
And he's in favour of a second referendum. How can he lose?
Exactly. The Welsh windbag, and world class big head, is so out of touch with the electorate. As are the entire PLP.
They just can't grasp that telling the majority of voters on the EU referendum that their vote counts for nothing unless he agrees with it is colossal arrogance. Apparently, in Labour Land, democracy is only working properly if the political classes agree with what the electorate wants. Otherwise, we are racist, thick or simply mistaken because we had no idea what we were doing.
Hello, PLP. The majority of Brexit voters are none of those things, and we won. Any government that even hints at disobeying a direct democratic instruction from us, their masters, is playing with fire.
Thatcher thought 60% was an appropriate amount, but now 50% is seen as hard left?!
Tax collected went up due to the economy growing not because the tax rate went down. If the tax rate had remained at 50p the tax collected would have been more than £49bn.
Even the Tories disagree with you. The reason they gave for scrapping the 50p rate was because it only increased revenue by a few tens of millions.
She didn't. She reduced it to 40% when she was able to.
There is a scale of diminishing returns regarding tax hikes. The higher they are, the more effort is made to avoid them.
I had been coming around to seeing the case for tax increases for the highly paid (I speak as a top rate payer) and I've always said I would be prepared to pay more if I was convinced it would be spent on infrastructure and proper investment - not paying the bone idle to exist on benefits - which is precisely what would happen under Jones style Labour.
You can read the relevant budget speeches should you wish and you'll see that even in 1979 the following was said
"The top rate of 60 per cent. on earned income I now propose fulfils our commitment to reduce the top rate to the European average. For example, the top rate in France is 60 per cent., in Germany it is 56 per cent., and in the United States it is only 50 per cent. The new top rate will still be reached at an income level which is lower, and in some instances significantly lower, than is common elsewhere. This is a matter to which we may need to return on a future occasion."
So you agree that the top rate for most of Thatcher's premiership was 60% as I said. Perhaps you find it somewhat ironic then that talk of it being just 50% is dismissed as far left lunacy.
Comments
It gets very difficult to accurately come up with some NPV calculations on a relatively simple project. Borrowing to invest could be limitless in theory, so where does the value for money come into Smith's calculations?
Maybe he could take lessons from Abe in Japan who has announced today a £200 billion stimulus package to fix Japan's economy. It seems there will be tax cuts and increased public spending.
It isn't clear but it reads that Japan will be increasing the money supply to hopefully weaken the yen and increase the inflation rate. Be interesting to see it if it works this time.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/27/japan-responds-to-brexit-shock-with-record-stimulus-package
Um... it was 60% for the significant majority of her premiership.
As you rightly say, "be interesting to see it if it works this time".... why should we think that Owen's plan will work and we won't be repeating it again and borrowing more?
It was progressively moved down as the highest rates of income tax decreased across the world.
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/109497
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/111449
You can read the relevant budget speeches should you wish and you'll see that even in 1979 the following was said
"The top rate of 60 per cent. on earned income I now propose fulfils our commitment to reduce the top rate to the European average. For example, the top rate in France is 60 per cent., in Germany it is 56 per cent., and in the United States it is only 50 per cent. The new top rate will still be reached at an income level which is lower, and in some instances significantly lower, than is common elsewhere. This is a matter to which we may need to return on a future occasion."
I don't actually mind paying taxes if I knew they were going to be used for improved public services and to help the most vulnerable, but I would not trust Corbyn or Smith to resist the temptation to use waste our money on daft pet projects.
The most Tory response possible.
Double debt, destroy the economy, cripple wages, then point and shout "it was them what done it!"
Possibly but where will they build this housing ? where it is needed or where they find some cheap land. We have a Labour Mayor in London he claimed housing was a priority as of yet we have hardly heard a word from him on the subject and luxury developments are continuing to spring up all over the place when he could be taking some action.
Talk is cheap and all politicians (from any party) are good at that.
Labour members can pay £25 to choose from prat 1, or prat 2, what a bargain.😁
Perhaps when we swing it round so 60% of the country are net contributors rather than net beneficiaries. Till then the majority will always expect someone else to pay for it
I agree, it sounds insane to me. Imagine working your ass off, putting yourself into debt to go to uni, or risking your home to start a business, and making a million. Then the government comes along and take half of it.
Way to put off aspirational thinking.
Why not tackle tax avoidance better? That pisses most people off much more than millionaires being taxed at only 40-45%
Good. They are in a position where they can contribute to the public good. They should be happy about that. It's certainly a much better position than living in poverty.
You really need someone to explain to you how investment works? How the hell am I supposed to know what level of borrowing is required? Stupid question.
The main problem is a significant lack of disposable income, due in no small part to the assault on public services.
The slight flaw in the "small state" philosophy, it leaves much of the public spending ever larger amounts on the essentials of living.
You've lost me, small state bad, big state good ?, what are the public spending more on ??
well high tax rates certainly cut down your disposable income..
Anyone can spout banalities. Understanding and projecting returns on government borrowing at varying levels is however more complex and it appears that this is something you're not familiar with.
Amazing, isn't it?
It doesn't matter how hard you work, or if you piled up debt as a student, you might still want decent roads, or hospitals, or want to send your kids to a half-decent school without having to shell out some of your hard-earned cash to go private.
Rich people might be able to afford bigger houses with bigger gardens, but they still like to take trips to the public park and find it in a decent condition, or to be able to walk down their wide, tree-lined avenue without it being filled with rubbish. Big houses need fire engines to put out fires too.
These types of stimulus are one-off's, designed to deliver an Adrenalin shot into the system
They are not designed to be a long-term economic strategy
Problem with Labour is that these initiatives are like drugs and Labour is addicted to them.
Tax avoidance is legal.
I think you mean tax evasion.
And it isn't half your income, only half your income after it reaches a certain threshold. I think the 50p tax rate came in on any earnings over £150,000.. Just like if you're a "standard" taxpayer you only pay 20% income tax on earnings after the first £10,000 or so, not all of your income.
2010 50% under Labour (for 1 whole month) followed by Coalition
2011 to 2016 45% Under Coalition followed by Conservatives
Looks to me like Labour are the party of low taxes
Even the SNP have been avoiding it http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/24/nicola-sturgeon-backtracks-on-50p-rate-of-income-tax after banging on about it for ages
Exactly. The Welsh windbag, and world class big head, is so out of touch with the electorate. As are the entire PLP.
They just can't grasp that telling the majority of voters on the EU referendum that their vote counts for nothing unless he agrees with it is colossal arrogance. Apparently, in Labour Land, democracy is only working properly if the political classes agree with what the electorate wants. Otherwise, we are racist, thick or simply mistaken because we had no idea what we were doing.
Hello, PLP. The majority of Brexit voters are none of those things, and we won. Any government that even hints at disobeying a direct democratic instruction from us, their masters, is playing with fire.
She didn't. She reduced it to 40% when she was able to.
There is a scale of diminishing returns regarding tax hikes. The higher they are, the more effort is made to avoid them.
I had been coming around to seeing the case for tax increases for the highly paid (I speak as a top rate payer) and I've always said I would be prepared to pay more if I was convinced it would be spent on infrastructure and proper investment - not paying the bone idle to exist on benefits - which is precisely what would happen under Jones style Labour.
So you agree that the top rate for most of Thatcher's premiership was 60% as I said. Perhaps you find it somewhat ironic then that talk of it being just 50% is dismissed as far left lunacy.