How about high relative to the 40% tax rate that Labour were quite happy with for the vast majority of their term in government.
Also i haven't seen the detractors picking to many holes in the claim that the rich will be paying 5 times more in other taxes than they gain with the 45% rate.
So perhaps we should wait and see if that's true before judging if they are only looking after their rich friends.
How about high relative to the 40% tax rate that Labour were quite happy with for the vast majority of their term in government.
Also i haven't seen the detractors picking to many holes in the claim that the rich will be paying 5 times more in other taxes than they gain with the 45% rate.
So perhaps we should wait and see if that's true before judging if they are only looking after their rich friends.
This higher rate of the top rate of tax was bringing in more money and as the tax bedded down would've generated even more.
It wasn't bringing in much because many entrepreneurs had chosen to put their money in other countries, where tax rates were lower, or use other methods of tax avoidance.
It's a global economy. If the UK has the largest top tax rate in the G7 the wealth creators will go elsewhere (USA, Germany) and take the jobs with them.
It's a fact that the last time the top rate of tax was reduced the tax "take" went up.
It wasn't bringing in much because many entrepreneurs had chosen to put their money in other countries, where tax rates were lower, or use other methods of tax avoidance.
It's a global economy. If the UK has the largest top tax rate in the G7 the wealth creators will go elsewhere (USA, Germany) and take the jobs with them.
It's a fact that the last time the top rate of tax was reduced the tax "take" went up.
Is there evidence of this?, I understand there is evidence of top rate payers bringing forward income to 10/11 to avoid the top rate, but not an increase of offshore activities attributed to the higher tax rate.
It wasn't bringing in much because many entrepreneurs had chosen to put their money in other countries, where tax rates were lower, or use other methods of tax avoidance.
It's a global economy. If the UK has the largest top tax rate in the G7 the wealth creators will go elsewhere (USA, Germany) and take the jobs with them.
It's a fact that the last time the top rate of tax was reduced the tax "take" went up.
The last time the top rate of tax was reduced there were only two tax bands. Nigel Lawson lowered the top rate of tax from 60% to 40%. Circumstances were scarcely comparable.
I dont see London struggling to attract the rich whatsoever. Many of the rich are sympathetic to paying more tax in the short term. And those engaged in tax evasion wont stop evading tax because the rate drops by 5%.
The higher top rate is bringing in some extra money and my substantive point is that this measure shows where Osbournes priorities lie and that he believes in supply side economics.
The last time the top rate of tax was reduced there were only two tax bands. Nigel Lawson lowered the top rate of tax from 60% to 40%. Circumstances were scarcely comparable.
I dont see London struggling to attract the rich whatsoever. Many of the rich are sympathetic to paying more tax in the short term. And those engaged in tax evasion wont stop evading tax because the rate drops by 5%.
The higher top rate is bringing in some extra money and my substantive point is that this measure shows where Osbournes priorities lie and that he believes in supply side economics.
How do you explain...
"The deputy prime minister backed Chancellor George Osborne's decision to cut income tax for the highest earners.
But he said the very rich will pay five times more than they are getting back after the chancellor's tax changes."
Personally i think we should see if it works before dismissing it.
YouGov/Sunday Times: CON 29%, LAB 40%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 10%
Lowest level since 2004.
Plenty of time to fix all of that before the GE of course but it will still be making people rather nervous at Tory HQ. Now do Labour have the leader required to exploit this? That's the question.
But Balls and Miliband still not trusted on the economy.
The great majority of voters are far too sensible to allow clowns like UKIP anywhere near running the British economy. Things are bad enough with boy George at the Treasury.
"The deputy prime minister backed Chancellor George Osborne's decision to cut income tax for the highest earners.
But he said the very rich will pay five times more than they are getting back after the chancellor's tax changes."
Personally i think we should see if it works before dismissing it.
You want me to explain Cleggy's statement? It was obviously rubbish spouted off the top of his head!
I dont have to wait and see. I condemn all supply side economics as it's predicated on shoving as much money into the pockets of the rich in the hope that it'll dribble down. And as it relies on destroying the rights of working people in 'labour market reform'.
The theory is that the cash rich wealthy will then be attracted to exploiting desperate working class people to create sweatshop jobs and growth.
This is not the sort of society I want to live in.
And it doesn't particularly work as history shows. Indeed businesses and individuals are already sitting on billions, giving them more wont help and must be immoral when so many people are struggling.
The Tories weren't voted in at all they were the party with the most votes but that is just semantics.
Once in office they were tasked, by their own words, to sort out the mess that Labour left. After two years and apparently no progress on this front people are losing faith. This means that other issues are now being openly questioned.
They have failed to make an impact on the economy - the voters don't care that the deficit is slightly lower - there is still no job confidence and they are beginning to believe that the Tories are a useless shower of shit.
Until the economy shows signs of improvement then issues such as Jeremy Hunt/BSkyB and Europe will be a stick to beat the Tories with. If the economy recovers and people feel their financial position is safer they will care less about these things.
You want me to explain Cleggy's statement? It was obviously rubbish spouted off the top of his head!
I dont have to wait and see. I condemn all supply side economics as it's predicated on shoving as much money into the pockets of the rich in the hope that it'll dribble down. And as it relies on destroying the rights of working people in 'labour market reform'.
The theory is that the cash rich wealthy will then be attracted to exploiting desperate working class people to create sweatshop jobs and growth.
This is not the sort of society I want to live in.
And it doesn't particularly work as history shows. Indeed businesses and individuals are already sitting on billions, giving them more wont help and must be immoral when so many people are struggling.
I agree, the current economic 'plan' seems to be let's get the rich as rich as we can in the hope that they let more scraps fall from their table to the poor to feed off!
As for the reduction in the top rate off tax because more will be raised with the closing off loopholes. Surely if they are closing a loophole it meant they 'the rich' where supposed to be paying it anyway so at most we will be getting them to pay more than they where not all that they where supposed too!
You want me to explain Cleggy's statement? It was obviously rubbish spouted off the top of his head!
I dont have to wait and see. I condemn all supply side economics as it's predicated on shoving as much money into the pockets of the rich in the hope that it'll dribble down. And as it relies on destroying the rights of working people in 'labour market reform'.
The theory is that the cash rich wealthy will then be attracted to exploiting desperate working class people to create sweatshop jobs and growth.
This is not the sort of society I want to live in.
And it doesn't particularly work as history shows. Indeed businesses and individuals are already sitting on billions, giving them more wont help and must be immoral when so many people are struggling.
"Off the top of his head"?
It was mentioned in the budget speech and elsewhere ever since.
The fact that you might not of heard about it, might be because the left ignore it as they cannot find fault with it.They want people to think the budget was only a 45% income tax rate and pasty vat.
It has nothing to do with trickle down economics.It's direct taxation of the rich by other means, other than income tax.
According to the Mail, there are a lot of Tory voters refusing to back the party because of the gay marriage issue.
The problem is while core Tories that prefer policies like that, everyone else finds them repulsive and they'll never get elected on them.
Whether the Tories like it or not, the only chance they had of being elected was the kind of party David Cameron created... And even then he couldn't manage an outright majority election win.
The Tories as they were (and as some of its members want it to be) are no longer palatable to swathes of the British public.
"Off the top of his head"?
It was mentioned in the budget speech and elsewhere ever since.
The fact that you might not of heard about it, might be because the left ignore it as they cannot find fault with it.They want people to think the budget was only a 45% income tax rate and pasty vat.
It has nothing to do with trickle down economics.It's direct taxation of the rich by other means, other than income tax.
How did he come up with five times? Five? 500% increase?
You asked me to explain it, I say Clegg made it up, you say he didnt.
The Tories weren't voted in at all they were the party with the most votes but that is just semantics.
Once in office they were tasked, by their own words, to sort out the mess that Labour left. After two years and apparently no progress on this front people are losing faith. This means that other issues are now being openly questioned.
They have failed to make an impact on the economy - the voters don't care that the deficit is slightly lower - there is still no job confidence and they are beginning to believe that the Tories are a useless shower of shit.
Until the economy shows signs of improvement then issues such as Jeremy Hunt/BSkyB and Europe will be a stick to beat the Tories with. If the economy recovers and people feel their financial position is safer they will care less about these things.
I think a lot of the public are a bit pissed off that the government keeps getting themselves into trouble over these things when they should be concentrating 100% on getting people back to work and guaranteeing that something like the banking crisis won't happen again. There doesn't really seem to have been any real attempts to do the latter.
I also think that the tax cuts for the richest people, increasing costs of living and cuts to local public services will have had a far greater impact on voters than all this stuff about newspapers. A lot of people are really struggling at the moment.
Changes to the benefits that a lot of people are having to rely on more and more will also cause them problems. These people will not vote for the Tories.
Changes to the benefits that a lot of people are having to rely on more and more will also cause them problems. These people will not vote for the Tories.
Labour support a benefits cap but they won't say how much, apart from excluding child benefit from the cap. Diane Abbott was floundering on Question Time over this issue.
The cap is being set at £26,000 per year, more than many working people are earning.
Comments
Yes that curved ball of Labour a few weeks before the GE, it was just a potential vote grabber.
Labour didn't raise the top rate of tax unttil near the end of their term in government because wasnt a global financial crisis until then.
Everyone knows that the rich pay a huge proportion of UK tax, but in troubled times, why shouldn't those who are most able to pay more do so?
This higher rate of the top rate of tax was bringing in more money and as the tax bedded down would've generated even more.
But the Tories lowered the top rate because they still believe in supply side economics and its a taste of where Osbourne's priorities lie.
It wasn't bringing in much because many entrepreneurs had chosen to put their money in other countries, where tax rates were lower, or use other methods of tax avoidance.
It's a global economy. If the UK has the largest top tax rate in the G7 the wealth creators will go elsewhere (USA, Germany) and take the jobs with them.
It's a fact that the last time the top rate of tax was reduced the tax "take" went up.
Is there evidence of this?, I understand there is evidence of top rate payers bringing forward income to 10/11 to avoid the top rate, but not an increase of offshore activities attributed to the higher tax rate.
The last time the top rate of tax was reduced there were only two tax bands. Nigel Lawson lowered the top rate of tax from 60% to 40%. Circumstances were scarcely comparable.
I dont see London struggling to attract the rich whatsoever. Many of the rich are sympathetic to paying more tax in the short term. And those engaged in tax evasion wont stop evading tax because the rate drops by 5%.
The higher top rate is bringing in some extra money and my substantive point is that this measure shows where Osbournes priorities lie and that he believes in supply side economics.
How do you explain...
"The deputy prime minister backed Chancellor George Osborne's decision to cut income tax for the highest earners.
But he said the very rich will pay five times more than they are getting back after the chancellor's tax changes."
Personally i think we should see if it works before dismissing it.
But Balls and Miliband still not trusted on the economy.
I expect that the coalition parties will get a good kicking as is the case mid-term. If it's still raining on Thursday this will deter many voters.
Then it's them who are outdated, not the party.
Presumably the mistake was getting caught.
True but at a time when you need every vote possible, can you afford to alienate some of your core voters.
You want me to explain Cleggy's statement?
I dont have to wait and see. I condemn all supply side economics as it's predicated on shoving as much money into the pockets of the rich in the hope that it'll dribble down. And as it relies on destroying the rights of working people in 'labour market reform'.
The theory is that the cash rich wealthy will then be attracted to exploiting desperate working class people to create sweatshop jobs and growth.
This is not the sort of society I want to live in.
And it doesn't particularly work as history shows. Indeed businesses and individuals are already sitting on billions, giving them more wont help and must be immoral when so many people are struggling.
By that do you mean not taking as much of their money off them?
Once in office they were tasked, by their own words, to sort out the mess that Labour left. After two years and apparently no progress on this front people are losing faith. This means that other issues are now being openly questioned.
They have failed to make an impact on the economy - the voters don't care that the deficit is slightly lower - there is still no job confidence and they are beginning to believe that the Tories are a useless shower of shit.
Until the economy shows signs of improvement then issues such as Jeremy Hunt/BSkyB and Europe will be a stick to beat the Tories with. If the economy recovers and people feel their financial position is safer they will care less about these things.
I agree, the current economic 'plan' seems to be let's get the rich as rich as we can in the hope that they let more scraps fall from their table to the poor to feed off!
As for the reduction in the top rate off tax because more will be raised with the closing off loopholes. Surely if they are closing a loophole it meant they 'the rich' where supposed to be paying it anyway so at most we will be getting them to pay more than they where not all that they where supposed too!
Therefore still a tax cut!
"Off the top of his head"?
It was mentioned in the budget speech and elsewhere ever since.
The fact that you might not of heard about it, might be because the left ignore it as they cannot find fault with it.They want people to think the budget was only a 45% income tax rate and pasty vat.
It has nothing to do with trickle down economics.It's direct taxation of the rich by other means, other than income tax.
The problem is while core Tories that prefer policies like that, everyone else finds them repulsive and they'll never get elected on them.
Whether the Tories like it or not, the only chance they had of being elected was the kind of party David Cameron created... And even then he couldn't manage an outright majority election win.
The Tories as they were (and as some of its members want it to be) are no longer palatable to swathes of the British public.
How did he come up with five times? Five? 500% increase?
You asked me to explain it, I say Clegg made it up, you say he didnt.
So you prove it!
I think a lot of the public are a bit pissed off that the government keeps getting themselves into trouble over these things when they should be concentrating 100% on getting people back to work and guaranteeing that something like the banking crisis won't happen again. There doesn't really seem to have been any real attempts to do the latter.
I also think that the tax cuts for the richest people, increasing costs of living and cuts to local public services will have had a far greater impact on voters than all this stuff about newspapers. A lot of people are really struggling at the moment.
Changes to the benefits that a lot of people are having to rely on more and more will also cause them problems. These people will not vote for the Tories.
Labour support a benefits cap but they won't say how much, apart from excluding child benefit from the cap. Diane Abbott was floundering on Question Time over this issue.
The cap is being set at £26,000 per year, more than many working people are earning.