Reading the Ed Balls speech now, and this type of message is not going to survive one day of an election campaign. It really does seem to me that, for all the shit the "Blairites" fling at lefties, it's really them who are pie-in-the-sky idealists. Balls seems to be trying to make us believe that it's possible for the deficit to be eliminated, AND that public services won't get worse, AND that there'll be new good government things on top like childcare and extra jobs, AND people won't face big tax rises. Atleast the Conservatives are honest enough to admit that if they make cuts, things will get worse.

 

The best "tough decision" Labour could make is to face down the Conservatives and the media, and say they don't believe that the deficit needs to be cut further, and cuts or tax rises will only be brought in to pay for specific new programmes (I admit that people will probably want to know where the money's coming from for new things, but they won't understand why things that we have now need to be cut just for the sake of clearing the deficit when we quite evidently can afford them if we have them now). Atleast then, people would think the sums add up to some extent. Pretending you're going to clear the deficit without public services getting worse or significant tax rises is not going to convince anyone at all.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's rash to stick to something as difficult as running on a surplus by 2020. Obviously it would be nice to run on a surplus eventually but if they'd be mainly aiming to do it through cuts then there's no chance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25894312

 

And panic over.

 

Labour's chances of winning the next election over you mean

 

Raising the tax back to 50p is nothing more than spiteful politics of envy

 

Raising tax will result in less wealthy people from abroad settling here, more wealthy professionals and surgeons leaving the country, less incentive for people to set up a business, and more tax avoidance, all to show benefit claimants that labour is on their side

 

The top tax rate should be CUT for high earners not increased

 

People have called the tories the 'nasty party', punishing high achievers and entrepreneurs is the sign of the real nasty party

Edited January 26, 201411 yr by Sandro Raniere

Very good and very truthful article about this daft 50p plan

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/l...tax-pledge.html

 

They are right, we would become the new France

Labour's chances of winning the next election over you mean

 

LMAO.

 

Survation poll:

 

Do you think the 50p tax rate for top earners should return

Yes 60%

No 17%

 

You may personally disagree that it's a good idea (and no doubt have some manipulated statistics to "prove" your point), but you can't seriously believe it will be unpopular with the people.

Yes, because popular and fair policies are notorious election losers.

 

You're still making the mistake of thinking that the general public likes big business and thinks it gets a raw deal. Thankfully, most people can see sense.

Labour's chances of winning the next election over you mean

 

Raising the tax back to 50p is nothing more than spiteful politics of envy

 

Raising tax will result in less wealthy people from abroad settling here, more wealthy professionals and surgeons leaving the country, less incentive for people to set up a business, and more tax avoidance, all to show benefit claimants that labour is on their side

 

The top tax rate should be CUT for high earners not increased

 

People have called the tories the 'nasty party', punishing high achievers and entrepreneurs is the sign of the real nasty party

We have a deficit to get down. Why should only the people at the bottom be the ones taking on more of a burden for it? It's not the politics of envy to think it's reasonable that those with the biggest shoulders should do their bit and take a little more of the burden than those least able to pay.

Well, things are hotting up. 24 business-people none of whom are known Tory supporters, absolutely not have written a letter to the Telegraph claiming bringing back the 50p rate would be "economic suicide".

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/1...-rate-plan.html

 

To use a horrible Westminster cliche, I really feel this week will be "the biggest test for Ed Miliband's leadership yet". The super-rich elite know which way the wind is blowing, and they're clearly about to kick up a huge stink about the fact the party they've been throwing at everyone else's expense could be about to come to an end. Ed needs to stand up and have the guts to call these people out for the selfish, greedy people they are. If he's too cowardly to make a bold stand on this, on an issue which so fundamentally favours Labour in a time when there's such resentment of the super-rich, then there really is no hope at all for him.

Edited January 26, 201411 yr by Danny

And I realise I've become progressively more unhinged Grimly Fiendish-like over the past few months, but really, enough is enough if these people who are sitting on millions in savings really have the nerve to complain about being asked to pay more tax, at a time when a huge proportion of people are having to go to foodbanks to get by.

LMAO.

 

Survation poll:

 

Do you think the 50p tax rate for top earners should return

Yes 60%

No 17%

 

You may personally disagree that it's a good idea (and no doubt have some manipulated statistics to "prove" your point), but you can't seriously believe it will be unpopular with the people.

 

On the surface it would appeal to hard pressed families as a nice headline grabbing gimmick, if there was a poll for the abolition of unemployment benefits 60%+ would probably say yes, but like with scrapping unemployment benefits once you scratch beneath the surface and look at the consequences and after effects it suddenly loses its appeal

 

Scrap unemployment benefits crime would soar, the people who would love it to happen after seeing an episode of 'Benefits Street' would soon change their mind when their house is burgled or a knife is put at their throat outside a cashpoint

 

Similarly put top rate tax up to 50p many of the 60% who say yes will change their mind when their boss closes down the business that employs them and moves to a country with lower taxes leaving them with no job, or if they need heart surgery and the best heart surgeons have left the country

 

Raising the rate to 50p is an empty gesture that will bring in no extra money and instead would lead to a brain drain, look at France, will the last wealthy Frenchman to leave please turn out the lights

Yes, because popular and fair policies are notorious election losers.

 

You're still making the mistake of thinking that the general public likes big business and thinks it gets a raw deal. Thankfully, most people can see sense.

 

Its not just big business though, its about small to medium sized businesses that were started from scratch and are profitable, its about freelance IT contractors, surgeons, private practice dentists, over 300,000 people in UK pay top rate, there are about 1000 businesses that can be considered 'big business' so a lot of self made entrepreneurs and medical professionals will be punished so that the CEO of Starbucks pays more etc

We have a deficit to get down. Why should only the people at the bottom be the ones taking on more of a burden for it? It's not the politics of envy to think it's reasonable that those with the biggest shoulders should do their bit and take a little more of the burden than those least able to pay.

 

At a time where a consumer lead recovery is what is driving this country forward i cant see the benefits in taking money away from the consumers with the deepest pockets, many of whom will up sticks and leave the UK like has happened in France

 

Best way to get the deficit down is through curbing welfare and through job creation, jobs will be lost if the rich leave the UK

Edited January 27, 201411 yr by Sandro Raniere

Plus the rate was 40% all the way through the last labour regime, until days before the 2010 general election, if it was good enough to be 40% then under Blair and Brown why is it not good enough to be 40% now?

 

Labour bought it in in 2010 because they knew that they were going to lose the general election so they set a trap for the tories to show that by cutting it they only care about millionaires etc, it was pure party politics and nothing more as opposed to any economic importance.

 

Labour are playing gesture politics again now by saying they will put it up to 50p, they are playing with peoples jobs just to try and prove a point that tories only care about the rich

And I realise I've become progressively more unhinged Grimly Fiendish-like over the past few months, but really, enough is enough if these people who are sitting on millions in savings really have the nerve to complain about being asked to pay more tax, at a time when a huge proportion of people are having to go to foodbanks to get by.

 

The economy is way better now than it was under Brown yet why the growth in the number of foodbank users? it is because there were no foodbanks hardly under labour, if there was then equal number of people would be using them, probably more, people don't need foodbanks if they budget wisely and make more of their own food and don't have Sky and don't smoke etc

And I realise I've become progressively more unhinged Grimly Fiendish-like over the past few months, but really, enough is enough if these people who are sitting on millions in savings really have the nerve to complain about being asked to pay more tax, at a time when a huge proportion of people are having to go to foodbanks to get by.

 

 

I don't think as many people go to foodbanks as is made out. It's scare tactics by people against the reforms in benefits. Does anyone here honestly know anyone who is so poor that they go to a foodbank for free food? Everyone gets an income, even a low one like Income Support, which covers the basics. I think these people who do go are maybe getting their priorities wrong and buying alcohol and cigs and then not having enough for the essentials like food and rent.

 

 

Edited January 27, 201411 yr by Common Sense

Plus the rate was 40% all the way through the last labour regime, until days before the 2010 general election, if it was good enough to be 40% then under Blair and Brown why is it not good enough to be 40% now?

 

Labour bought it in in 2010 because they knew that they were going to lose the general election so they set a trap for the tories to show that by cutting it they only care about millionaires etc, it was pure party politics and nothing more as opposed to any economic importance.

 

Labour are playing gesture politics again now by saying they will put it up to 50p, they are playing with peoples jobs just to try and prove a point that tories only care about the rich

Because we didn't have to deal with a massive bloody deficit which required more tax for most of the Labour government. 50p didn't lead to a brain drain for the years it was in (after it came in Boris predicted 9,000 City professionals would leave in the year after. Actually, 800 ended up coming in.) - why would it lead to one now? The vast majority don't base their lives around tax - living in the UK has its own appeal, regardless of an extra 5% being levied on what they earn over £150,000. This scaremongering was pretty ruthlessly disproved last time the tax went up.

 

The economy is way better now than it was under Brown yet why the growth in the number of foodbank users? it is because there were no foodbanks hardly under labour, if there was then equal number of people would be using them, probably more, people don't need foodbanks if they budget wisely and make more of their own food and don't have Sky and don't smoke etc

Just because foodbanks didn't exist especially before 2010 (it's a charity doesn't mean there wasn't a need for them - these people just tended to go hungry or tended to receive food parcels from other charities.

I don't think as many people go to foodbanks as is made out. It's scare tactics by people against the reforms in benefits. Does anyone here honestly know anyone who is so poor that they go to a foodbank for free food? Everyone gets an income, even a low one like Income Support, which covers the basics. I think these people who do go are maybe getting their priorities wrong and buying alcohol and cigs and then not having enough for the essentials like food and rent.

Well, I'm really reassured now the forum idiot has assured us that he doesn't think as many go to foodbanks as logs of people who've received food from the Trussell Trust have shown.

Because we didn't have to deal with a massive bloody deficit which required more tax for most of the Labour government. 50p didn't lead to a brain drain for the years it was in (after it came in Boris predicted 9,000 City professionals would leave in the year after. Actually, 800 ended up coming in.) - why would it lead to one now? The vast majority don't base their lives around tax - living in the UK has its own appeal, regardless of an extra 5% being levied on what they earn over £150,000. This scaremongering was pretty ruthlessly disproved last time the tax went up.

 

But it still won't bring in much if any extra money, at best it is revenue neutral or not far off and certainly not the money spinner it is made out to be

 

If there was measures bought in to prevent Google/Amazon/Starbucks etc avoiding paying tax by closing loopholes then i would support it wholeheartedly, and that would bring in a lot more money than raising top rate to 50p

Edited January 27, 201411 yr by Sandro Raniere

But it still won't bring in much if any extra money, at best it is revenue neutral or not far off and certainly not the money spinner it is made out to be

 

If there was measures bought in to prevent Google/Amazon/Starbucks etc avoiding paying tax by closing loopholes then i would support it wholeheartedly, and that would bring in a lot more money than raising top rate to 50p

Because 800 new people coming into the City and everyone paying 5% more tax is "revenue neutral"? You're plucking figures out of your arse.

 

Also, the suggestion that most people would back the abolition of any unemployment benefit is a bit barmy. People realise that there aren't enough jobs and you shouldn't effectively cast anyone who loses theirs out in the street.

Because 800 new people coming into the City and everyone paying 5% more tax is "revenue neutral"? You're plucking figures out of your arse.

 

Also, the suggestion that most people would back the abolition of any unemployment benefit is a bit barmy. People realise that there aren't enough jobs and you shouldn't effectively cast anyone who loses theirs out in the street.

 

You are assuming they were all earning over £150k a year, the typical traders/brokers earn around £90k basic

 

Plus the ones that do earn over £150k a year know every trick in the book. My best mate works in the city and they are well known for paying people gifts of fine art, vintage wines, vintage cars etc as non taxable items offset against their salary so that their tax liability is reduced, they then sell the vintage car or the cellar of vintage wines for cash etc

 

So someone on £250k a year would get £130k basic and the rest in art, vintage car, vintage wine etc