The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[chrisp65]

in other news today, the tampon tax is to stay

as we all know, sanitary towels are a luxury

 

I don't think the government (via HMRC) are at liberty to reclassify them again and make them exempt.

 

They are at liberty to raise it with the EU, (which was what the vote was attempting) hell, they could even make it one of the items we want to discuss as our 're-negotiation', but they've decided it would be too difficult.

If they think persuading the EU that sanitary products are not a luxury would be too difficult to even bother trying, best of luck with the rest of the negotiations!

[tonyh29]

Another one of those stories that I've not really paid much (read any ) attention to but if I've read it correctly we have a product that was charged Vat at 17.5% but labour dropped it to 5% as it was the lowest they could drop the vat rate to on this product in 2000 ... and now suddenly 15 years later (10 of which they were in power) they table a motion to get vat removed

 

clearly there is something bigger afoot here than  sanitary towels , so what's labours agenda on this ? 

[snowychap]

They are at liberty to raise it with the EU, (which was what the vote was attempting) hell, they could even make it one of the items we want to discuss as our 're-negotiation', but they've decided it would be too difficult.

If they think persuading the EU that sanitary products are not a luxury would be too difficult to even bother trying, best of luck with the rest of the negotiations!

I think that Gauke said in the debate that they would look to raise it with the EU thus staving off a rebellion from the usual suspects in the Tory party on EU matters.

I think the whole 'luxury item' stuff is a bit of a red herring - at least in terms of domestic politics.

As an aside, I'd be interested in what happened to the price of sanitary products in 2001* and the year or two afterwards when the VAT was reduced to the preferential rate (i.e. from 17.5% to 5%).

and now suddenly 15 years later (10 of which they were in power) they table a motion to get vat removed

clearly there is something bigger afoot here than  sanitary towels , so what's labours agenda on this ? 

I'm not sure there is one really. It wasn't just Labour who tabled a new clause - new clause 2 was tabled by the SNP.

I guess the reason it was done was due to the recent petition on the matter and that political parties thought that a good time to table a motion on issues of tax was when a finance bill was being debated (and other issues of tax and VAT were also being debated).

 

*Edit - change came in to effect on 1sty Jan 2001.

Edited October 27, 2015 by snowychap

[MakemineVanilla]

 

But once the name of Thatcher has been cited then all arguments must stop.

What utter drivel.

How gratuitously petulant!

[ender4]

Tbh I've not really followed the tax credits things but the hard working honest people working 50 hours in your example above surely benefit from the rise in the minimum wage ..along with the tax free threshold going up to £11,000

but (according to the IFS) people in households where no-one works will be the hardest hit by the changes, as they will lose out on income while seeing no benefit from the increase in the minimum wage.

so almost the opposite of what you just said ?

How can families where no one works lose out from reductions in (and changes in tapering of) working tax credits?

ha.  never thought of that.   could someone explain? i assume its not just WORKING tax credits that are being cut?

[ender4]

I'm pretty well off, and am happy paying a decent level of tax.

But a job role has come around which would pay around £6,000 more, but would mean me working longer hours with a slight increase in stressfulness.

I have just realised that my marginal tax rate is 60% (child benefit tapering), so by taking this job, i would actually only get a net pay increase of £2,400.

So i've decided not to go for the job.   Dis-incentive to climb the career ladder for me built into the tax system.

But to re-iterate, i agree with what the tax system is trying to do, its just a shame that it works out that way for me.

 

[MakemineVanilla]

I'm pretty well off, and am happy paying a decent level of tax.

But a job role has come around which would pay around £6,000 more, but would mean me working longer hours with a slight increase in stressfulness.

I have just realised that my marginal tax rate is 60% (child benefit tapering), so by taking this job, i would actually only get a net pay increase of £2,400.

So i've decided not to go for the job.   Dis-incentive to climb the career ladder for me built into the tax system.

But to re-iterate, i agree with what the tax system is trying to do, its just a shame that it works out that way for me.

 

Very often the personal monetary gain from taking on extra stress or working longer hours is zero.

[darrenm]

I'm pretty well off, and am happy paying a decent level of tax.

But a job role has come around which would pay around £6,000 more, but would mean me working longer hours with a slight increase in stressfulness.

I have just realised that my marginal tax rate is 60% (child benefit tapering), so by taking this job, i would actually only get a net pay increase of £2,400.

So i've decided not to go for the job.   Dis-incentive to climb the career ladder for me built into the tax system.

But to re-iterate, i agree with what the tax system is trying to do, its just a shame that it works out that way for me.

 

Very often the personal monetary gain from taking on extra stress or working longer hours is zero.

But it's the bigger picture of being in the better position from which to climb again which needs to be considered.

[Jon]

I'm pretty well off, and am happy paying a decent level of tax.

But a job role has come around which would pay around £6,000 more, but would mean me working longer hours with a slight increase in stressfulness.

I have just realised that my marginal tax rate is 60% (child benefit tapering), so by taking this job, i would actually only get a net pay increase of £2,400.

So i've decided not to go for the job.   Dis-incentive to climb the career ladder for me built into the tax system.

But to re-iterate, i agree with what the tax system is trying to do, its just a shame that it works out that way for me.

 

so you're not that keen on the job then, one would assume? Or you're happy with your current work-life balance and don't want to change that for 2.5K (quite a decent sum to many). I can't see the problem here Ender. You'd be earning 2.5K MORE per year, and that is a disincentive? Or you're basically saying you'd like to keep a lot more of your 'own' money, thanks very much, Mr Taxman? 

[Jon]

I'm pretty well off, and am happy paying a decent level of tax.

But a job role has come around which would pay around £6,000 more, but would mean me working longer hours with a slight increase in stressfulness.

I have just realised that my marginal tax rate is 60% (child benefit tapering), so by taking this job, i would actually only get a net pay increase of £2,400.

So i've decided not to go for the job.   Dis-incentive to climb the career ladder for me built into the tax system.

But to re-iterate, i agree with what the tax system is trying to do, its just a shame that it works out that way for me.

 

Very often the personal monetary gain from taking on extra stress or working longer hours is zero.

'sometimes'. That is also true lower down the pay spectrum too.

[snowychap]

Tbh I've not really followed the tax credits things but the hard working honest people working 50 hours in your example above surely benefit from the rise in the minimum wage ..along with the tax free threshold going up to £11,000

but (according to the IFS) people in households where no-one works will be the hardest hit by the changes, as they will lose out on income while seeing no benefit from the increase in the minimum wage.

so almost the opposite of what you just said ?

How can families where no one works lose out from reductions in (and changes in tapering of) working tax credits?

ha.  never thought of that.   could someone explain? i assume its not just WORKING tax credits that are being cut?

According to the link below, the thresholds are being reduced for both working tax credits and child tax credits (for the former from £6420 to £3850 and the latter from £16105 to £12125) and the taper rate for both is being reduced from 41p in the pound to 48p. I don't know precisely what the marginal withdrawal rate becomes when one factors in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Support.

Also from the Beeb:

From April 2017, those starting a family will no longer be eligible for the family element of tax credits - for CTC, that is £545. The equivalent in Universal Credit, known as the first child premium, will also not be available for new claims. In addition, new tax credit claims will be limited to two children. In other words no allowance will be made for a third or fourth child.

The government has insisted that no existing claimants will lose money as a result of this change.

[ender4]

Tax & benefits are too complicated now. 

Sometimes i wonder whether either government should just simplify the whole thing... start again from scratch using an independent body to create the tax system and guarantee it is revenue neutral.

Both sides agree that they will follow the recommendation, and then its put in place with only certain variables that can be adjusted by successive governments (such as rate of each tax band, etc).

But the structure doesn't keep changing and getting more complex each time.

Edited October 27, 2015 by ender4

[snowychap]

...create the tax system and guarantee it is revenue neutral.

You'll have to clarify what you're suggesting here as it sounds worryingly like 'guaranteeing that tax received equals government expenditure' which would be an impossible thing to do. Who'd you get to devise such a system? Andersen Tax?

[Chindie]

They've announced that they're so miffed about the Lords stopping their evil hypocritical U turn on tax credits that they're going to look into how they can tell the Lords to 'Get tae ****' in future.

[OutByEaster?]

They've announced that they're so miffed about the Lords stopping their evil hypocritical U turn on tax credits that they're going to look into how they can tell the Lords to 'Get tae ****' in future.

Which is increasingly how this government appears to want to do things - they've de-powered the unions through legislation, they've threatened the BBC and will force it to downsize and they're threatening the Lords with reduced powers. It's not the most erm..inclusive government we've ever had is it?

 

[tonyh29]

I thought reduced powers for the Lords would be the VT lefty brigades wet dream ?

 

[Jon]

I thought reduced powers for the Lords would be the VT lefty brigades wet dream ?

 

I refer the honourable gentleman to the 'Labour Party' thread, where such things are indeed under discussion.

[snowychap]

I thought reduced powers for the Lords would be the VT lefty brigades wet dream ?

That's an incredibly simplistic way to view the issue.

I'd have thought that it would be any British subject's 'wet dream' to have a system whereby any government's agenda is held in check and scrutinized properly. If that requires a second chamber to have power until the system is amended to either do away with that second chamber (see Hanoi's suggestion in the other thread of more powerful standing committees, for example) or replace it with a different one then I'm all for it (as long as that power is not abused and it itself is held in check).

[blandy]

They've announced that they're so miffed about the Lords stopping their evil hypocritical U turn on tax credits that they're going to look into how they can tell the Lords to 'Get tae ****' in future.

Which is increasingly how this government appears to want to do things - they've de-powered the unions through legislation, they've threatened the BBC and will force it to downsize and they're threatening the Lords with reduced powers. It's not the most erm..inclusive government we've ever had is it?

Completely agree. And it's much more than that, too. They're changing the rules re union funding of the Labour party, to weaken Labour (though they're obviously not applying the same principles to shareholders in companies and those companies donations to the Tories, obviously, naturally). They've also done the Lobbying Bill, preventing charities and campaign groups from campaigning during election times, while ignoring the (often toxic to democracy) corporate lobbying that is the real threat. And then there's the right to protest - see the arrest of the peaceful chinese protesters last week for recent example. Them having their computers taken away.

Then there's the snooper's charter stuff.

Anything and everything these scumbags can do and get away with to further their own interests they can, have and will continue to do. Genuine scum, frankly.

[tonyh29]

I thought reduced powers for the Lords would be the VT lefty brigades wet dream ?

That's an incredibly simplistic way to view the issue.

I'd have thought that it would be any British subject's 'wet dream' to have a system whereby any government's agenda is held in check and scrutinized properly. If that requires a second chamber to have power until the system is amended to either do away with that second chamber (see Hanoi's suggestion in the other thread of more powerful standing committees, for example) or replace it with a different one then I'm all for it (as long as that power is not abused and it itself is held in check).

It wasn't really a view more an observation  ...

 

My simplistic view is posted in the other thread as the discussion is also going on in there ... when I say "my simplistic " view , credit where it's due , its more Jons simplistic view as I just kinda quoted him and wrote "I agree "