Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tick tock. Betting on the date of the UK’s exit from the EU

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited February 19 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tick tock. Betting on the date of the UK’s exit from the EU

Can you hear it? That is the sound of inevitability. Shambolic though the government’s preparations have been for Brexit, failing to explain its proposals to the public, the EU or even itself, the time to exit continues to approach. When the government gave notice under Article 50, a two year timetable was set in motion. That will expire at 11pm (GMT) on Friday 29 March 2019. Nothing the government has done or not done since then has altered that timetable.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • I don't understand it either.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 66,840
    edited February 19
    Remember Mrs May always disappoints.

  • Though this might explain the market, and people think Brexit might/could be halted.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,212
    Sorry to go o/t so soon but fpt, my response to @BigJohnOwls question as to how I'd pay for public services.

    Were I an unkind person I would point out that last year BJO was vociferous in attacking the Tories for suggesting that rich people should use their houses to pay for their care. Always easy to say that someone else should pay; much harder to agree to a tax increase when it affects you or when attacking your political opponent for suggesting such a thing gives you a political advantage.

    But I am not unkind so here is my answer.

    The first and most important thing to do is to work out which services the state should do. Those which can be provided by the private sector should be. EU states have much to teach us in this regard.

    Second, people should be told that they need to take much more responsibility for their own lives, not expect so much to be provided "free" by the state. The phrase "there is no such thing as a free lunch" needs to be used more widely. So, I would make it clear that people need to contribute more out of their own assets - if people can afford foreign holidays they can afford to save more for their pension or rainy days etc.

    Third, I would be utterly ruthless in what we spend public money on. Waste, inefficiencies, pointless consultants etc. Impose and enforce a cap on public sector salaries. I know everyone says this but value for money is essential, especially if you are going to ask people to pay more.

    So, some ideas off the top of my head:-

    - Income tax will need to go up - and not just on those earning over £85,000. Everyone - including Mr and Mrs Average and those at the bottom end - will need to pay more income tax.

    - Elimination of quite a lot of VAT exemptions.

    - I would reduce the rate of inheritance tax but make it payable on a wider range of assets and eliminate all (most?) of the exemptions so that there is much less incentive to try and avoid it. Hopefully that would raise more from more people

    - If you are working you should pay NI so I would impose it on those working past pensionable age.

    - Benefits to pensioners such as TV licences should be removed or made taxable.

    - I would make all public sector pensions similar to those in the private sector i.e. paid from a fund to which the employee contributes and which pays out benefits based on how well the fund has grown.

    - Oh and I would have a policy which says that if you have assets, including your home, above a certain minimum level, you should expect to use those assets to pay for care in old age.

    - Increase the number of council tax bands to capture houses at the top end

    - CGT at some low level on the sale of property

    - More charges for local services.

    - Ensure that people who use our "free" services without any entitlement to do so are actually charged for them.

    - Sort out pension tax reliefs

    - Place a limit on how much tax relief charitable giving gets

    I await the brickbats.....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    edited February 19
    Mrs May still got the highest Tory voteshare for 34 years in June 2017 and the second highest number of Tory seats in that period and on this poll would get the second highest Tory voteshare for 26 years
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    HYUFD said:

    Mrs May still got the highest Tory voteshare for 34 years in June 2017 and the second highest number of Tory seats in that period and on this poll would get the second highest Tory voteshare for 26 years
    Why isnt Corbyn Labour ahead by as much as Miliband Labour was ahead?
  • HYUFD said:

    Mrs May still got the highest Tory voteshare for 34 years in June 2017 and the second highest number of Tory seats in that period and on this poll would get the second highest Tory voteshare for 26 years
    And Corbyn got Labour highest share of the vote in 20 years, why do you ignore that?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910
    A big swing to none of the above.
  • "Thirdly, the council and all member states could agree to extend the period. This would be far from straightforward to secure and if the extension were to go beyond a few weeks, this would mean that the UK would be entitled to continuing representation in the European Parliament, which the other member states emphatically would not accept. This therefore looks unlikely. Better to devote everyone’s energies to concluding the deal on time instead"

    Although I am on "Yes" it is this one that gets me. An extension of a few weeks only. A bit of brinksmanship.

    However instead I think I will just trade out closer to the time when it is clear the other 3 aren't on the table
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,890
    Kantar were out on a limb, by giving the Conservatives a 4% lead in November. This is a reversion to the mean.
  • stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mrs May still got the highest Tory voteshare for 34 years in June 2017 and the second highest number of Tory seats in that period and on this poll would get the second highest Tory voteshare for 26 years
    Why isnt Corbyn Labour ahead by as much as Miliband Labour was ahead?
    Because that's when polls were overestimating Labour.

    Remember 2 out the 3 last general elections has seen Labour underestimated in the polls.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Good to see that Remoaners are now uttering words like "Can you hear it, that's the sound of inevitability"

    Time is running out for them. It is the loud, unstoppable inexorable ticking clock of democracy.
  • Sean_F said:

    Kantar were out on a limb, by giving the Conservatives a 4% lead in November. This is a reversion to the mean.
    But it didn't stop people using them as confirmation that the YouGov Con +4 poll wasn't an outlier.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,380
    HYUFD said:

    Mrs May still got the highest Tory voteshare for 34 years in June 2017 and the second highest number of Tory seats in that period and on this poll would get the second highest Tory voteshare for 26 years
    But all her stuff would be in the back of a removal van and Jezza would replace her in No. 10. Yes, a great poll for Tezzie.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044

    Sean_F said:

    Kantar were out on a limb, by giving the Conservatives a 4% lead in November. This is a reversion to the mean.
    But it didn't stop people using them as confirmation that the YouGov Con +4 poll wasn't an outlier.
    It is extraordinarily good for any government to be level pegging with an opposition in a non election year. Oppositions that go on to win elections are supposed to be ahead
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077

    HYUFD said:

    Mrs May still got the highest Tory voteshare for 34 years in June 2017 and the second highest number of Tory seats in that period and on this poll would get the second highest Tory voteshare for 26 years
    And Corbyn got Labour highest share of the vote in 20 years, why do you ignore that?
    More votes for May than Blair received in 1997, and more for Corbyn than Blair in 2001.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mrs May still got the highest Tory voteshare for 34 years in June 2017 and the second highest number of Tory seats in that period and on this poll would get the second highest Tory voteshare for 26 years
    And Corbyn got Labour highest share of the vote in 20 years, why do you ignore that?
    More votes for May than Blair received in 1997, and more for Corbyn than Blair in 2001.
    To be fair to Mr Blair, the population has gone up a little bit since then.
  • Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mrs May still got the highest Tory voteshare for 34 years in June 2017 and the second highest number of Tory seats in that period and on this poll would get the second highest Tory voteshare for 26 years
    And Corbyn got Labour highest share of the vote in 20 years, why do you ignore that?
    More votes for May than Blair received in 1997, and more for Corbyn than Blair in 2001.
    That's just a reflection on population size, not popularity.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mrs May still got the highest Tory voteshare for 34 years in June 2017 and the second highest number of Tory seats in that period and on this poll would get the second highest Tory voteshare for 26 years
    And Corbyn got Labour highest share of the vote in 20 years, why do you ignore that?
    More votes for May than Blair received in 1997, and more for Corbyn than Blair in 2001.
    We dont have a votes based system we have a seats based system. Corbyn won 40% by piling up votes uselessly in seats Labour already holds, -and the collapse of UKIP.
    But Corbyn won a similar number of seats as Gordon Brown in 201o -one of Labour's worst ever election results.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    I was watching the Matrix again just the other night. One of the truly great films that changed special effects forever.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,424
    I agree with Alastair on this market. Apart from the occasional low-liquidity special, I think it is the most obviously mispriced market I have seen since I first got interested in political betting in 2008.

    The power of wishful thinking is driving this. Long may it last.
  • I agree with Alastair on this market. Apart from the occasional low-liquidity special, I think it is the most obviously mispriced market I have seen since I first got interested in political betting in 2008.

    The power of wishful thinking is driving this. Long may it last.

    More mis-priced than Marco Rubio's becoming the favourite for the GOP nomination after finishing third in Iowa or David Miliband's price to be next Labour leader?
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mrs May still got the highest Tory voteshare for 34 years in June 2017 and the second highest number of Tory seats in that period and on this poll would get the second highest Tory voteshare for 26 years
    And Corbyn got Labour highest share of the vote in 20 years, why do you ignore that?
    More votes for May than Blair received in 1997, and more for Corbyn than Blair in 2001.
    To be fair to Mr Blair, the population has gone up a little bit since then.
    The population has gone up a little bit since then because of Mr Blair.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    edited February 19
    stevef said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mrs May still got the highest Tory voteshare for 34 years in June 2017 and the second highest number of Tory seats in that period and on this poll would get the second highest Tory voteshare for 26 years
    And Corbyn got Labour highest share of the vote in 20 years, why do you ignore that?
    More votes for May than Blair received in 1997, and more for Corbyn than Blair in 2001.
    We dont have a votes based system we have a seats based system. Corbyn won 40% by piling up votes uselessly in seats Labour already holds, -and the collapse of UKIP.
    But Corbyn won a similar number of seats as Gordon Brown in 201o -one of Labour's worst ever election results.
    Corbyn is certainly alot closer to power than Brown was after that election though. The SNP replacing Clegg's version of the Lib Dems as parliament's 3rd party is a huge boost for Labour strategically. And if the SNP fall back, most of Scotland trends Labour no matter how well Davidson does in the former liberal and SNP (previous) rural heartlands.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044

    Governments are supposed to be unpopular than oppositions in non election years, yet still all that Hard Labour can achieve is to be level pegging.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,424

    "Thirdly, the council and all member states could agree to extend the period. This would be far from straightforward to secure and if the extension were to go beyond a few weeks, this would mean that the UK would be entitled to continuing representation in the European Parliament, which the other member states emphatically would not accept. This therefore looks unlikely. Better to devote everyone’s energies to concluding the deal on time instead"

    Although I am on "Yes" it is this one that gets me. An extension of a few weeks only. A bit of brinksmanship.

    However instead I think I will just trade out closer to the time when it is clear the other 3 aren't on the table

    On that point, yes it is a possible route to this market being a loser, but I think it's really quite unlikely. The reason is that it would involve quite a lot of work (and political egg on Mrs May's face) for 28 countries to agree the extension, and it's hard to see that that would be worth the hassle if it only made a few weeks' difference anyway. In addition, it would cause some chaos if the Brexit date were changed at the last moment, since governments, companies, tax authorities, regulators etc etc would all be working to March 29th. I think it's already priced in to Alastair's 1/4 fair value.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,424
    edited February 19

    I agree with Alastair on this market. Apart from the occasional low-liquidity special, I think it is the most obviously mispriced market I have seen since I first got interested in political betting in 2008.

    The power of wishful thinking is driving this. Long may it last.

    More mis-priced than Marco Rubio's becoming the favourite for the GOP nomination after finishing third in Iowa or David Miliband's price to be next Labour leader?
    Hmm, maybe not than D. Milliband!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,865

    Though this might explain the market, and people think Brexit might/could be halted.

    When you add the Brexit is positive figure to the neutral no effects and neutral mixed effects, you get more than half the population, which is why there is no market to halt Brexit.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    What does the Treaties cease to apply mean? If we "leave" so that we no longer have the embarrassment of MEPs or the right to attend Meetings of Ministers but we have agreed to an interim deal by which we will for a defined period comply with all the rules of the Single Market and the jurisdiction of the CJE for that period have we left or not? Similarly, if we agree to comply with any new obligations imposed by the Single Market in that period it seems impossible that the 1972 Act will be completely repealed.

    On their definition we may well not have left, even if the government proclaim otherwise. That seems to me the risk in this bet. Otherwise, if the government's word is to be taken on it, it seems to be the no brainer that Alastair has been good enough to point out.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,890

    Sean_F said:

    Kantar were out on a limb, by giving the Conservatives a 4% lead in November. This is a reversion to the mean.
    But it didn't stop people using them as confirmation that the YouGov Con +4 poll wasn't an outlier.
    IMHO, we've moved from Labour being about 2% ahead on average up till Christmas to the parties being level-pegging.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    FF43 said:

    Though this might explain the market, and people think Brexit might/could be halted.

    When you add the Brexit is positive figure to the neutral no effects and neutral mixed effects, you get more than half the population, which is why there is no market to halt Brexit.
    There is no "broadly negative with some positives" category here, so I'm not sure whether I'd identify with the 44% or the 18% in this survey.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,380

    A big swing to none of the above.
    People clearly showing their support for one of the two-dozen new pro-EU centrist parties which somehow have all failed to get off the ground.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077

    A big swing to none of the above.
    People clearly showing their support for one of the two-dozen new pro-EU centrist parties which somehow have all failed to get off the ground.
    The SNP have fallen back from their high points but are definitely 'off the ground' ;)
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 152
    Cyclefree said:


    So, some ideas off the top of my head:-

    - Income tax will need to go up - and not just on those earning over £85,000. Everyone - including Mr and Mrs Average and those at the bottom end - will need to pay more income tax.

    - Elimination of quite a lot of VAT exemptions.

    - I would reduce the rate of inheritance tax but make it payable on a wider range of assets and eliminate all (most?) of the exemptions so that there is much less incentive to try and avoid it. Hopefully that would raise more from more people

    The only thing I disagree with is that I would scrap NI - And raise Income tax to 32%, 42% and 47%. To be fair, I'd overhaul IT completely to be a bit more sensible. The current TRUE bandings are a farce (0%, 12%, 32%, briefly up to 52% (NI band is £45,032 - tax is £45,000), back to 42%, then up to 62% (losing personal allowance) before back to 42% and then finally back up to 47%.

    Goodness, having typed that I realise what a mess our tax system is. Where was George Osborne and his 'Tax simplification initiative'? The only thing he did was eliminate form P9D.

    And of course, if you're married (and get the Marriage allowance transfer) and claim child benefit like I do, the rates are even more convoluted.

  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 1,945
    @Cylclefree

    Long, detailed and generally excellent post.

    I think one of the things we need to understand is why the public finances are in such poor state and that this cascades to poor services.

    I think we're spending too much on welfare - all types. One of the reported reasons that this country is so attractive for migrants is that the benefits system is so generous. Coupled with that is the, to my mind, extremely open immigration policy. I don't see why extended families can receive preferential treatment over the so called high value migrants.

    Why can we allow aunties, uncles etc just because there is a relation living here.

    We also need to look very seriously at health and social care, removing all non essential treatments from NHS provision. Why is IVF available on the NHS for example?

    I actually agreed with the so called dementia tax and feel it is a way to go, without destroying some form of inheritance provision. Either that or have an affordable insurance scheme for long term social care.

    If we enact increased taxation, we should also have improved quality of provision of service, with proper scrutiny of the providers.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,151
    edited February 19
    My money is on Yes - we will leave by 29 March 2019 - for the reasons Alastair gives, and given the value in the bet.

    However I can see why money is going on No. I think it is a 50/50 bet.

    The HOL is sure to remove the 29th March 2019 as a fixed date in the EU Withdrawal Bill and the HOC will agree when it returns. It is only there as a sop to Brexiteers who are fearful of any slippage. It damages our negotiating position for obvious reasons and is inconsistent with "the best deal for Britain".

    Any actual slippage will be small, - eight weeks at the most to avoid a clash with the next Euro Elections due on 23-26 May 2019. But I think it is quite likely that the slippage will happen. There will be contingency plans in place on both sides. We will need it and the EU will agree to it to avoid a crash out.

    If an eight week slippage occurs, it puts pressure on the transition period which the EU wants to finish at end 2020 for admin reasons to coincide with their five year budget period. The transition period is already recognised on all sides as too short, and if the EU lifts the admin barrier, then there may be a desire on both sides to extend the transition to something more sensible.

    Yes the clock is ticking and the UK is the party under pressure as the fallback no deal is recognised by government to be a disaster.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,865
    I think it is easier to stop or delay Brexit on legal grounds than set out here. The keywords in Article 50 are " in accordance with its own constitutional requirements" JC Piris, former EU Commission Legal Counsel, contends that this condition applies until the Treaties are nullified. In other words, if the UK decides it no longer wants to Brexit, it would no longer accord with its requirements.

    However, we would probably only NOT leave on that date the EU if either the government changes its mind or the process is subject to a legal challenge. Even a technical delay, which is quite likely, will probably be dealt with using an interim version of the Transition Agreement rather than delaying the exit date.

    So yes, unlikely not to happen.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819

    "Thirdly, the council and all member states could agree to extend the period. This would be far from straightforward to secure and if the extension were to go beyond a few weeks, this would mean that the UK would be entitled to continuing representation in the European Parliament, which the other member states emphatically would not accept. This therefore looks unlikely. Better to devote everyone’s energies to concluding the deal on time instead"

    Although I am on "Yes" it is this one that gets me. An extension of a few weeks only. A bit of brinksmanship.

    However instead I think I will just trade out closer to the time when it is clear the other 3 aren't on the table

    On that point, yes it is a possible route to this market being a loser, but I think it's really quite unlikely. The reason is that it would involve quite a lot of work (and political egg on Mrs May's face) for 28 countries to agree the extension, and it's hard to see that that would be worth the hassle if it only made a few weeks' difference anyway. In addition, it would cause some chaos if the Brexit date were changed at the last moment, since governments, companies, tax authorities, regulators etc etc would all be working to March 29th. I think it's already priced in to Alastair's 1/4 fair value.
    I can't see us going for an extension period of less than 6 months and even then only if the express purpose of that extension was to reach a "final" trade deal with the EU post Brexit. Like you I think that the price the government would pay for such an extension is well beyond their current credit limit and that the rEU would not want it anyway.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,310

    I agree with Alastair on this market. Apart from the occasional low-liquidity special, I think it is the most obviously mispriced market I have seen since I first got interested in political betting in 2008.

    The power of wishful thinking is driving this. Long may it last.

    Actually as someone who has bet reasonably heavily on this market - I’d rather it reverted soon and I could cash out for most of my potential winnings!
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,380
    If the bet is based on 23:59:59 CET rather than GMT, then no, we wont leave the EU before then, we will leave 1 second later!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,594
    Providing the transition period is done from outside the formal structures of the EU, rather than as an extension to the A50 process, this should pay out at 6/4. I guess the biggest danger is a last-minute one-week or one-month extension to resolve something that came up at the very last minute. Not betting the house on it though.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    edited February 19

    HYUFD said:

    Mrs May still got the highest Tory voteshare for 34 years in June 2017 and the second highest number of Tory seats in that period and on this poll would get the second highest Tory voteshare for 26 years
    But all her stuff would be in the back of a removal van and Jezza would replace her in No. 10. Yes, a great poll for Tezzie.
    On this new Kantar poll Tories would win most seats but yes Corbyn could still be PM with SNP and Plaid and Green confidence and supply and if the LDs abstain
  • Cyclefree - An interesting post. I don't like the idea of paying more tax when a lot of the current taxes aren't well spent. My list would be as follows:

    - No more overseas military adventures unless we are directly attacked
    - Cut foreign aid spending to a similar level to France and Germany
    - Legalise and tax cannabis on a similar basis to cigarettes
    - Severe cuts to the large number of quangos. Why does Ofwat need 220 staff?
    - Organisations in receipt of government funding need to be seen to be frugal - no central London HQs
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 407

    Only a sub-sample of 170 or so, but it indicates a 20% swing from November 2017 in Scotland from SCon to SNP??

    On closer inspection the number of Don't Knows fluctuates wildly.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,865
    Pulpstar said:

    FF43 said:

    Though this might explain the market, and people think Brexit might/could be halted.

    When you add the Brexit is positive figure to the neutral no effects and neutral mixed effects, you get more than half the population, which is why there is no market to halt Brexit.
    There is no "broadly negative with some positives" category here, so I'm not sure whether I'd identify with the 44% or the 18% in this survey.
    Good point. You would be in the 18%. Mixed effects doesn't have to be neutral. My mistake, but other people might make it too.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,151
    In spite of all the agreement with Alastair on this thread, the Betfair price hasn't moved.

    Either you are already in this market or, if not, you are unpersuaded by the arguments here for Yes.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819

    Cyclefree said:


    So, some ideas off the top of my head:-

    - Income tax will need to go up - and not just on those earning over £85,000. Everyone - including Mr and Mrs Average and those at the bottom end - will need to pay more income tax.

    - Elimination of quite a lot of VAT exemptions.

    - I would reduce the rate of inheritance tax but make it payable on a wider range of assets and eliminate all (most?) of the exemptions so that there is much less incentive to try and avoid it. Hopefully that would raise more from more people

    The only thing I disagree with is that I would scrap NI - And raise Income tax to 32%, 42% and 47%. To be fair, I'd overhaul IT completely to be a bit more sensible. The current TRUE bandings are a farce (0%, 12%, 32%, briefly up to 52% (NI band is £45,032 - tax is £45,000), back to 42%, then up to 62% (losing personal allowance) before back to 42% and then finally back up to 47%.

    Goodness, having typed that I realise what a mess our tax system is. Where was George Osborne and his 'Tax simplification initiative'? The only thing he did was eliminate form P9D.

    And of course, if you're married (and get the Marriage allowance transfer) and claim child benefit like I do, the rates are even more convoluted.

    I completely agree that NI should be incorporated into IT now. Those living on rental or dividend income should not pay less tax than those who work for it (I accept of course that obtaining rent and indeed getting dividends from your own company does not mean it has not been worked for but this is all the more reason why this should be treated the same).

    That means more tax for the elderly better off. Tough. Many of those who retired on final salary pension schemes have far more disposable income as well as lower outgoings than those with young children trying to buy their first home.

    I also think we have reached the limits of taking people in work out of tax. Far too many people are being incentivised to vote for higher taxes in the confident expectation that they will not pay them. There is an attraction to avoiding the complication of taxes for those who are significant recipients of in work benefits but given how far up the income scale these still go we cannot avoid that.

    The more I think about the mess that is our tax system the more I want Michael Gove as Chancellor.
  • DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:


    So, some ideas off the top of my head:-

    - Income tax will need to go up - and not just on those earning over £85,000. Everyone - including Mr and Mrs Average and those at the bottom end - will need to pay more income tax.

    - Elimination of quite a lot of VAT exemptions.

    - I would reduce the rate of inheritance tax but make it payable on a wider range of assets and eliminate all (most?) of the exemptions so that there is much less incentive to try and avoid it. Hopefully that would raise more from more people

    The only thing I disagree with is that I would scrap NI - And raise Income tax to 32%, 42% and 47%. To be fair, I'd overhaul IT completely to be a bit more sensible. The current TRUE bandings are a farce (0%, 12%, 32%, briefly up to 52% (NI band is £45,032 - tax is £45,000), back to 42%, then up to 62% (losing personal allowance) before back to 42% and then finally back up to 47%.

    Goodness, having typed that I realise what a mess our tax system is. Where was George Osborne and his 'Tax simplification initiative'? The only thing he did was eliminate form P9D.

    And of course, if you're married (and get the Marriage allowance transfer) and claim child benefit like I do, the rates are even more convoluted.

    I completely agree that NI should be incorporated into IT now. Those living on rental or dividend income should not pay less tax than those who work for it (I accept of course that obtaining rent and indeed getting dividends from your own company does not mean it has not been worked for but this is all the more reason why this should be treated the same).

    That means more tax for the elderly better off. Tough. Many of those who retired on final salary pension schemes have far more disposable income as well as lower outgoings than those with young children trying to buy their first home.

    I also think we have reached the limits of taking people in work out of tax. Far too many people are being incentivised to vote for higher taxes in the confident expectation that they will not pay them. There is an attraction to avoiding the complication of taxes for those who are significant recipients of in work benefits but given how far up the income scale these still go we cannot avoid that.

    The more I think about the mess that is our tax system the more I want Michael Gove as Chancellor.
    I absolutely agree that tax simplification is the way to go. The problem is that if a Chancellor tries it the losers will be up in arms and the media will be desperate to label it as a "gaffe" or "the [xxx] tax"
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986
    stevef said:

    Sean_F said:

    Kantar were out on a limb, by giving the Conservatives a 4% lead in November. This is a reversion to the mean.
    But it didn't stop people using them as confirmation that the YouGov Con +4 poll wasn't an outlier.
    It is extraordinarily good for any government to be level pegging with an opposition in a non election year. Oppositions that go on to win elections are supposed to be ahead
    May should nail it in a surprise spring election then.

    What could possibly go wrong :)

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,424
    Hang on, maybe the market isn't quite so clear cut after all:

    14:06 A new political party hoping to halt Brexit and run candidates in all 650 constituencies at the next general election was launched in Westminster today in an optimistic attempt to capitalise on what its leaders said was disenchantment with established political parties.

    Renew has no high-profile candidates or donors and is led by three principals who have almost no prior political experience, although the philosopher AC Grayling was present at today’s launch, saying he was “rooting for” the party...


    https://www.theguardian.com/education/live/2018/feb/19/theresa-may-to-set-out-tuition-fee-proposals-politics-live
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,865
    I am trying to think of reasons why we wouldn't leave on 29th March next year. Mrs May is absolutely focused on leaving the EU that date. She doesn't care about anything else. The EU wants us to agree their exit terms - money, Ireland and citizens rights. If we baulk at those terms would Theresa May be so insistent to stick to the timetable and incur a crash out, or would she want to keep talking?

    (I think she will agree the terms).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    FF43 said:

    I am trying to think of reasons why we wouldn't leave on 29th March next year. Mrs May is absolutely focused on leaving the EU that date. She doesn't care about anything else. The EU wants us to agree their exit terms - money, Ireland and citizens rights. If we baulk at those terms would Theresa May be so insistent to stick to the timetable and incur a crash out, or would she want to keep talking?

    (I think she will agree the terms).

    We already have agreed the terms effectively, had we not we would not have completed Phase 1 of the talks and opened the way for FTA negotiations
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,310
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:


    So, some ideas off the top of my head:-

    - Income tax will need to go up - and not just on those earning over £85,000. Everyone - including Mr and Mrs Average and those at the bottom end - will need to pay more income tax.

    - Elimination of quite a lot of VAT exemptions.

    - I would reduce the rate of inheritance tax but make it payable on a wider range of assets and eliminate all (most?) of the exemptions so that there is much less incentive to try and avoid it. Hopefully that would raise more from more people

    The only thing I disagree with is that I would scrap NI - And raise Income tax to 32%, 42% and 47%. To be fair, I'd overhaul IT completely to be a bit more sensible. The current TRUE bandings are a farce (0%, 12%, 32%, briefly up to 52% (NI band is £45,032 - tax is £45,000), back to 42%, then up to 62% (losing personal allowance) before back to 42% and then finally back up to 47%.

    Goodness, having typed that I realise what a mess our tax system is. Where was George Osborne and his 'Tax simplification initiative'? The only thing he did was eliminate form P9D.

    And of course, if you're married (and get the Marriage allowance transfer) and claim child benefit like I do, the rates are even more convoluted.

    I completely agree that NI should be incorporated into IT now. Those living on rental or dividend income should not pay less tax than those who work for it (I accept of course that obtaining rent and indeed getting dividends from your own company does not mean it has not been worked for but this is all the more reason why this should be treated the same).

    That means more tax for the elderly better off. Tough. Many of those who retired on final salary pension schemes have far more disposable income as well as lower outgoings than those with young children trying to buy their first home.

    I also think we have reached the limits of taking people in work out of tax. Far too many people are being incentivised to vote for higher taxes in the confident expectation that they will not pay them. There is an attraction to avoiding the complication of taxes for those who are significant recipients of in work benefits but given how far up the income scale these still go we cannot avoid that.

    The more I think about the mess that is our tax system the more I want Michael Gove as Chancellor.
    I find Gove as Chancellor an intriguing prospect.
    I think it entirely possible that once there he would horrify many of his supporters.

    Is it far fetched to see him raising taxes on wealth significantly? Or slashing taxes on income for high earners? The range of possibilities is large I reckon.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077



    I absolutely agree that tax simplification is the way to go. The problem is that if a Chancellor tries it the losers will be up in arms and the media will be desperate to label it as a "gaffe" or "the [xxx] tax"

    The Tories utterly bottled it on a relatively minor NI change last year (Might have been 2016..) . (And didn't bother changing it after the GE either, nulling out the old 'manifesto' argument).
    So yes this always tends to be an issue ><
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819

    Cyclefree - An interesting post. I don't like the idea of paying more tax when a lot of the current taxes aren't well spent. My list would be as follows:

    - No more overseas military adventures unless we are directly attacked
    - Cut foreign aid spending to a similar level to France and Germany
    - Legalise and tax cannabis on a similar basis to cigarettes
    - Severe cuts to the large number of quangos. Why does Ofwat need 220 staff?
    - Organisations in receipt of government funding need to be seen to be frugal - no central London HQs

    So if we have the next ISIS taking over some failed State in the ME we should wait until they are sending the terrorists they train over here killing us in the UK?

    We should rely upon our friends in the EU to process the refugees from that failed state rather than paying money to look after them there?

    Well its a view.

    And I think you should also reflect on why attempts to curb the number of Quangos have so repeatedly failed. If you are going to have private provision of public services their provision has to be regulated effectively. You can have arguments about where the cost of that regulation should lie, you can argue about whether it is effective but anyone seriously arguing after 2007 that we don't need regulation of the delivery of services by business really hasn't been paying attention.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    Foxy said:

    stevef said:

    Sean_F said:

    Kantar were out on a limb, by giving the Conservatives a 4% lead in November. This is a reversion to the mean.
    But it didn't stop people using them as confirmation that the YouGov Con +4 poll wasn't an outlier.
    It is extraordinarily good for any government to be level pegging with an opposition in a non election year. Oppositions that go on to win elections are supposed to be ahead
    May should nail it in a surprise spring election then.

    What could possibly go wrong :)

    I have just placed a few pennies against a GE being called this year (£22/£127.60) so hopefully the Tories won't be so daft again !
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    On topic - Definitely a market with a major mispricing.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I completely agree that NI should be incorporated into IT now. Those living on rental or dividend income should not pay less tax than those who work for it (I accept of course that obtaining rent and indeed getting dividends from your own company does not mean it has not been worked for but this is all the more reason why this should be treated the same).

    That means more tax for the elderly better off. Tough. Many of those who retired on final salary pension schemes have far more disposable income as well as lower outgoings than those with young children trying to buy their first home.

    I also think we have reached the limits of taking people in work out of tax. Far too many people are being incentivised to vote for higher taxes in the confident expectation that they will not pay them. There is an attraction to avoiding the complication of taxes for those who are significant recipients of in work benefits but given how far up the income scale these still go we cannot avoid that.

    The more I think about the mess that is our tax system the more I want Michael Gove as Chancellor.
    I find Gove as Chancellor an intriguing prospect.
    I think it entirely possible that once there he would horrify many of his supporters.

    Is it far fetched to see him raising taxes on wealth significantly? Or slashing taxes on income for high earners? The range of possibilities is large I reckon.
    We urgently need some clear and radical thinking on tax. I can't think of anyone currently active in UK politics who is more likely to provide it.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,865
    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    I am trying to think of reasons why we wouldn't leave on 29th March next year. Mrs May is absolutely focused on leaving the EU that date. She doesn't care about anything else. The EU wants us to agree their exit terms - money, Ireland and citizens rights. If we baulk at those terms would Theresa May be so insistent to stick to the timetable and incur a crash out, or would she want to keep talking?

    (I think she will agree the terms).

    We already have agreed the terms effectively, had we not we would not have completed Phase 1 of the talks and opened the way for FTA negotiations
    The Irish border fudge will be turned into black and white legal commitments, there won't be anything about a trade deal in the Withdrawal Agreement and we are committing to wholesale adoption of EU rules and laws without any say (vassal state), at least for the short term. There is quite a lot Mrs May's stakeholders will find objectionable.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,174
    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I completely agree that NI should be incorporated into IT now. Those living on rental or dividend income should not pay less tax than those who work for it (I accept of course that obtaining rent and indeed getting dividends from your own company does not mean it has not been worked for but this is all the more reason why this should be treated the same).

    That means more tax for the elderly better off. Tough. Many of those who retired on final salary pension schemes have far more disposable income as well as lower outgoings than those with young children trying to buy their first home.

    I also think we have reached the limits of taking people in work out of tax. Far too many people are being incentivised to vote for higher taxes in the confident expectation that they will not pay them. There is an attraction to avoiding the complication of taxes for those who are significant recipients of in work benefits but given how far up the income scale these still go we cannot avoid that.

    The more I think about the mess that is our tax system the more I want Michael Gove as Chancellor.
    I find Gove as Chancellor an intriguing prospect.
    I think it entirely possible that once there he would horrify many of his supporters.

    Is it far fetched to see him raising taxes on wealth significantly? Or slashing taxes on income for high earners? The range of possibilities is large I reckon.
    We urgently need some clear and radical thinking on tax. I can't think of anyone currently active in UK politics who is more likely to provide it.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,601
    No time to do a proper reply to Cyclefree's interesting post, but I'd throw in a modest wealth tax on Swiss lines (http://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ID/Switzerland-Individual-Other-taxes) - essentially you pay 0.05% (i.e. one two thousandth) on £30,000-£140,000) rising to 0.3% over £1.7 million.

    The effect is to raise money almost imperceptibly from people who are well off (yes if you have £100 million you'll pay nearly £300,000, but on that bank balance you'll say meh), in a way that's harder to evade than income tax (because if you live here you have visible property here too that you can't move to the Cayman Islands); it also discourages people from just leaving wealth piled up in a current account and vacant property/unused land and nudges them into doing something with it, if only making it available for borrowing by someone else. I never met anyone in Switzerland, even rock-ribbed conservatives, who felt this unfair.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:


    So, some ideas off the top of my head:-

    - Income tax will need to go up - and not just on those earning over £85,000. Everyone - including Mr and Mrs Average and those at the bottom end - will need to pay more income tax.

    - Elimination of quite a lot of VAT exemptions.

    - I would reduce the rate of inheritance tax but make it payable on a wider range of assets and eliminate all (most?) of the exemptions so that there is much less incentive to try and avoid it. Hopefully that would raise more from more people

    The only thing I disagree with is that I would scrap NI - And raise Income tax to 32%, 42% and 47%. To be fair, I'd overhaul IT completely to be a bit more sensible. The current TRUE bandings are a farce (0%, 12%, 32%, briefly up to 52% (NI band is £45,032 - tax is £45,000), back to 42%, then up to 62% (losing personal allowance) before back to 42% and then finally back up to 47%.

    Goodness, having typed that I realise what a mess our tax system is. Where was George Osborne and his 'Tax simplification initiative'? The only thing he did was eliminate form P9D.

    And of course, if you're married (and get the Marriage allowance transfer) and claim child benefit like I do, the rates are even more convoluted.

    I completely agree that NI should be incorporated into IT now. Those living on rental or dividend income should not pay less tax than those who work for it (I accept of course that obtaining rent and indeed getting dividends from your own company does not mean it has not been worked for but this is all the more reason why this should be treated the same).

    That means more tax for the elderly better off. Tough. Many of hese still go we cannot avoid that.

    The more I think about the mess that is our tax system the more I want Michael Gove as Chancellor.
    I find Gove as Chancellor an intriguing prospect.
    I think it entirely possible that once there he would horrify many of his supporters.

    Is it far fetched to see him raising taxes on wealth significantly? Or slashing taxes on income for high earners? The range of possibilities is large I reckon.
    Electorally cutting the top rate of income tax while raising inheritance tax or capital gains tax and imposing a Mansion tax would be a disaster for the Tories so it won't happen.

    At the next general election Corbyn will be proposing to raise the top rate of income tax and inheritance tax and the Tories to keep the rates as they are
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    I am trying to think of reasons why we wouldn't leave on 29th March next year. Mrs May is absolutely focused on leaving the EU that date. She doesn't care about anything else. The EU wants us to agree their exit terms - money, Ireland and citizens rights. If we baulk at those terms would Theresa May be so insistent to stick to the timetable and incur a crash out, or would she want to keep talking?

    (I think she will agree the terms).

    We already have agreed the terms effectively, had we not we would not have completed Phase 1 of the talks and opened the way for FTA negotiations
    The Irish border fudge will be turned into black and white legal commitments, there won't be anything about a trade deal in the Withdrawal Agreement and we are committing to wholesale adoption of EU rules and laws without any say (vassal state), at least for the short term. There is quite a lot Mrs May's stakeholders will find objectionable.
    During the transition period maybe but that will still have ended by 2021 by which point we should be close to agreement on a FTA anyway
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,436
    edited February 19
    The next Ipsos/MORI will be interesting. It should be out any day now. January's figures were Lab 42%, Con 39%, LD 9%.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910
    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    I am trying to think of reasons why we wouldn't leave on 29th March next year. Mrs May is absolutely focused on leaving the EU that date. She doesn't care about anything else. The EU wants us to agree their exit terms - money, Ireland and citizens rights. If we baulk at those terms would Theresa May be so insistent to stick to the timetable and incur a crash out, or would she want to keep talking?

    (I think she will agree the terms).

    We already have agreed the terms effectively, had we not we would not have completed Phase 1 of the talks and opened the way for FTA negotiations
    The Irish border fudge will be turned into black and white legal commitments, there won't be anything about a trade deal in the Withdrawal Agreement and we are committing to wholesale adoption of EU rules and laws without any say (vassal state), at least for the short term. There is quite a lot Mrs May's stakeholders will find objectionable.
    It comes down to what her real objective is.

    Option 1) Keep dangling a harder Brexit as a carrot to keep the hardliners on board long enough to make the process of a soft Brexit irreversible.

    Option 2) Exhaust their opposition and then put the deal to the public in a dramatic gesture at the end of the process. An exact mirror of Cameron, but this time where people who say the deal isn't good enough will be boxed in to either swallowing their objections or supporting Remain.
  • DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I completely agree that NI should be incorporated into IT now. Those living on rental or dividend income should not pay less tax than those who work for it (I accept of course that obtaining rent and indeed getting dividends from your own company does not mean it has not been worked for but this is all the more reason why this should be treated the same).

    That means more tax for the elderly better off. Tough. Many of those who retired on final salary pension schemes have far more disposable income as well as lower outgoings than those with young children trying to buy their first home.

    I also think we have reached the limits of taking people in work out of tax. Far too many people are being incentivised to vote for higher taxes in the confident expectation that they will not pay them. There is an attraction to avoiding the complication of taxes for those who are significant recipients of in work benefits but given how far up the income scale these still go we cannot avoid that.

    The more I think about the mess that is our tax system the more I want Michael Gove as Chancellor.
    I find Gove as Chancellor an intriguing prospect.
    I think it entirely possible that once there he would horrify many of his supporters.

    Is it far fetched to see him raising taxes on wealth significantly? Or slashing taxes on income for high earners? The range of possibilities is large I reckon.
    We urgently need some clear and radical thinking on tax. I can't think of anyone currently active in UK politics who is more likely to provide it.
    In particular higher RPI inflation of 4.0% (with tripple lock) makes government outgoings on the state pension accelerate rapidly.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,865

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    I am trying to think of reasons why we wouldn't leave on 29th March next year. Mrs May is absolutely focused on leaving the EU that date. She doesn't care about anything else. The EU wants us to agree their exit terms - money, Ireland and citizens rights. If we baulk at those terms would Theresa May be so insistent to stick to the timetable and incur a crash out, or would she want to keep talking?

    (I think she will agree the terms).

    We already have agreed the terms effectively, had we not we would not have completed Phase 1 of the talks and opened the way for FTA negotiations
    The Irish border fudge will be turned into black and white legal commitments, there won't be anything about a trade deal in the Withdrawal Agreement and we are committing to wholesale adoption of EU rules and laws without any say (vassal state), at least for the short term. There is quite a lot Mrs May's stakeholders will find objectionable.
    It comes down to what her real objective is.

    Option 1) Keep dangling a harder Brexit as a carrot to keep the hardliners on board long enough to make the process of a soft Brexit irreversible.

    Option 2) Exhaust their opposition and then put the deal to the public in a dramatic gesture at the end of the process. An exact mirror of Cameron, but this time where people who say the deal isn't good enough will be boxed in to either swallowing their objections or supporting Remain.
    I don't want to tempt fate, but the fact Hard Brexiteers haven't brought Theresa May down yet, when it would be so easy for them to do so, suggests they don't wish to own the programme.
  • DavidL said:

    Cyclefree - An interesting post. I don't like the idea of paying more tax when a lot of the current taxes aren't well spent. My list would be as follows:

    - No more overseas military adventures unless we are directly attacked
    - Cut foreign aid spending to a similar level to France and Germany
    - Legalise and tax cannabis on a similar basis to cigarettes
    - Severe cuts to the large number of quangos. Why does Ofwat need 220 staff?
    - Organisations in receipt of government funding need to be seen to be frugal - no central London HQs

    So if we have the next ISIS taking over some failed State in the ME we should wait until they are sending the terrorists they train over here killing us in the UK?

    We should rely upon our friends in the EU to process the refugees from that failed state rather than paying money to look after them there?

    Well its a view.

    And I think you should also reflect on why attempts to curb the number of Quangos have so repeatedly failed. If you are going to have private provision of public services their provision has to be regulated effectively. You can have arguments about where the cost of that regulation should lie, you can argue about whether it is effective but anyone seriously arguing after 2007 that we don't need regulation of the delivery of services by business really hasn't been paying attention.
    With regards to your failed state example, that assumes that we can effectively intervene to fix the situation. In Libya, we intervened to get rid of Gaddafi who was not by any means a nice man but at least held the country together. We now have a fractured state, with ISIS groups operating in parts of it and a base for large numbers of refugee crossings. We need to realise that we can't fix problems with bombers only but there is no political appetite for boots on the ground. It's better not to intervene at all than do a half-arsed job and make things worse

    As for Quangos, I'm not saying get rid of them altogether, but you don't have to look hard to find examples of waste. For example:‏

    @VitaeJobs
    2h2 hours ago
    More
  • Hang on, maybe the market isn't quite so clear cut after all:

    14:06 A new political party hoping to halt Brexit and run candidates in all 650 constituencies at the next general election was launched in Westminster today in an optimistic attempt to capitalise on what its leaders said was disenchantment with established political parties.

    Renew has no high-profile candidates or donors and is led by three principals who have almost no prior political experience, although the philosopher AC Grayling was present at today’s launch, saying he was “rooting for” the party...


    https://www.theguardian.com/education/live/2018/feb/19/theresa-may-to-set-out-tuition-fee-proposals-politics-live

    Have the Lib Dems relaunched?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,174
    Only 3? I will have to change to another brand. :lol:
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,148
    I'm generally in favour of wealth taxes. However, it should be noted that they would greatly increase the extent to which London subsidised the rest of the country. In the present political dynamics, this would be like throwing a match into a powderkeg.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,178
    FF43 said:

    I think it is easier to stop or delay Brexit on legal grounds than set out here. The keywords in Article 50 are " in accordance with its own constitutional requirements" JC Piris, former EU Commission Legal Counsel, contends that this condition applies until the Treaties are nullified. In other words, if the UK decides it no longer wants to Brexit, it would no longer accord with its requirements.

    However, we would probably only NOT leave on that date the EU if either the government changes its mind or the process is subject to a legal challenge. Even a technical delay, which is quite likely, will probably be dealt with using an interim version of the Transition Agreement rather than delaying the exit date.

    So yes, unlikely not to happen.

    No, the text says:

    "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

    That is a one-off action: it decides. There was an exceptionally high-powered court case which determined what the constitutional requirements were. These were then met. Whether or not the government, parliament or people subsequently decide that their *political* requirements have changed does not affect whether or not A50 notification was lawfully given.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,174
    May now burbling on about HE and funding. Live on BBC if you are really bored.
  • DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I completely agree that NI should be incorporated into IT now. Those living on rental or dividend income should not pay less tax than those who work for it (I accept of course that obtaining rent and indeed getting dividends from your own company does not mean it has not been worked for but this is all the more reason why this should be treated the same).

    That means more tax for the elderly better off. Tough. Many of those who retired on final salary pension schemes have far more disposable income as well as lower outgoings than those with young children trying to buy their first home.

    I also think we have reached the limits of taking people in work out of tax. Far too many people are being incentivised to vote for higher taxes in the confident expectation that they will not pay them. There is an attraction to avoiding the complication of taxes for those who are significant recipients of in work benefits but given how far up the income scale these still go we cannot avoid that.

    The more I think about the mess that is our tax system the more I want Michael Gove as Chancellor.
    I find Gove as Chancellor an intriguing prospect.
    I think it entirely possible that once there he would horrify many of his supporters.

    Is it far fetched to see him raising taxes on wealth significantly? Or slashing taxes on income for high earners? The range of possibilities is large I reckon.
    We urgently need some clear and radical thinking on tax. I can't think of anyone currently active in UK politics who is more likely to provide it.
    In particular higher RPI inflation of 4.0% (with tripple lock) makes government outgoings on the state pension accelerate rapidly.

    Plus remember state pensions are unfunded by governments and they don't include the liability for future pension payments in the public debt figures.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,865
    edited February 19
    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    I am trying to think of reasons why we wouldn't leave on 29th March next year. Mrs May is absolutely focused on leaving the EU that date. She doesn't care about anything else. The EU wants us to agree their exit terms - money, Ireland and citizens rights. If we baulk at those terms would Theresa May be so insistent to stick to the timetable and incur a crash out, or would she want to keep talking?

    (I think she will agree the terms).

    We already have agreed the terms effectively, had we not we would not have completed Phase 1 of the talks and opened the way for FTA negotiations
    The Irish border fudge will be turned into black and white legal commitments, there won't be anything about a trade deal in the Withdrawal Agreement and we are committing to wholesale adoption of EU rules and laws without any say (vassal state), at least for the short term. There is quite a lot Mrs May's stakeholders will find objectionable.
    During the transition period maybe but that will still have ended by 2021 by which point we should be close to agreement on a FTA anyway
    Very low chances of being close to agreement on an FTA by the second cliff edge. We will either have to agree a second standstill extension or we head to WTO outer orbit. The cost to the EU of us going No Deal diminish over time, but not to us. The EU have got this sussed out, I think.
  • AndyJS said:

    The next Ipsos/MORI will be interesting. It should be out any day now. January's figures were Lab 42%, Con 39%, LD 9%.
    Ben says he thinks it is out next week.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,310
    HYUFD said:



    Electorally cutting the top rate of income tax while raising inheritance tax or capital gains tax and imposing a Mansion tax would be a disaster for the Tories so it won't happen.

    At the next general election Corbyn will be proposing to raise the top rate of income tax and inheritance tax and the Tories to keep the rates as they are

    Calling a snap election with a dementia tax WAS an electoral disaster. Didn't stop it from happening.

    For public services to stay as they are we need to raise more tax.
    All parties need to think about that, or start advocating for reduced public service provision.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,940

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I completely agree that NI should be incorporated into IT now. Those living on rental or dividend income should not pay less tax than those who work for it (I accept of course that obtaining rent and indeed getting dividends from your own company does not mean it has not been worked for but this is all the more reason why this should be treated the same).

    That means more tax for the elderly better off. Tough. Many of those who retired on final salary pension schemes have far more disposable income as well as lower outgoings than those with young children trying to buy their first home.

    I also think we have reached the limits of taking people in work out of tax. Far too many people are being incentivised to vote for higher taxes in the confident expectation that they will not pay them. There is an attraction to avoiding the complication of taxes for those who are significant recipients of in work benefits but given how far up the income scale these still go we cannot avoid that.

    The more I think about the mess that is our tax system the more I want Michael Gove as Chancellor.
    I find Gove as Chancellor an intriguing prospect.
    I think it entirely possible that once there he would horrify many of his supporters.

    Is it far fetched to see him raising taxes on wealth significantly? Or slashing taxes on income for high earners? The range of possibilities is large I reckon.
    We urgently need some clear and radical thinking on tax. I can't think of anyone currently active in UK politics who is more likely to provide it.
    In particular higher RPI inflation of 4.0% (with tripple lock) makes government outgoings on the state pension accelerate rapidly.

    Plus remember state pensions are unfunded by governments and they don't include the liability for future pension payments in the public debt figures.
    Triple Lock is CPI isn't it?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    That's rubbish. The room will be filled with journalists and politicians, groupings who would make a pre-school nursery child seem adult.

    In fact, I wonder if they'll have to wear yellow hi-viz jackets hen they leave and to be escorted by a few teachers along the road. :)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077


    They don't include the liability for future pension payments in the public debt figures.

    Do they not :o - Jesus, that is simply a trillion pound accounting trick.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910
    edited February 19

    FF43 said:

    I think it is easier to stop or delay Brexit on legal grounds than set out here. The keywords in Article 50 are " in accordance with its own constitutional requirements" JC Piris, former EU Commission Legal Counsel, contends that this condition applies until the Treaties are nullified. In other words, if the UK decides it no longer wants to Brexit, it would no longer accord with its requirements.

    However, we would probably only NOT leave on that date the EU if either the government changes its mind or the process is subject to a legal challenge. Even a technical delay, which is quite likely, will probably be dealt with using an interim version of the Transition Agreement rather than delaying the exit date.

    So yes, unlikely not to happen.

    No, the text says:

    "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

    That is a one-off action: it decides. There was an exceptionally high-powered court case which determined what the constitutional requirements were. These were then met. Whether or not the government, parliament or people subsequently decide that their *political* requirements have changed does not affect whether or not A50 notification was lawfully given.
    This is the former head of the European Council's legal service:
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,178
    edited February 19
    On topic, I agree that Yes is the value bet but I don't think it's close to the 1/4 near-certainty that Alastair suggests.

    There are at least two potentially large flies in the ointment.

    1. Getting a deal. This will likely go well past the October preferred deadline, at least to the December summit and quite possibly well into 2019. None of the governments, or the Commission, will want Britain to leave without a deal but neither will it be quickly settled. There are a lot of interests and there are a lot of details.

    2. The European Parliament. i don't expect Westminster to cause serious difficulties. It hasn't so far and come the crunch vote, the stakes are so high that I'd expect virtually all Con MPs to fall into line, together with the DUP. If there are rebels, they'll likely be outnumbered by Labour ones, if Labour chooses to oppose what's been agreed. however, the EP is a different matter and Verhofstadt it a prat. The MEPs don't have the same accountability to their public and with only weeks to go before the EP elections, might do something silly. Sorting that out could necessitate an extension of weeks.

    While i don't think that either of these are particularly likely - in the case of the former, a lot can be kicked into the transition phase - I don't think the combined chance (plus failure for any other reason) is less than 20%.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    I think the elephant in the room is that punters are assuming either, (a) the HoL rejects the EU withdrawal bill outright, which would make it very difficult for the Government to reintroduce and pass again by the deadline, and might lead to a vote of no confidence, a GE, and an anti-Brexit Government taking its place (b) the vote on the final "deal" in the HoC and/or HoL also fails, leading to a VoNC and a GE for similar reasons, (c) May is toppled for any other reason and a new PM takes over, indirectly leading to (b), or (a) if it's early enough, or (d) Brexit is deferred by mutual agreement of the UK and the EU member states/European Council.

    My view is that on (a) the HoL will send back lots of amendments (some of which will be accepted by the HoC, and some not) but won't affect the date or the Bill, which will become law, (b) the final deal will pass the HoC - the vote will be used as leverage, (c) May will survive (just) because it's too late now and there is finally some movement on the deal, and (d) neither the EU or UK want to defer Brexit.

    I'd say it's a 70-75% of end of March next year (a probability that will approach 85-90% by the end of the year) so, allowing for a bit of risk, I would back down to aroundabout 1.3-1.4 on Betfair myself.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    This market might even be so good as to give Alastair Meeks a direct financial interest in seeing Brexit completed.

    I await his future pro-Leave posts with much anticipation.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree - An interesting post. I don't like the idea of paying more tax when a lot of the current taxes aren't well spent. My list would be as follows:

    - No more overseas military adventures unless we are directly attacked
    - Cut foreign aid spending to a similar level to France and Germany
    - Legalise and tax cannabis on a similar basis to cigarettes
    - Severe cuts to the large number of quangos. Why does Ofwat need 220 staff?
    - Organisations in receipt of government funding need to be seen to be frugal - no central London HQs

    So if we have the next ISIS taking over some failed State in the ME we should wait until they are sending the terrorists they train over here killing us in the UK?

    We should rely upon our friends in the EU to process the refugees from that failed state rather than paying money to look after them there?

    Well its a view.

    And I think you should also reflect on why attempts to curb the number of Quangos have so repeatedly failed. If you are going to have private provision of public services their provision has to be regulated effectively. You can have arguments about where the cost of that regulation should lie, you can argue about whether it is effective but anyone seriously arguing after 2007 that we don't need regulation of the delivery of services by business really hasn't been paying attention.
    With regards to your failed state example, that assumes that we can effectively intervene to fix the situation. In Libya, we intervened to get rid of Gaddafi who was not by any means a nice man but at least held the country together. We now have a fractured state, with ISIS groups operating in parts of it and a base for large numbers of refugee crossings. We need to realise that we can't fix problems with bombers only but there is no political appetite for boots on the ground. It's better not to intervene at all than do a half-arsed job and make things worse

    As for Quangos, I'm not saying get rid of them altogether, but you don't have to look hard to find examples of waste. For example:‏

    @VitaeJobs
    2h2 hours ago
    More
    With modest UK assistance ISIS have been defeated and destroyed. This clearly makes us safer and was in our interests.

    The link to your job didn't work. I fully support VFM and the budgets of Quangos need to be carefully monitored. But they also need to be adequately resourced to do their jobs.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,940

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mrs May still got the highest Tory voteshare for 34 years in June 2017 and the second highest number of Tory seats in that period and on this poll would get the second highest Tory voteshare for 26 years
    Why isnt Corbyn Labour ahead by as much as Miliband Labour was ahead?
    Because that's when polls were overestimating Labour.

    Remember 2 out the 3 last general elections has seen Labour underestimated in the polls.
    Dont waste your breath on this poster
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,865

    FF43 said:

    I think it is easier to stop or delay Brexit on legal grounds than set out here. The keywords in Article 50 are " in accordance with its own constitutional requirements" JC Piris, former EU Commission Legal Counsel, contends that this condition applies until the Treaties are nullified. In other words, if the UK decides it no longer wants to Brexit, it would no longer accord with its requirements.

    However, we would probably only NOT leave on that date the EU if either the government changes its mind or the process is subject to a legal challenge. Even a technical delay, which is quite likely, will probably be dealt with using an interim version of the Transition Agreement rather than delaying the exit date.

    So yes, unlikely not to happen.

    No, the text says:

    "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

    That is a one-off action: it decides. There was an exceptionally high-powered court case which determined what the constitutional requirements were. These were then met. Whether or not the government, parliament or people subsequently decide that their *political* requirements have changed does not affect whether or not A50 notification was lawfully given.
    Piris' point is that the constitutional requirement doesn't apply to the notification; it applies to the act of leaving. Therefore the government can withdraw its application at any time until the treaties lapse. He was the EU's chief law officer, so he should carry some weight.

    It's hypothetical because the government won't withdraw its application.

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,380
    Makes a change from a warehouse.

    Has she announced a policy U-turn followed by "Nothing has changed! Nothing has changed!"?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    On taxes, my view is that income is already heavily taxed. Most people are paying 32%
    on any significant income and 42% if they are doing well, on top of which they're paying 2-5% gross contributions for pensions.

    Most people really struggle to have much left each month over after paying council tax on top
    (another £1k+) utility bills, food, mortgage/rent and transport costs. I don't think it's fair
    at all for the State to add to the burden.

    We need to get away from the idea you spend the last 20 years of your life "idle" - the world has moved on, and we can't afford it - and we generally need to tax assets and net worth more, and income less.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,174

    Makes a change from a warehouse.

    Has she announced a policy U-turn followed by "Nothing has changed! Nothing has changed!"?
    No. She has announced that there will be a year long review. Something we were told at the weekend, and really wasn't any need for her to travel to Derby to tell us again.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,212

    No time to do a proper reply to Cyclefree's interesting post, but I'd throw in a modest wealth tax on Swiss lines (http://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ID/Switzerland-Individual-Other-taxes) - essentially you pay 0.05% (i.e. one two thousandth) on £30,000-£140,000) rising to 0.3% over £1.7 million.

    The effect is to raise money almost imperceptibly from people who are well off (yes if you have £100 million you'll pay nearly £300,000, but on that bank balance you'll say meh), in a way that's harder to evade than income tax (because if you live here you have visible property here too that you can't move to the Cayman Islands); it also discourages people from just leaving wealth piled up in a current account and vacant property/unused land and nudges them into doing something with it, if only making it available for borrowing by someone else. I never met anyone in Switzerland, even rock-ribbed conservatives, who felt this unfair.

    On £1.7 million that is about £5100 p.a. which is bearable.

    Just one query: you say that it discourages people from leaving wealth in a current account. Why would it do that? You'd pay the tax whether it was in a current account or in an ISA invested in shares. The only way it would discourage such use is if some other use rendered the wealth exempt from the tax. Is that how it works in Switzerland?

    I had understood that the point of such a tax is that it is on all wealth, regardless of its use.

    Maybe I have misunderstood.

    The only other point I would make is that, like council tax, you might want to have a higher rate for those worth very much more than £2 mio i.e. those with say, £10 mio or £20 mio worth of assets.

    The other question is whether a wealth tax such as this would be in addition to CGT, council tax or a replacement for it.

    Tax simplification - as other posters have pointed out already - is key both to making the system fairer and more efficient.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,066
    edited February 19
    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    I am trying to think of reasons why we wouldn't leave on 29th March next year. Mrs May is absolutely focused on leaving the EU that date. She doesn't care about anything else. The EU wants us to agree their exit terms - money, Ireland and citizens rights. If we baulk at those terms would Theresa May be so insistent to stick to the timetable and incur a crash out, or would she want to keep talking?

    (I think she will agree the terms).

    We already have agreed the terms effectively, had we not we would not have completed Phase 1 of the talks and opened the way for FTA negotiations
    The Irish border fudge will be turned into black and white legal commitments, there won't be anything about a trade deal in the Withdrawal Agreement and we are committing to wholesale adoption of EU rules and laws without any say (vassal state), at least for the short term. There is quite a lot Mrs May's stakeholders will find objectionable.
    During the transition period maybe but that will still have ended by 2021 by which point we should be close to agreement on a FTA anyway
    A Canada style FTA is not compatible with an open border and frictionless trade with the EU. We are either going to have to roll over and accept long term alignment of customs and product regulation or we must repudiate what we agreed in stage one and state clearly that a border across Ireland is unavoidable.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532

    No time to do a proper reply to Cyclefree's interesting post, but I'd throw in a modest wealth tax on Swiss lines (http://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ID/Switzerland-Individual-Other-taxes) - essentially you pay 0.05% (i.e. one two thousandth) on £30,000-£140,000) rising to 0.3% over £1.7 million.

    The effect is to raise money almost imperceptibly from people who are well off (yes if you have £100 million you'll pay nearly £300,000, but on that bank balance you'll say meh), in a way that's harder to evade than income tax (because if you live here you have visible property here too that you can't move to the Cayman Islands); it also discourages people from just leaving wealth piled up in a current account and vacant property/unused land and nudges them into doing something with it, if only making it available for borrowing by someone else. I never met anyone in Switzerland, even rock-ribbed conservatives, who felt this unfair.

    It worries me that as a right-winger I am struggling to disagree with that.

    My redlines would be: no-one turfed out of their family home, or property, against their will. I would baseline such a tax to a property value index, reviewed annually. I want to see the super-rich and "tax-efficient" investment portfolios paying more tax, not ordinary families.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,041

    On topic, I agree that Yes is the value bet but I don't think it's close to the 1/4 near-certainty that Alastair suggests.

    There are at least two potentially large flies in the ointment.

    1. Getting a deal. This will likely go well past the October preferred deadline, at least to the December summit and quite possibly well into 2019. None of the governments, or the Commission, will want Britain to leave without a deal but neither will it be quickly settled. There are a lot of interests and there are a lot of details.

    2. The European Parliament. i don't expect Westminster to cause serious difficulties. It hasn't so far and come the crunch vote, the stakes are so high that I'd expect virtually all Con MPs to fall into line, together with the DUP. If there are rebels, they'll likely be outnumbered by Labour ones, if Labour chooses to oppose what's been agreed. however, the EP is a different matter and Verhofstadt it a prat. The MEPs don't have the same accountability to their public and with only weeks to go before the EP elections, might do something silly. Sorting that out could necessitate an extension of weeks.

    While i don't think that either of these are particularly likely - in the case of the former, a lot can be kicked into the transition phase - I don't think the combined chance (plus failure for any other reason) is less than 20%.

    I agree about the EP. But how can they hold the EU election if the UK is still in the EU. Will Guy want to keep Farage for a while longer as he will miss his old adversary?!!
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,310

    No time to do a proper reply to Cyclefree's interesting post, but I'd throw in a modest wealth tax on Swiss lines (http://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ID/Switzerland-Individual-Other-taxes) - essentially you pay 0.05% (i.e. one two thousandth) on £30,000-£140,000) rising to 0.3% over £1.7 million.

    The effect is to raise money almost imperceptibly from people who are well off (yes if you have £100 million you'll pay nearly £300,000, but on that bank balance you'll say meh), in a way that's harder to evade than income tax (because if you live here you have visible property here too that you can't move to the Cayman Islands); it also discourages people from just leaving wealth piled up in a current account and vacant property/unused land and nudges them into doing something with it, if only making it available for borrowing by someone else. I never met anyone in Switzerland, even rock-ribbed conservatives, who felt this unfair.

    It worries me that as a right-winger I am struggling to disagree with that.

    My redlines would be: no-one turfed out of their family home, or property, against their will. I would baseline such a tax to a property value index, reviewed annually. I want to see the super-rich and "tax-efficient" investment portfolios paying more tax, not ordinary families.
    Time to vote Labour or Lib Dem then!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819

    That's rubbish. The room will be filled with journalists and politicians, groupings who would make a pre-school nursery child seem adult.

    In fact, I wonder if they'll have to wear yellow hi-viz jackets hen they leave and to be escorted by a few teachers along the road. :)
    One of the more bizarre aspects (and there were several) that my wife had to deal with was having a safety plan for any trip outwith the college. If this involved a trip by a class of adults to the local court to see a court case, for example, she would need to specify what their travel plans might be, what potential hazards might arise and what contingencies she had in place to deal with such emergencies. It really made such trips unattractive. No one, of course, ever looked at the paper produced.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,940

    No time to do a proper reply to Cyclefree's interesting post, but I'd throw in a modest wealth tax on Swiss lines (http://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ID/Switzerland-Individual-Other-taxes) - essentially you pay 0.05% (i.e. one two thousandth) on £30,000-£140,000) rising to 0.3% over £1.7 million.

    The effect is to raise money almost imperceptibly from people who are well off (yes if you have £100 million you'll pay nearly £300,000, but on that bank balance you'll say meh), in a way that's harder to evade than income tax (because if you live here you have visible property here too that you can't move to the Cayman Islands); it also discourages people from just leaving wealth piled up in a current account and vacant property/unused land and nudges them into doing something with it, if only making it available for borrowing by someone else. I never met anyone in Switzerland, even rock-ribbed conservatives, who felt this unfair.

    It worries me that as a right-winger I am struggling to disagree with that.

    My redlines would be: no-one turfed out of their family home, or property, against their will. I would baseline such a tax to a property value index, reviewed annually. I want to see the super-rich and "tax-efficient" investment portfolios paying more tax, not ordinary families.
    Thats it were all agreed then.

    I will ring Jezza
This discussion has been closed.