Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With the media narrative moving against UKIP the Tory prosp

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited September 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With the media narrative moving against UKIP the Tory prospects for EURO2014 start to look better

However you look at yesterday’s events at the Ukip conference it is hard to see how it has advanced the purples’ cause. Farage and his team were put under pressure from a hostile media and didn’t perform very well.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Labour will win the Euro elections .... last hurrah for Ed.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Mike, have you noticed the young un's have no stomach for pre breakfast postings - lightweights !!
  • If Mike had taken off his Westminster-tinted spectacles he might have instead written:

    * With the Tory prospects for EURO2014 starting to look better, the Yes prospects for IndyRef2014 start to look better too.

    * If the English Tories start to recover the main beneficiary will be the Scottish National Party. Spirits in the Yes camp must have surged overnight.

    Best prices - Scottish independence referendum

    Yes 9/2 (StanJames, Ladbrokes)
    No 2/9 (Betfair)
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Good morning and the Bloom videos from yesterday are priceless. My favourite was his attack on a BBC journalist, hitting him with the conference programme and accusing him of being racist.

    Meanwhile back at the North Queensferry control bunker, a new supply of Nokia phones are on order as the McBride book leads to a surge in mobile phone sales (and repairs) in the Edinburgh/Fife coastal area.

    Milibland the Younger had better be very sure there is no paper trail leading from him to either Draper or McBride. We can be sure the Daily Mail and the News International stable will be sniffing around for evidence, if in fact they don't already have it.

    For politicos and Westminster village types, none of the McBride revelations are new. However for the general public, news that a PM's intimate team of handlers including Balls, Bland the Younger, McBride and Draper were operating a media department allegedly aimed more at smearing others than spinning news will come as new and for many a shock.

    Gordon Brown has made loads of enemies over the past 3 decades and frankly many of them still have wounds to lick. Would be very surprised if the Daily Mail doesn't have its best splash for the night before the Leader's speech at the Labour Conference.

    Best thing right now for David Cameron is for the Tory Conference to be slightly lacklustre and boring with no-one rocking the boat. Bloom and McBride seem to be doing it all for him.

    In Scotland, this could transform the YES campaign. I have long said that Eck's best hope is the likelihood of another Cameron government in "England" and the Brown revelations will disappoint many Scots who were blinkered towards Brown.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    edited September 2013
    Mike Smithson:
    "Latest price for next May’s election is 9/2 which looks value."
    That didn't last long. Already shortened to 4/1, and the day is but young.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    I thought the flavour of the UK government only shifted the independence polling by a couple of points, hardly transformative for the Yes campaign given the large deficit they are currently at in the polls.
  • RobD said:

    I thought the flavour of the UK government only shifted the independence polling by a couple of points, hardly transformative for the Yes campaign given the large deficit they are currently at in the polls.

    Link?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    I thought the flavour of the UK government only shifted the independence polling by a couple of points, hardly transformative for the Yes campaign given the large deficit they are currently at in the polls.

    Link?
    I can't remember the specific source, but recall it being discussed here, unless I am misremembering!

  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    If Mike had taken off his Westminster-tinted spectacles he might have instead written:

    * With the Tory prospects for EURO2014 starting to look better, the Yes prospects for IndyRef2014 start to look better too.

    * If the English Tories start to recover the main beneficiary will be the Scottish National Party. Spirits in the Yes camp must have surged overnight.

    Best prices - Scottish independence referendum

    Yes 9/2 (StanJames, Ladbrokes)
    No 2/9 (Betfair)

    If true then it also enhances Tory prospects for future GE's in England
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    edited September 2013

    Meanwhile back at the North Queensferry control bunker, a new supply of Nokia phones are on order as the McBride book leads to a surge in mobile phone sales (and repairs) in the Edinburgh/Fife coastal area.

    ... For politicos and Westminster village types, none of the McBride revelations are new.

    ... Gordon Brown has made loads of enemies over the past 3 decades and frankly many of them still have wounds to lick.

    Morning Mark.

    I am not sure about your statement "none of the McBride revelations are new". This story was certainly new for me, and will cause spasms in the SLAB body politic. Oh, the joys of schadenfreude.

    'Douglas Alexander stabbed sister in back - McBride'
    In his memoirs, Mr McBride claims that Ms Alexander’s brother told Mr Brown his sister would have to stand down to “avoid further damage”.

    Mr Alexander also allegedly warned his boss that his sister’s resignation should not be linked to comments she made about the independence referendum.

    In 2008, when the SNP was in a minority administration at Holyrood, Ms Alexander challenged the Nationalists to “bring it on’’ and call an early referendum on independence.

    Mr Alexander discussed the matter with Mr Brown, said Mr McBride.

    “Dispassionately, he told the prime minister that his sister had to quit in order to avoid further damage,” Mr McBride claims.

    “However, Douglas warned Gordon she’d need to make it clear that the reason was to do with the donation – and nothing to do with the referendum. If I was sometimes cold-blooded about how I did my job, I had nothing on Douglas that day.”
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/douglas-alexander-stabbed-sister-in-back-mcbride-1-3105134

    Everyone knew why Wendy was really sacked, but it is nice to have confirmation that it was the “bring it on" that ended her career.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    I thought the flavour of the UK government only shifted the independence polling by a couple of points, hardly transformative for the Yes campaign given the large deficit they are currently at in the polls.

    Link?
    http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/7963-poll-shows-yes-ahead-no-matter-who-leads-uk-government

    When people were asked if they would be more or less likely to vote for independence if there were a Conservative led government or a Conservative/LibDem coalition at Westminster this lead hardens to a total of 50% likely to vote Yes to independence (41% very likely, 9% quite likely). A total of 41% would vote No with 8% who don't know.

    Polls have previously shown that a Conservative government in Westminster would make a 'Yes' vote more likely but this latest poll shows that a Labour led government at Westminster would also make a 'Yes' vote more likely, though by slightly less, with 47% likely and 42% unlikely to vote for an independent Scotland.
    Interestingly the yes vote was higher even with a Labour government, compared to the headline figures of yes 44, no 43.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    Based on my southern perception and anecdotes from up in the far north, I still expect a narrow victory for yes.

    Euros will be hard to anticipate, but may become clearer after the German elections when any road for Cameron to take towards negotiating new terms will either become open our blocked off.
  • felix said:

    If Mike had taken off his Westminster-tinted spectacles he might have instead written:

    * With the Tory prospects for EURO2014 starting to look better, the Yes prospects for IndyRef2014 start to look better too.

    * If the English Tories start to recover the main beneficiary will be the Scottish National Party. Spirits in the Yes camp must have surged overnight.

    Best prices - Scottish independence referendum

    Yes 9/2 (StanJames, Ladbrokes)
    No 2/9 (Betfair)

    If true then it also enhances Tory prospects for future GE's in England
    The more that English Conservatives start to believe that the happier I become.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    felix said:

    If Mike had taken off his Westminster-tinted spectacles he might have instead written:

    * With the Tory prospects for EURO2014 starting to look better, the Yes prospects for IndyRef2014 start to look better too.

    * If the English Tories start to recover the main beneficiary will be the Scottish National Party. Spirits in the Yes camp must have surged overnight.

    Best prices - Scottish independence referendum

    Yes 9/2 (StanJames, Ladbrokes)
    No 2/9 (Betfair)

    If true then it also enhances Tory prospects for future GE's in England
    The more that English Conservatives start to believe that the happier I become.


    Happy enough to actually go and live in Scotland?
  • In Scotland, this could transform the YES campaign. I have long said that Eck's best hope is the likelihood of another Cameron government in "England" and the Brown revelations will disappoint many Scots who were blinkered towards Brown.

    Indeed.

    Can the No parties continue shooting themselves in their feet at this impressive rate? Here's hoping!

    The combination of the UKIP and McBride implosions could not have come at a better time for the Yes campaign.

    'Scottish independence: Pro-independence rally to be held in Edinburgh'

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24183083

  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I thought the flavour of the UK government only shifted the independence polling by a couple of points, hardly transformative for the Yes campaign given the large deficit they are currently at in the polls.

    Link?
    http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/7963-poll-shows-yes-ahead-no-matter-who-leads-uk-government

    When people were asked if they would be more or less likely to vote for independence if there were a Conservative led government or a Conservative/LibDem coalition at Westminster this lead hardens to a total of 50% likely to vote Yes to independence (41% very likely, 9% quite likely). A total of 41% would vote No with 8% who don't know.

    Polls have previously shown that a Conservative government in Westminster would make a 'Yes' vote more likely but this latest poll shows that a Labour led government at Westminster would also make a 'Yes' vote more likely, though by slightly less, with 47% likely and 42% unlikely to vote for an independent Scotland.
    Interestingly the yes vote was higher even with a Labour government, compared to the headline figures of yes 44, no 43.

    That Panelbase poll has been discredited - ignore it

  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Just asked Kevin Maguire on Twitter whether he has featured in the McBride excerpts yet. Must be only a matter of time since he was part of Brown's magic circle.

    Only someone as uber privileged as Rachel Reeves could think £60k isn't seen as rich. She should ask the good people of Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool or anywhere north of there. Suspect they will have a very different view. Up here in the Highlands, few senior managers or company directors earn £60k.

    Was interested to read that Reeves husband was Gordon Brown's private secretary and speech-writer at one time. Another link into the spider's web!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941


    That Panelbase poll has been discredited - ignore it

    While the absolute values in the poll may be discredited, does that also discredit the relative differences between the two responses (Labour-led or Conservative-led)?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    JackW said:

    Mike, have you noticed the young un's have no stomach for pre breakfast postings - lightweights !!

    I have just stumbled in from a JohnO-type night out and havent eaten breakfast yet. Do I qualify as a heavyweight?!

  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650
    One little mouthy Kipper is hardly media coverage moving against UKIP.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    SMukesh said:

    One little mouthy Kipper is hardly media coverage moving against UKIP.

    Farage said their national conference had been destroyed.

  • Farage lost the plot and The EDs are trying to deny one..
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    edited September 2013
    SMukesh said:

    One little mouthy Kipper is hardly media coverage moving against UKIP.

    It's not the incident it's the reaction (although the reaction isn't over yet so could end up positive).
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Just asked Kevin Maguire on Twitter whether he has featured in the McBride excerpts yet. Must be only a matter of time since he was part of Brown's magic circle.

    Only someone as uber privileged as Rachel Reeves could think £60k isn't seen as rich. She should ask the good people of Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool or anywhere north of there. Suspect they will have a very different view. Up here in the Highlands, few senior managers or company directors earn £60k.

    Was interested to read that Reeves husband was Gordon Brown's private secretary and speech-writer at one time. Another link into the spider's web!

    She was absolutely spot on. To any aspiring, hard working person £60k is not a matter of dreams, it is achievable.

    What you deliberately did not mention was that her £60k comments continued and disclosed that Labour will not increase any taxes on people earning upto £60k because , quite rightly, they are not rich !
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    What are the odds that UKIP share of the polls actually go up ?
  • £60k is a very healthy income. But it makes you wonder what £150k plus pa is. The Tories are going to have a hard time arguing that those earning the former deserve less help than those earning more than the latter.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    felix said:

    If Mike had taken off his Westminster-tinted spectacles he might have instead written:

    * With the Tory prospects for EURO2014 starting to look better, the Yes prospects for IndyRef2014 start to look better too.

    * If the English Tories start to recover the main beneficiary will be the Scottish National Party. Spirits in the Yes camp must have surged overnight.

    Best prices - Scottish independence referendum

    Yes 9/2 (StanJames, Ladbrokes)
    No 2/9 (Betfair)

    If true then it also enhances Tory prospects for future GE's in England
    The more that English Conservatives start to believe that the happier I become.
    I'm for ever fascinated why Nats think english conservatives are holding back independence rather than Scots Labour voters. It's the Nat inferiority complex in all its glory.
  • surbiton said:

    Just asked Kevin Maguire on Twitter whether he has featured in the McBride excerpts yet. Must be only a matter of time since he was part of Brown's magic circle.

    Only someone as uber privileged as Rachel Reeves could think £60k isn't seen as rich. She should ask the good people of Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool or anywhere north of there. Suspect they will have a very different view. Up here in the Highlands, few senior managers or company directors earn £60k.

    Was interested to read that Reeves husband was Gordon Brown's private secretary and speech-writer at one time. Another link into the spider's web!

    She was absolutely spot on. To any aspiring, hard working person £60k is not a matter of dreams, it is achievable.

    What you deliberately did not mention was that her £60k comments continued and disclosed that Labour will not increase any taxes on people earning upto £60k because , quite rightly, they are not rich !
    Rich is anyone earning more than oneself, and for many people, £30K is rich.
  • On topic, I take the general point but the elections are still 9 months off - will the current media narrative hold until then?
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536

    Just asked Kevin Maguire on Twitter whether he has featured in the McBride excerpts yet. Must be only a matter of time since he was ppart of Brown's magic circle.

    Only someone as uber privileged as Rachel Reeves could think £60k isn't seen as rich. She should ask the good people of Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool or anywhere north of there. Suspect they will have a very different view. Up here in the Highlands, few senior managers or company directors earn £60k.

    Was interested to read that Reeves husband was Gordon Brown's private secretary and speech-writer at one time. Another link into the spider's web!

    Well that's just anti London prejudice yet again from you because here in London and around £60k is far from rich. Fair play to Reeves - she is right. Families with a main earner on £60k and young children are being taxed at 70% marginal rates, have huge mortgage costs and astronomical nursery fees. London is a different world - we drive the economy for the whole UK, work the longest hours in Europe and are told by you and your ilk we are "rich" for our troubles.

  • surbiton said:

    Just asked Kevin Maguire on Twitter whether he has featured in the McBride excerpts yet. Must be only a matter of time since he was part of Brown's magic circle.

    Only someone as uber privileged as Rachel Reeves could think £60k isn't seen as rich. She should ask the good people of Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool or anywhere north of there. Suspect they will have a very different view. Up here in the Highlands, few senior managers or company directors earn £60k.

    Was interested to read that Reeves husband was Gordon Brown's private secretary and speech-writer at one time. Another link into the spider's web!

    She was absolutely spot on. To any aspiring, hard working person £60k is not a matter of dreams, it is achievable.

    What you deliberately did not mention was that her £60k comments continued and disclosed that Labour will not increase any taxes on people earning upto £60k because , quite rightly, they are not rich !

    And having declared that anyone earning £60k is rich, the Tories can hardly criticise raising taxes for people earning substantially more than that. They can have a technical argument about laffer curves etc, but that may not be too effective a weapon.

  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    surbiton said:

    Just asked Kevin Maguire on Twitter whether he has featured in the McBride excerpts yet. Must be only a matter of time since he was part of Brown's magic circle.

    Only someone as uber privileged as Rachel Reeves could think £60k isn't seen as rich. She should ask the good people of Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool or anywhere north of there. Suspect they will have a very different view. Up here in the Highlands, few senior managers or company directors earn £60k.

    Was interested to read that Reeves husband was Gordon Brown's private secretary and speech-writer at one time. Another link into the spider's web!

    She was absolutely spot on. To any aspiring, hard working person £60k is not a matter of dreams, it is achievable.

    What you deliberately did not mention was that her £60k comments continued and disclosed that Labour will not increase any taxes on people earning upto £60k because , quite rightly, they are not rich !
    Superb intervention from Reeves, I like her.

  • Only someone as uber privileged as Rachel Reeves could think £60k isn't seen as rich. She should ask the good people of Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool or anywhere north of there. Suspect they will have a very different view. Up here in the Highlands, few senior managers or company directors earn £60k.

    After Labour lost in 1992, Ken Livingstone said that northern and Scots MPs in John Smith's circle were advocating tax boundaries too low, not for southern voters exactly but for the aspirations of southern voters. (Someone reminded us the other day of the maxim that even struggling Americans see themselves not as poor but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.)

    But in any case, you are wrong because even if you were right, you forget about dual-income households, and 2 x £30k = £60k.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    These days income is only one part of the equation. If, when and where you bought your house can be as big a determinant on your quality of life.

    Someone one on £50k can easily have less disposable income than someone on £30k and live in worse house.


    It's a nightmare for policy makers.
  • Those on about £60,000 have been insulated most from austerity measures. Those on over £150,000 have been affected worst.

    MPs' salaries, curiously, are just over £60,000. A happy coincidence no doubt.
  • MrJones said:

    SMukesh said:

    One little mouthy Kipper is hardly media coverage moving against UKIP.

    It's not the incident it's the reaction (although the reaction isn't over yet so could end up positive).
    It's not quite the incident or the reaction but that Bloom's so-called joke as good as told half the population not to vote UKIP. You'd think that with all the fuss around the centenary of Emily Davison's death at the Derby, he'd have known women have the vote now.
  • antifrank said:

    Those on about £60,000 have been insulated most from austerity measures. Those on over £150,000 have been affected worst.

    MPs' salaries, curiously, are just over £60,000. A happy coincidence no doubt.

    And those on £150k plus have noticed it the least.

  • tim said:

    £60k is a very healthy income. But it makes you wonder what £150k plus pa is. The Tories are going to have a hard time arguing that those earning the former deserve less help than those earning more than the latter.

    No they aren't Osborne gave a bonus gift to the latter group while imposing a 70% marginal rate on the former.
    And if the Lib Dems hadn't stopped his Inheritance Tax Gift then it would be even worse.

    Well, indeed. Having decided that those on £150k plus need tax cuts, it's a bit tricky to say that those on £60k are rich enough to take whatever is thrown at them by the government.

  • But Rachel Reeves' comments are important. They signal that Labour would not plan to raise taxes substantially which in turn means that it would plan to spend at similar levels to the current Government. Its spending commitments will need to be rationed carefully.

    Unless it is planning to raise business taxes a fair bit.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited September 2013
    Any thoughts on EdM's involvement in the smear plots or is it going to be another discussion on Rabbits.... any Rabbits..anywhere
  • antifrank said:

    Those on about £60,000 have been insulated most from austerity measures. Those on over £150,000 have been affected worst.

    MPs' salaries, curiously, are just over £60,000. A happy coincidence no doubt.

    And those on £150k plus have noticed it the least.

    I must have missed the polling on this.
  • OGH: "Latest price for next May’s election is 9/2 which looks value."

    In fact both Ladbrokes and Hills have the Tories to win most Euro votes at 7/2 this morning.
  • tim said:

    antifrank said:

    Those on about £60,000 have been insulated most from austerity measures. Those on over £150,000 have been affected worst.

    MPs' salaries, curiously, are just over £60,000. A happy coincidence no doubt.

    Those graphs include Labours last budget, got any info on changes excluding those?
    Why should Labour's last budget be excluded?
  • Jonathan said:

    These days income is only one part of the equation. If, when and where you bought your house can be as big a determinant on your quality of life.

    Someone one on £50k can easily have less disposable income than someone on £30k and live in worse house.


    It's a nightmare for policy makers.

    Indeed. Even a small flat in the London suburbs might cost £10,000 a year in mortgage repayments and insurance. A £50,000 a year salary is £30,000 after tax.
  • MrJones said:

    SMukesh said:

    One little mouthy Kipper is hardly media coverage moving against UKIP.

    It's not the incident it's the reaction (although the reaction isn't over yet so could end up positive).
    I think that's taking wishful thinking too far. Bloom's a loose cannon, and a link with a past that we're better off having moved away from. He doesn't even have the 'colourful character' defence.

    The only positive for UKIP out of this is - hopefully - ridding themselves of Bloom. Which they should have done months ago.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    One of the interesting things about the Reeves announcement is that Reeves is making it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,770
    antifrank said:

    Those on about £60,000 have been insulated most from austerity measures. Those on over £150,000 have been affected worst.

    MPs' salaries, curiously, are just over £60,000. A happy coincidence no doubt.

    Not entirely sure that is true antifrank. You have to remember that the lunacy of the last government stretched to people earning more than £60k a year getting WFTC. That has been stopped. And they have lost their child benefit which is marginally more important to them than much higher earners. And they pay more tax.

    I do accept that almost every aspect of Coalition policy, other than the 45p rate, has increased the tax burden on those earning £150K+ and that overall they have contributed the most to deficit reduction.

  • Good morning, everyone.

    P3's later than usual (11am) so my pre-qualifying piece will be later too. Unsure if I'll offer a tip at this stage. I was surprised to see the odds on Mercedes top scoring had dropped to 3, perhaps because Lotus look off the pace.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    antifrank said:

    Those on about £60,000 have been insulated most from austerity measures. Those on over £150,000 have been affected worst.

    MPs' salaries, curiously, are just over £60,000. A happy coincidence no doubt.

    I am paying 70% income tax so it's hardly worth my getting a pay rise. What rate are you paying?

  • isamisam Posts: 40,730
    edited September 2013
    I think tim is correct when he says a lot depends on the publics reaction to Romanian and Bulgarian immigration next year.Problems perceived to be caused by that have the ability to make ukip a shoo in for the Euros. My local rag publishes a photo file of wanted criminal in the area, and it often consists of over 75% Eastern Europeans. I visited Romford last week and it was amazing how many people speaking Eastern European there were. The locals don't like it and I can see Romford becoming the new Barking in terms of right wing anti immigration voting.

    My father who is not interested in politics, and has alway s voted labour if he bothered voting at all, phone me after seeing Farage on breakfast tv and Bloom on the news to say he'd be voting UKIP...

    Anecdotes I know
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    tim said:

    antifrank said:

    But Rachel Reeves' comments are important. They signal that Labour would not plan to raise taxes substantially which in turn means that it would plan to spend at similar levels to the current Government. Its spending commitments will need to be rationed carefully.

    Unless it is planning to raise business taxes a fair bit.

    Osborne is going to leave office spending 44% of GDP, there is absolutely no need for Labour to spend more than Osborne, in 12 out of their 13 years in office before the crisis hit they spent less than that.

    The key will be to reduce welfare spending rather than increasing it as Thatcher, Major and Cameron did.
    and the key to that is moving from housing benefit to housebuilding, and a living wage rather than subsidising low pay.

    You're not very good on this economics stuff are you ?
  • Mr. Bobajob, whilst that's a ridiculous percentage (how does it come about? Not doubting your word, just curious) some are paying 0% or 20% and would rather be paying more.
  • Bobajob said:

    antifrank said:

    Those on about £60,000 have been insulated most from austerity measures. Those on over £150,000 have been affected worst.

    MPs' salaries, curiously, are just over £60,000. A happy coincidence no doubt.

    I am paying 70% income tax so it's hardly worth my getting a pay rise. What rate are you paying?

    Poor lamb. We'll have to get those low paid childless to subsidise you again.

  • antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    Those on about £60,000 have been insulated most from austerity measures. Those on over £150,000 have been affected worst.

    MPs' salaries, curiously, are just over £60,000. A happy coincidence no doubt.

    And those on £150k plus have noticed it the least.

    I must have missed the polling on this.

    Those who earn the most have seen significant rises in their personal wealth over the last couple of years if they have pension plans, other financial investments and/or own property. It's been a great time to be rich.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    antifrank said:

    Bobajob said:

    antifrank said:

    Those on about £60,000 have been insulated most from austerity measures. Those on over £150,000 have been affected worst.

    MPs' salaries, curiously, are just over £60,000. A happy coincidence no doubt.

    I am paying 70% income tax so it's hardly worth my getting a pay rise. What rate are you paying?

    Poor lamb. We'll have to get those low paid childless to subsidise you again.

    Erm, they aren't. Our family already pays vastly more in tax than we use in services, we are massive net contributors.

  • UKIP's problems and the McBride memoirs are both likely to prove positive factors for the Tories, making it more likely that they will show a lead in the YouGov VI Polling figures in the not too distant future - the question being will it be this year or next?
    Paddy Power's market prices are currently as follows:

    2013 H2 ........ 11/10
    2014 H1 ........ 9/2
    2014 H2 ........ 11/2
    2015 H1 ........ 11/2
    2015 H2 ........ 4/1
    (or later)
  • Oh, and on £60k: that's a pretty blatant signal to 95% or so of people "We won't tax you more. We'll tax those nasty rich people."

    Then again, Labour promised not to increase income tax (10% to 20%) or raise tuition fees (indeed, they had 'legislated against them').

    On the spare room subsidy/bedroom tax, Labour will win. On the general question of spending/taxation/borrowing I think the Coalition will prevail.

    It's interesting we never ever hear, in the media, from people who had been on waiting lists or in cramped accommodation and who now have a home that fits the size of their family.
  • antifrank said:

    Bobajob said:

    antifrank said:

    Those on about £60,000 have been insulated most from austerity measures. Those on over £150,000 have been affected worst.

    MPs' salaries, curiously, are just over £60,000. A happy coincidence no doubt.

    I am paying 70% income tax so it's hardly worth my getting a pay rise. What rate are you paying?

    Poor lamb. We'll have to get those low paid childless to subsidise you again.

    Might be better to start with the top earning childless.

  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536

    Mr. Bobajob, whilst that's a ridiculous percentage (how does it come about? Not doubting your word, just curious) some are paying 0% or 20% and would rather be paying more.

    40p tax rate plus the Child Tax Charge. Marginal rate is around 70%. Ozzy created a massive disincentive to work harder for middle income London family men. That's the reality.
  • Mr. Bobajob, Child Tax Charge? Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a 7 year old asking "Why?" twenty-three times in a row.
  • antifrank said:

    Bobajob said:

    antifrank said:

    Those on about £60,000 have been insulated most from austerity measures. Those on over £150,000 have been affected worst.

    MPs' salaries, curiously, are just over £60,000. A happy coincidence no doubt.

    I am paying 70% income tax so it's hardly worth my getting a pay rise. What rate are you paying?

    Poor lamb. We'll have to get those low paid childless to subsidise you again.

    Might be better to start with the top earning childless.

    Top earners have already been hit hardest, of course.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    Bobajob said:

    antifrank said:

    Those on about £60,000 have been insulated most from austerity measures. Those on over £150,000 have been affected worst.

    MPs' salaries, curiously, are just over £60,000. A happy coincidence no doubt.

    I am paying 70% income tax so it's hardly worth my getting a pay rise. What rate are you paying?

    Poor lamb. We'll have to get those low paid childless to subsidise you again.

    Might be better to start with the top earning childless.

    Top earners have already been hit hardest, of course.
    Their suffering is palpable. Some even had to buy Jags rather than bentleys this year.
  • Mr. Bobajob, Child Tax Charge? Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a 7 year old asking "Why?" twenty-three times in a row.

    Bobajobb doesn't get child benefit. He is apparently silly enough to think that's a tax charge.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    I'm not especially anti-independence, but the comments that recent events will affect the referendum a year hence are grasping at straws. A year from now you'll struggle to find anyone in Scotland who can tell you who either Bloom or McBride are, let alone basing their votes on them.

    I'll be at the UKIP conference today as a non-partisan standholder for my day job - it'll be interesting to get an impression of the mood. Standholders have a very specific focus for party conferences - whether the delegates are encouraged to tour them. Some of the popular conference centres are good in that respect, some are awful. The Glasgow centre used by the LibDems is not great - delegates have a confusing 10 minutes' walk around the complex from the main building to go and look at the stands. (They'll be back there next year, unusually in October AFTER the other parties for logistical referendum-related reasons.) My colleague at the UKIP stand says the building has the same problem - the conference is 4 floors above the stands.

    IIRC Brighton is quite good but Birmingham and I think Manchester are hit and miss - it's worth paying a bit more to get a good location, or they'll stick you in an obscure corner on the landing somewhere. In general, delegates should take the trouble to wander round saying hello to stand-holders, who are paying substantially: 22% of LibDem income last year was from the conference!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,770
    tim said:

    DavidL said:

    antifrank said:

    Those on about £60,000 have been insulated most from austerity measures. Those on over £150,000 have been affected worst.

    MPs' salaries, curiously, are just over £60,000. A happy coincidence no doubt.

    Not entirely sure that is true antifrank. You have to remember that the lunacy of the last government stretched to people earning more than £60k a year getting WFTC. That has been stopped. And they have lost their child benefit which is marginally more important to them than much higher earners. And they pay more tax.

    I do accept that almost every aspect of Coalition policy, other than the 45p rate, has increased the tax burden on those earning £150K+ and that overall they have contributed the most to deficit reduction.


    The one consistent pattern under this govt is that pensioners have been protected because they are more likely to vote Tory.
    And of course they will benefit most from the stoking up of the housing market.

    Deliberately moving resources from the working to the non working has been a major error in economic terms, inspired by political calculation by the same team who couldn't get a majority against Brown.
    And deliberately moving resources away from those with children is another consistent theme.
    Those ungrateful pensioners then go off and vote UKIP in 2012.
    I do agree that the government has protected the freebies, most of them introduced by the last government in an entirely disinterested way, for pensioners as Cameron promised. I also agree that cannot continue into the next Parliament.

    The rest is nonsense. Why would pensioners gain disproportionately from the (non existent) housing boom? As a proportion of society they have fewer houseowners than their younger peers and they have smaller houses.

    They have been massively disproportionately penalised by our interest rate policy which has devastated their investment income and they have not benefitted from the reduction in mortgage rates to anything like the extent of the rest of the population.

    They have been massively penalised by the effects of QE on annuity rates. The last few years have been very bad ones to retire unless you work for the state and have a final salary pension. Why else do you think we have record numbers of 65+ still working?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    With UKIP I suspect all publicity is good publicity such is the way with niche markets.

    Of more significance are labour's comments on wealth. At last they've found some smart marketing people who understand and can read their focus groups.

    The Tories huge achilles heel is that voters believe they are a party of the rich for the rich. The two figures of £60.000 and £150.000 are not random numbers. The £150.000 is a reminder of Osbornes budget. The £60.000 is twice the amount the Tories believe people on welfare should live on.

    Unless Ed manages to do another Syria screw up Labour should be up and running again.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited September 2013
    Mr. Jonathan, taxation should be done in order to fund things, not to penalise those who are financially successful. It's a matter of finance, not punitive treatment.

    In the 14th century (I apologise for this vulgarly modern reference) taxation was temporary and for specific purposes (most usually making war on France). When tax was collected but the reason disappeared (due to truce) the money was given back.

    Then taxation became permanent (and much of it frittered away on things for which it was not raised). Now we seem to be divorcing the motives, the means of collection and the expenditure ever more.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    tim said:

    felix said:
    I think it's fair to judge a PM on who they appoint and are close to, Brown was never fit to be PM.
    I'm surprised that you want PMs judged by that criteria though
    Finally Tim responds - but conveniently you omit to mention Ed 's closeness to Macbride - can't imagine why......
  • david_kendrick1david_kendrick1 Posts: 325
    edited September 2013
    tim said:

    Jonathan said:

    SMukesh said:

    One little mouthy Kipper is hardly media coverage moving against UKIP.

    Farage said their national conference had been destroyed.

    After the amount Farage sweated out on stage, followed by lunchtime in the pub he should've been lying down yesterday afternoon not doing more media and speaking, he'd lost the plot.
    Its curious that sweating while public speaking is such a big no-no for a politician. It has been noticed since Nixon, and when Guido and our very own tim think it is a significant part of the story, it is.

    Farage is a salesman rather than a manager, and will say so himself. He didn't cover himself in glory yesterday, but how many voters will that influence? UKIP is half-way between being a single issue pressure group, and a party fit for govt. During this 'adolescence' time, we are going to have the odd day when we don't look very grown-up.

    Voters at the next Euro elections will ask themselves: do we want more of the EU, or do we want out? and not: who will make the best PM?

  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    antifrank said:

    Mr. Bobajob, Child Tax Charge? Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a 7 year old asking "Why?" twenty-three times in a row.

    Bobajobb doesn't get child benefit. He is apparently silly enough to think that's a tax charge.
    It is you that is ignorant. The Child Benefit Tax Charge is a tax. Even the government admits it's a tax. You must have forgotten to tell me what rate of income tax you are paying.

    http://m.accountingweb.co.uk/article/profession-braces-child-benefit-chaos/535667
  • Jonathan said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    Bobajob said:

    antifrank said:

    Those on about £60,000 have been insulated most from austerity measures. Those on over £150,000 have been affected worst.

    MPs' salaries, curiously, are just over £60,000. A happy coincidence no doubt.

    I am paying 70% income tax so it's hardly worth my getting a pay rise. What rate are you paying?

    Poor lamb. We'll have to get those low paid childless to subsidise you again.

    Might be better to start with the top earning childless.

    Top earners have already been hit hardest, of course.
    Their suffering is palpable. Some even had to buy Jags rather than bentleys this year.
    At what point do you stop looking to top earners to contribute proportionately more? When they're driving Trabants?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Mr. Jonathan, taxation should be done in order to fund things, not to penalise those who are financially successful. It's a matter of finance, not punitive treatment.

    In the 14th century (I apologise for this vulgarly modern reference) taxation was temporary and for specific purposes (most usually making war on France). When tax was collected but the reason disappeared (due to truce) the money was given back.

    Then taxation became permanent (and much of it frittered away on things for which it was not raised). Now we seem to be divorcing the motives, the means of collection and the expenditure ever more.

    Your argument strongly backs progressive taxation. The super rich suffer least and therefore the element of punishment is reduced.
  • tim said:

    antifrank said:

    Mr. Bobajob, Child Tax Charge? Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a 7 year old asking "Why?" twenty-three times in a row.

    Bobajobb doesn't get child benefit. He is apparently silly enough to think that's a tax charge.

    A 70% marginal rate is a charge, a very stupid one admittedly, and much higher than the marginal rates you'll pay.
    There is nothing stupid about taking money off those that can do nothing about it, where there is minimal possibility of corrective action or short term changes in behaviour and where the victims are relatively affluent. It might not be popular but it's brilliant.

    NB it is popular among all but selfish affluent parents.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    edited September 2013

    tim said:

    Jonathan said:

    SMukesh said:

    One little mouthy Kipper is hardly media coverage moving against UKIP.

    Farage said their national conference had been destroyed.

    After the amount Farage sweated out on stage, followed by lunchtime in the pub he should've been lying down yesterday afternoon not doing more media and speaking, he'd lost the plot.
    Its curious that sweating while public speaking is such a big no-no for a politician. It has been noticed since Nixon, and when Guido and our very own tim think it is a significant part of the story, it is.

    Farage is a salesman rather than a manager, and will say so himself. He didn't cover himself in glory yesterday, but how many voters will that influence? UKIP is half-way between being a single issue pressure group, and a party fit for govt. During this 'adolescence' time, we are going to have the odd day when we don't look very grown-up.

    Voters at the next Euro elections will ask themselves: do we want more of the EU, or do we want out? and not: who will make the best PM?

    Whilst wishing to vote against the EU, personally I'm asking do I want to encourage Farage's push to get Ed elected and further integration which is basically what will happen.

    In contrast the outcome of the German election tomorrow will probably have more of an impact on our future status than the 2014 Euros.
  • Mr. Bobajob, that's rather a large document, but I scanned the start and it does look rather stupid.

    The benefits system is a tangled mess. Not sure if it will, but if IDS' single payment scheme comes off that'd be a great simplification.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    antifrank said:


    Jonathan said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    Bobajob said:

    antifrank said:

    Those on about £60,000 have been insulated most from austerity measures. Those on over £150,000 have been affected worst.

    MPs' salaries, curiously, are just over £60,000. A happy coincidence no doubt.

    I am paying 70% income tax so it's hardly worth my getting a pay rise. What rate are you paying?

    Poor lamb. We'll have to get those low paid childless to subsidise you again.

    Might be better to start with the top earning childless.

    Top earners have already been hit hardest, of course.
    Their suffering is palpable. Some even had to buy Jags rather than bentleys this year.
    At what point do you stop looking to top earners to contribute proportionately more? When they're driving Trabants?
    When people at the bottom are not forced to go to food banks?

    In this economy, Some people you rely upon for essential services cannot afford to own any car, let alone a Trabbant.
  • This thread is a prime example of the Politics of envy
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349

    "The Tories huge achilles heel is that voters believe they are a party of the rich for the rich"

    For once, I agree with Roger. This view is especially prevalent in the North (and over the border), and it's part of why Labour are dominant here. But they have a weakness too, and Gillian Duffy is a good example.

    Farage, for all his second-hand car-dealer image, recognises this, and has stated Ukip intend to target Labour voters. They may not vote for Ukip in droves, but some will sit on their hands.
  • Actually, Mr. Jonathan, many members of the nobility were of reduced means due to falling income from estates and mass death from the Black, er, Death and therefore almost compelled (and certainly eager) to claim the income from warfare they got when fighting for the King.
  • antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    Bobajob said:

    antifrank said:

    Those on about £60,000 have been insulated most from austerity measures. Those on over £150,000 have been affected worst.

    MPs' salaries, curiously, are just over £60,000. A happy coincidence no doubt.

    I am paying 70% income tax so it's hardly worth my getting a pay rise. What rate are you paying?

    Poor lamb. We'll have to get those low paid childless to subsidise you again.

    Might be better to start with the top earning childless.

    Top earners have already been hit hardest, of course.

    "Hit" is a pretty emotional word. I don't know about you, but as a top earner I do not really have to worry about how much my energy bills are, how much petrol costs, the amount I am charged to get a train to somewhere, the price of the supermarket shop and so on. I have also seen my pension make big gains over the last couple of years, my share portfolio rise pretty substantially in value and I have had a very nice tax cut, while the dividends I receive are also taxed at a lower rate than they used to be; as a handy bonus house prices are now starting to climb, even up here in the Midlands (in London, of course, they are soaring). We may be paying more than we did, but our wealth has increased by a far greater degree. I don't think you can say the same for most other income groups.

  • This thread is a prime example of the Politics of envy

    Agreed - classing people on £60k pa "rich" is ridiculous.

  • Mr. Jonathan, on food banks it's important to note these are new and that their use has rapidly increased since their relatively recent introduction. This cannot be blamed on any single party because they haven't yet reached full capacity (ie more people, every year, have needed/wanted to use them than there has been capacity to cater to). Only when we reach the ceiling will we be able to assess how economic circumstances are affecting those at the lower end.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    antifrank said:

    tim said:

    antifrank said:

    Mr. Bobajob, Child Tax Charge? Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a 7 year old asking "Why?" twenty-three times in a row.

    Bobajobb doesn't get child benefit. He is apparently silly enough to think that's a tax charge.

    A 70% marginal rate is a charge, a very stupid one admittedly, and much higher than the marginal rates you'll pay.
    There is nothing stupid about taking money off those that can do nothing about it, where there is minimal possibility of corrective action or short term changes in behaviour and where the victims are relatively affluent. It might not be popular but it's brilliant.

    NB it is popular among all but selfish affluent parents.
    Not only have you lost every point on this argument (the tax charge isn't a tax: it is) (low income families are subsidising me: they aren't), you have still failed to tell me what rate you are paying. Let me put it in simple terms - how many pence in the pound on any pay rise will you pay to the government?
    As someone who earns around ten times what I earn, and has no children to support, I'd like to see exactly how "unselfish" you are.

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    I must say that Farage was sweating a lot yesterday on the podium but strangly enough not on the green at lunchtime yesterday when he was doing well with the reporters. My guess is that he may be coming down with somthing as he was not on top form in his main speech, and that was before all the trouble with Godfrey bloomed. Sorry for the pun, couldn't resist.

    It was also plain that he was very angry with Bloom for spoiling a well run conference and making UKIP, once again, a target for the haters to get some whacks in.

    We shall see how this second day of conference pans out. I think everyone in the UKIP fold will be on their best behaviour.
  • Bobajob said:

    antifrank said:

    Mr. Bobajob, Child Tax Charge? Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a 7 year old asking "Why?" twenty-three times in a row.

    Bobajobb doesn't get child benefit. He is apparently silly enough to think that's a tax charge.
    It is you that is ignorant. The Child Benefit Tax Charge is a tax. Even the government admits it's a tax. You must have forgotten to tell me what rate of income tax you are paying.

    http://m.accountingweb.co.uk/article/profession-braces-child-benefit-chaos/535667
    I do take your point entirely Bobajob and technically of course you are correct. But I must admit that I do not consider the Child Benefit Tax Charge (which I pay) as a tax. I see it as the easiest a way of removing a benefit that is not deserved. If we are to act on reducing the benefits system and hence (the perhaps impossible dream) accordingly reducing the amount of tax taken from us by the government, then we have to start with removing those benefits from those who least need them. As someone who believes the benefits system should be nothing more than a basic safety net for those unfortunate enough not to be able to look after themselves, there is no way I could justify my taking this sort of handout from the government.

    So as I say I think the Child Benefit Tax Charge should simply be seen as a removal of a benefit rather than a tax in the way we would normally understand it.
  • Mr. Observer, if you're riddled with leftwing guilt you can always redistribute some wealth to someone less financially fortunate than yourself by buying my books ;)

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Journey-to-Altmortis-ebook/dp/B00COAEOS8/
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bane-of-Souls-ebook/dp/B008C2KV48/


  • "Hit" is a pretty emotional word. I don't know about you, but as a top earner I do not really have to worry about how much my energy bills are, how much petrol costs, the amount I am charged to get a train to somewhere, the price of the supermarket shop and so on. I have also seen my pension make big gains over the last couple of years, my share portfolio rise pretty substantially in value and I have had a very nice tax cut, while the dividends I receive are also taxed at a lower rate than they used to be; as a handy bonus house prices are now starting to climb, even up here in the Midlands (in London, of course, they are soaring). We may be paying more than we did, but our wealth has increased by a far greater degree. I don't think you can say the same for most other income groups.

    SO, you're very much in a minority, and in a happy position to be in. However, the battleground for the next election will largely be fought in the marginal constituencies of the north midlands, and constituencies like Burnley, for example, which changed from Lab to LD in 2010. In order to gain support there, where 30K is rich, Labour are going to have to squeeze the rich at around 35K in order to gain support.

    The question is how can they do this, while not losing too much support in the SE?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    If anyone wants proof of Labour's clever positioning skim this thread. "£150.000-£60.000......" That's all voters need to hear

    Jonathan's 'food banks' will come in the second wave.
  • tim said:

    Jonathan said:

    SMukesh said:

    One little mouthy Kipper is hardly media coverage moving against UKIP.

    Farage said their national conference had been destroyed.

    After the amount Farage sweated out on stage, followed by lunchtime in the pub he should've been lying down yesterday afternoon not doing more media and speaking, he'd lost the plot.
    Its curious that sweating while public speaking is such a big no-no for a politician. It has been noticed since Nixon, and when Guido and our very own tim think it is a significant part of the story, it is.

    Farage is a salesman rather than a manager, and will say so himself. He didn't cover himself in glory yesterday, but how many voters will that influence? UKIP is half-way between being a single issue pressure group, and a party fit for govt. During this 'adolescence' time, we are going to have the odd day when we don't look very grown-up.

    Voters at the next Euro elections will ask themselves: do we want more of the EU, or do we want out? and not: who will make the best PM?

    Whilst wishing to vote against the EU, personally I'm asking do I want to encourage Farage's push to get Ed elected and further integration which is basically what will happen.

    In contrast the outcome of the German election tomorrow will probably have more of an impact on our future status than the 2014 Euros.
    A vote for UKIP in the Euro elections 2014 is not a vote for Britain's next PM. It is a vote, as it says on the tin, for MEPs.

    I accept that a strong vote for UKIP in 2014 may have a small and indirect effect on the GE in 2015. A UKIP win could make EM promise an in/out referendum on the EU. If that happened, and he became PM, the tory party could then unite behind the 'BOO' campaign. An in/out referendum under a labour govt would be far more likely to produce the result you claim to want: a win for out.

  • Mr. Observer, if you're riddled with leftwing guilt you can always redistribute some wealth to someone less financially fortunate than yourself by buying my books ;)

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Journey-to-Altmortis-ebook/dp/B00COAEOS8/
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bane-of-Souls-ebook/dp/B008C2KV48/

    I feel no guilt. I have worked hard to become a top rate taxpayer. I am merely arguing with the notion that we are in any way victims of anything. Generally speaking, we have enjoyed a spectacular few years and do not have the cost of living worries that those earning less than us have.

  • Bobajob said:

    antifrank said:

    tim said:

    antifrank said:

    Mr. Bobajob, Child Tax Charge? Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a 7 year old asking "Why?" twenty-three times in a row.

    Bobajobb doesn't get child benefit. He is apparently silly enough to think that's a tax charge.

    A 70% marginal rate is a charge, a very stupid one admittedly, and much higher than the marginal rates you'll pay.
    There is nothing stupid about taking money off those that can do nothing about it, where there is minimal possibility of corrective action or short term changes in behaviour and where the victims are relatively affluent. It might not be popular but it's brilliant.

    NB it is popular among all but selfish affluent parents.
    Not only have you lost every point on this argument (the tax charge isn't a tax: it is) (low income families are subsidising me: they aren't), you have still failed to tell me what rate you are paying. Let me put it in simple terms - how many pence in the pound on any pay rise will you pay to the government?
    As someone who earns around ten times what I earn, and has no children to support, I'd like to see exactly how "unselfish" you are.

    I'm not the one bleating about my contribution to austerity measures. I've been hit a lot and that's right. You've been hit a little and that's right too. But you're staggeringly unwilling to accept that the withdrawal of a benefit that is a nice to have not a need to have is a reasonable measure in tough times. Candidly, you come across as selfish and infantile.

    The group who have much more to complain about is the poorest. They have been hit very hard and that's very tough on them.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,770

    Bobajob said:

    antifrank said:

    Mr. Bobajob, Child Tax Charge? Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a 7 year old asking "Why?" twenty-three times in a row.

    Bobajobb doesn't get child benefit. He is apparently silly enough to think that's a tax charge.
    It is you that is ignorant. The Child Benefit Tax Charge is a tax. Even the government admits it's a tax. You must have forgotten to tell me what rate of income tax you are paying.

    http://m.accountingweb.co.uk/article/profession-braces-child-benefit-chaos/535667
    I do take your point entirely Bobajob and technically of course you are correct. But I must admit that I do not consider the Child Benefit Tax Charge (which I pay) as a tax. I see it as the easiest a way of removing a benefit that is not deserved. If we are to act on reducing the benefits system and hence (the perhaps impossible dream) accordingly reducing the amount of tax taken from us by the government, then we have to start with removing those benefits from those who least need them. As someone who believes the benefits system should be nothing more than a basic safety net for those unfortunate enough not to be able to look after themselves, there is no way I could justify my taking this sort of handout from the government.

    So as I say I think the Child Benefit Tax Charge should simply be seen as a removal of a benefit rather than a tax in the way we would normally understand it.
    As someone who is also affected I completely agree Richard. We were given a choice of either not claiming the CB or paying the charge. My wife opted for the latter "just in case" so we will technically be paying the extra tax but it is a choice.

    SO should be telling us who his pension advisor is as well. Last year my modest pension fund was worth less at the end of the period than it was at the start despite the contributions over the year! I am hoping for a better result this year but pension funds have serious deficits to cover from the crash and returns are generally modest.

  • DavidL said:

    antifrank said:

    Those on about £60,000 have been insulated most from austerity measures. Those on over £150,000 have been affected worst.

    MPs' salaries, curiously, are just over £60,000. A happy coincidence no doubt.

    Not entirely sure that is true antifrank. You have to remember that the lunacy of the last government stretched to people earning more than £60k a year getting WFTC. That has been stopped. And they have lost their child benefit which is marginally more important to them than much higher earners. And they pay more tax.

    I do accept that almost every aspect of Coalition policy, other than the 45p rate, has increased the tax burden on those earning £150K+ and that overall they have contributed the most to deficit reduction.

    Worth pointing out though David that if they have three children and are both working they still get Child care allowance of over £2300 a year until earnings exceed £65,000.

    http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/people-advise-others/entitlement-tables/work-and-child/work-pay-childcare.htm

    Again I am not sure that is desirable or sustainable.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    £60,000 c. 2.2x average national earnings.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    antifrank said:

    Bobajob said:

    antifrank said:

    tim said:

    antifrank said:

    Mr. Bobajob, Child Tax Charge? Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a 7 year old asking "Why?" twenty-three times in a row.

    Bobajobb doesn't get child benefit. He is apparently silly enough to think that's a tax charge.

    A 70% marginal rate is a charge, a very stupid one admittedly, and much higher than the marginal rates you'll pay.
    There is nothing stupid about taking money off those that can do nothing about it, where there is minimal possibility of corrective action or short term changes in behaviour and where the victims are relatively affluent. It might not be popular but it's brilliant.

    NB it is popular among all but selfish affluent parents.
    Not only have you lost every point on this argument (the tax charge isn't a tax: it is) (low income families are subsidising me: they aren't), you have still failed to tell me what rate you are paying. Let me put it in simple terms - how many pence in the pound on any pay rise will you pay to the government?
    As someone who earns around ten times what I earn, and has no children to support, I'd like to see exactly how "unselfish" you are.

    I'm not the one bleating about my contribution to austerity measures. I've been hit a lot and that's right. You've been hit a little and that's right too. But you're staggeringly unwilling to accept that the withdrawal of a benefit that is a nice to have not a need to have is a reasonable measure in tough times. Candidly, you come across as selfish and infantile.

    The group who have much more to complain about is the poorest. They have been hit very hard and that's very tough on them.
    Thanks for the personal attacks - it doesn't become you but I'll let it ride. I'll ask again: what rate of tax are you paying? You seem very unwilling to say.

  • Juan Carlos still in situ?
    I'm guessing that poster's PB activity will be as evanescent as the last Scottish Tory that recently popped up (though to be fair to the latter, he was probably a bit creeped out by the scary grooming that kicked in almost immediately).
  • Bobajob said:

    antifrank said:

    Bobajob said:

    antifrank said:

    tim said:

    antifrank said:

    Mr. Bobajob, Child Tax Charge? Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a 7 year old asking "Why?" twenty-three times in a row.

    Bobajobb doesn't get child benefit. He is apparently silly enough to think that's a tax charge.

    A 70% marginal rate is a charge, a very stupid one admittedly, and much higher than the marginal rates you'll pay.
    There is nothing stupid about taking money off those that can do nothing about it, where there is minimal possibility of corrective action or short term changes in behaviour and where the victims are relatively affluent. It might not be popular but it's brilliant.

    NB it is popular among all but selfish affluent parents.
    Not only have you lost every point on this argument (the tax charge isn't a tax: it is) (low income families are subsidising me: they aren't), you have still failed to tell me what rate you are paying. Let me put it in simple terms - how many pence in the pound on any pay rise will you pay to the government?
    As someone who earns around ten times what I earn, and has no children to support, I'd like to see exactly how "unselfish" you are.

    I'm not the one bleating about my contribution to austerity measures. I've been hit a lot and that's right. You've been hit a little and that's right too. But you're staggeringly unwilling to accept that the withdrawal of a benefit that is a nice to have not a need to have is a reasonable measure in tough times. Candidly, you come across as selfish and infantile.

    The group who have much more to complain about is the poorest. They have been hit very hard and that's very tough on them.
    Thanks for the personal attacks - it doesn't become you but I'll let it ride. I'll ask again: what rate of tax are you paying? You seem very unwilling to say.

    Because the money has been collected from top earners in different ways. It's a stupid question.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Who is rich?

    Earns 60k,
    no pension, £6k season ticket, 3 dependants, owns 3 bed terrace with £250k (90%) mortgage

    Earns 30k,
    pension, owns company, company car, no dependants, owns 4 bed detached outright.
  • @DavidL - I have a very flexible pension (a SIPP) which allows me to move investments around pretty easily. I have been focusing on emerging markets and certain industry-specific funds. And it's been a very decent couple of years. You do have to work closely with your adviser, but it is worth the bother.
This discussion has been closed.