Institute For Fiscal Studies

Put the knife into tories and labour this morning

Paul Johnson says both manifestos don't provide for investment and improvement of public services

Starmer I think made a fool of himself arguing that Labour's did .....its more generous than the conservatives but that's not the point

I think ideas like this energy Bank are a good idea but only if its financially viable . I would love to see the return of public utilities and privatised industry to the state but if its going to happen it could be decades away .

I think people thinking corbyn type plans ever had or will ever have a chance to be implemented are mad .

Wow, I for one am absolutely shocked!

It's not going to take long for people to feel a bit let down I sense. I can't say I have much sympathy; for months and months Labour have been criticising the "high tax" Tories and they will soon face the exact same issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Wow, I for one am absolutely shocked!

It's not going to take long for people to feel a bit let down I sense. I can't say I have much sympathy; for months and months Labour have been criticising the "high tax" Tories and they will soon face the exact same issues.

---

I can't see how anybody with a working braincell could justify feeling let down, Labour aren't really promising anything.

They criticise the 'high tax' Tories because it cuts through, and it cuts through because the Tories spend so much time claiming they are lowering taxes and that they are the party of low taxes and the general public have realised this is essentially bollocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Wow, I for one am absolutely shocked!

It's not going to take long for people to feel a bit let down I sense. I can't say I have much sympathy; for months and months Labour have been criticising the "high tax" Tories and they will soon face the exact same issues.

---

I hope that Labour get a big majority and increase spending

Then people might realise that in order to have a better NHS or public transport system it's got a cost in real terms , in the pocket

Then come the next election they can bat away the critics by saying well this is the reality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

I can't see how anybody with a working braincell could justify feeling let down, Labour aren't really promising anything.

They criticise the 'high tax' Tories because it cuts through, and it cuts through because the Tories spend so much time claiming they are lowering taxes and that they are the party of low taxes and the general public have realised this is essentially bollocks.

---

Labour plans could lead to highest tax burden since 1948
Tory plans will lead to highest tax burden since 1950

So the Tories really are stretching reality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Labour plans could lead to highest tax burden since 1948
Tory plans will lead to highest tax burden since 1950

So the Tories really are stretching reality

---

When they say tax burden who are they referring to? Just the UK population as a whole? I am minded to think that there are plenty of people in the UK who could afford to pay more tax than they are currently, I am also minded to think that there are people who literally will not be able to provide for themselves or their families if you squeeze another penny out of them.

But the reality is it's all a moving feast, if other costs go up/down (housing/bills) people move between those two categories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

When they say tax burden who are they referring to? Just the UK population as a whole? I am minded to think that there are plenty of people in the UK who could afford to pay more tax than they are currently, I am also minded to think that there are people who literally will not be able to provide for themselves or their families if you squeeze another penny out of them.

But the reality is it's all a moving feast, if other costs go up/down (housing/bills) people move between those two categories.

---

The tax burden on the country , population , as a whole

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

The tax burden on the country , population , as a whole

---

This whole debate has frustrated me a bit. Yes, the thresholds haven't changed for a couple of years, so more people are dragged into higher tax bands, but that only happens by virtue of a wage increase crossing a threshold

I don't earn enough to pay the top rate of tax and I am demonstrably paying less tax than six months ago. Not saying thats right or wrong, but it is definitely the case that I am paying less tax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

The tax burden on the country , population , as a whole

---

So we could feasibly have the same tax burden and it be distributed in a far more progressive way across the spectrum of individuals, businesses and murky grey area in between? That alone makes the concept of the tax burden near to useless in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

When they say tax burden who are they referring to? Just the UK population as a whole? I am minded to think that there are plenty of people in the UK who could afford to pay more tax than they are currently, I am also minded to think that there are people who literally will not be able to provide for themselves or their families if you squeeze another penny out of them.

But the reality is it's all a moving feast, if other costs go up/down (housing/bills) people move between those two categories.

---

For clarification, here's the piece: https://ifs.org.uk/calculators/what-...fits-and-taxes

There's a tendency to mix Tax/GDP (which includes all taxes on businesses and subjects) and more disaggregated analysis (by income cohort etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

So we could feasibly have the same tax burden and it be distributed in a far more progressive way across the spectrum of individuals, businesses and murky grey area in between? That alone makes the concept of the tax burden near to useless in my opinion.

---

Actually Tax/GDP is very useful as a macroeconomic tool. But yeah, you can have the same tax take but collect it in various ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

This whole debate has frustrated me a bit. Yes, the thresholds haven't changed for a couple of years, so more people are dragged into higher tax bands, but that only happens by virtue of a wage increase crossing a threshold

I don't earn enough to pay the top rate of tax and I am demonstrably paying less tax than six months ago. Not saying thats right or wrong, but it is definitely the case that I am paying less tax.

---

The starting point of any discussion on this needs to be anchored to how much does it cost to live and that is going to vary wildly from region to region. This is the depressing thing about the right wing obsession with being against/afraid of people working from home. WFH allows people to bypass the usual requirement of living near your workplace, which is something that for so many people makes life so much more difficult from an income/expenditure pov.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

This whole debate has frustrated me a bit. Yes, the thresholds haven't changed for a couple of years, so more people are dragged into higher tax bands, but that only happens by virtue of a(n) [inflation-caused, nominal] wage increase crossing a threshold

---

Fixed it for you. Fiscal drag is not really about real wages, Bluebottle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by az city

Fixed it for you. Fiscal drag is not really about real wages, Bluebottle.

---

I am paying proportionately less tax than I was 9 months ago. That's a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

The starting point of any discussion on this needs to be anchored to how much does it cost to live and that is going to vary wildly from region to region. This is the depressing thing about the right wing obsession with being against/afraid of people working from home. WFH allows people to bypass the usual requirement of living near your workplace, which is something that for so many people makes life so much more difficult from an income/expenditure pov.

---

I don't think it's a right-wing obsession! It's certainly something that concerns many, for many reasons, across the spectrum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

I don't think it's a right-wing obsession! It's certainly something that concerns many, for many reasons, across the spectrum.

---

Do you think it's more important to arbitrarily force people into an office or for those people to live fulfilling secure and happy lives? It really is an either or for a lot of people because it's practically impossible to live near enough to London to commute without it ruining your life/future on the median wage or below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

Do you think it's more important to arbitrarily force people into an office or for those people to live fulfilling secure and happy lives? It really is an either or for a lot of people because it's practically impossible to live near enough to London to commute without it ruining your life/future on the median wage or below.

---

I think at least 2-3 days a week collaborative working is generally best for the long term for individuals, a business and society generally really. There's a sweet spot for a small number of people that earn London weighting whilst living miles away I don't there's much evidence it solving the housing affordability crisis at all. Made it worse if anything

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

I hope that Labour get a big majority and increase spending

Then people might realise that in order to have a better NHS or public transport system it's got a cost in real terms , in the pocket

Then come the next election they can bat away the critics by saying well this is the reality

---

I hope I get a date with Kate Beckingsale but that's very unlikely to happen too. You'll just have to be content with having got rid of the Tories. And replacing them with a party doing largely the same thing. Congratulations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost

I hope I get a date with Kate Beckingsale but that's very unlikely to happen too. You'll just have to be content with having got rid of the Tories. And replacing them with a party doing largely the same thing. Congratulations.

---

Well I would rather labour in charge than the Tories

Hopefully enough tinkering around the edges can make some sort of difference to people's lives

I think it was the leader of unite union that was on newsnight demanding this and that from an incoming Labour government

I just wish she and others would just stf up until the new government , if elected , bedded in

They just can't help themselves

Still it appears corbyn might be beaten in Islington so not all bad news

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

I think at least 2-3 days a week collaborative working is generally best for the long term for individuals, a business and society generally really. There's a sweet spot for a small number of people that earn London weighting whilst living miles away I don't there's much evidence it solving the housing affordability crisis at all. Made it worse if anything

---

I am expected in the office once a month, I am currently part of the tightest, most productive team I have worked in. I could buy a 3bed fixer upper near family just outside of inverness for 140k (I wouldn't get half a 2bed round here for that), travel down for work and still be miles better off.

Ah, the fabled sweet spot where houses cost 10x the median salary , you travel for 3 hours a day to get to work and your extra salary barely covers your train fare. Lucky bastards. Not to mention the ripple effect which makes it harder to live and work in areas where people who work in London move to.

Being in the office is 'better for society'? I would love to hear how that is more important to 'society' than being able to live/work in the same community, being able to have free time (not swallowed up by a sweaty commute) and for younger people to have enough security in their lives/finances to start a family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

I am paying proportionately less tax than I was 9 months ago. That's a fact.

---

The misleading statement you made that I corrected for you had nothing to do with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

I am expected in the office once a month, I am currently part of the tightest, most productive team I have worked in. I could buy a 3bed fixer upper near family just outside of inverness for 140k (I wouldn't get half a 2bed round here for that), travel down for work and still be miles better off.

Ah, the fabled sweet spot where houses cost 10x the median salary , you travel for 3 hours a day to get to work and your extra salary barely covers your train fare. Lucky bastards. Not to mention the ripple effect which makes it harder to live and work in areas where people who work in London move to.

Being in the office is 'better for society'? I would love to hear how that is more important to 'society' than being able to live/work in the same community, being able to have free time (not swallowed up by a sweaty commute) and for younger people to have enough security in their lives/finances to start a family.

---

My point isn't about office working etc.

If people with higher incomes move to lower-priced areas, how would the locals feel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by az city

My point isn't about office working etc.

If people with higher incomes move to lower-priced areas, how would the locals feel?

---

I don't know. What are you classing as a higher income? I don't think it's right to expect younger people to live in some kind of perpetual 'just about make ends meet each month's rat race in the south east of england if they can obtain a better quality of life elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Well I would rather labour in charge than the Tories

---

You've made that pretty clear. But it seems to be the "name" Tories you object to. It doesn't seem to matter to you what an alternative party would actually do, just so long as they aren't called Tories. Which is fine but a bit odd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost

You've made that pretty clear. But it seems to be the "name" Tories you object to. It doesn't seem to matter to you what an alternative party would actually do, just so long as they aren't called Tories. Which is fine but a bit odd.

---

There is no point - he is a lost cause. Pent up angry little man, forever single, like the weird uncle who is socially awkward. Blames everyone else for his own shortcomings and has anti anti Tory fetish - whilst living in heart of a Tory county. He is a strange one - at least he gets his kicks on a football msgboard rather than being a nuisance elsewhere (as far as we know anyway)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost

You've made that pretty clear. But it seems to be the "name" Tories you object to. It doesn't seem to matter to you what an alternative party would actually do, just so long as they aren't called Tories. Which is fine but a bit odd.

---

It's not just the name I object to

The arrogance of them in office is staggering

I hope that as much as they are able to do given the fact people want better services......without increased taxation ......we have a lot more shape about labour

Some people are saying oh no taxes will go up , the unions will take over , our kids will be having sex education at 2 years old and other such rubbish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

It's not just the name I object to

The arrogance of them in office is staggering

I hope that as much as they are able to do given the fact people want better services......without increased taxation ......we have a lot more shape about labour

Some people are saying oh no taxes will go up , the unions will take over , our kids will be having sex education at 2 years old and other such rubbish

---

Again, it's their attitude rather than their policies you don't like. I don't know what a lot more shape means but it doesn't sound like any form of socialism I've come across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost

Again, it's their attitude rather than their policies you don't like. I don't know what a lot more shape means but it doesn't sound like any form of socialism I've come across.

---

Oh it's their policies too

They deserve to be slung out for Rwanda alone

Someone with not a lot of shape on them is badly organised , performs badly , late or doesn't turn up , makes excuses etc .......that's them all over .......a bit like VG and Welsh Labour at the moment

Very badly delivered government

With regard to socialism I am not a socialist more a liberal really but in the absence of the liberals running the country the labour party is the next best thing although far from perfect

I would suggest you vote green , at least they will get your backing

It seems daft not to vote even if no one party is attractive

I guess we'll find out pretty soon whether Rwanda was working or not.

Could have a Labour government on one side of the channel and a National Rally government on the other side within weeks.

I wonder what National Rally's position will be?Obviously they will go strong on legal and illegal immigration and will likely focus on keeping people out of Europe, but what of the northern coast? Will they be strong to prevent more people gathering around Calais, or will they be happy to see people leave and become our problem?

Will Labour be happy to go into collaboration with the party many of their supporters label as Far-Right fascists etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost

You've made that pretty clear. But it seems to be the "name" Tories you object to. It doesn't seem to matter to you what an alternative party would actually do, just so long as they aren't called Tories. Which is fine but a bit odd.

---

Don't worry, we are going to find out soon enough!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Oh it's their policies too

They deserve to be slung out for Rwanda alone

Someone with not a lot of shape on them is badly organised , performs badly , late or doesn't turn up , makes excuses etc .......that's them all over .......a bit like VG and Welsh Labour at the moment

Very badly delivered government

With regard to socialism I am not a socialist more a liberal really but in the absence of the liberals running the country the labour party is the next best thing although far from perfect

I would suggest you vote green , at least they will get your backing

It seems daft not to vote even if no one party is attractive

---

If you're not a socialist you've definitely got a better chance of avoiding disappointment with Starmer in charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost

If you're not a socialist you've definitely got a better chance of avoiding disappointment with Starmer in charge.

---

He's a technocratic authoritarian who believes the Davos elites should rule by fiat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost

If you're not a socialist you've definitely got a better chance of avoiding disappointment with Starmer in charge.

---

Socialism is daft

The best to hope for is a modern government which tries to take care of the vulnerable and keep the country reasonably stable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Socialism is daft

The best to hope for is a modern government which tries to take care of the vulnerable and keep the country reasonably stable

---

Surely all Govts are 'modern' by their very nature , even a Govt that wants to ban cars and go back to a horse and cart could be classed as modern thinkers as they would caring for the environment etc.

All UK Govts that I have ever known want to take care of the vulnerable and keep the country stable. All countries were affected by covid, which removed about 10-15% of our economy almost over night. Taking care of the vulnerable is obvious , but making sure we dont bust the bank in the process is also important

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pipster

even a Govt that wants to ban cars and go back to a horse and cart could be classed as modern thinkers as they would caring for the environment etc.

---

Who knew The Flintstones was actually an instruction manual :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pipster

All countries were affected by covid, which removed about 10-15% of our economy almost over night.

---

Weren't they talking about a great reset shortly before it happened?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Who knew The Flintstones was actually an instruction manual :hehe:

Weren't they talking about a great reset shortly before it happened?

---

I believe David Icke was and a painter and decorator from Cowbridge. They will probably claim this as a prediction

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pipster

Surely all Govts are 'modern' by their very nature , even a Govt that wants to ban cars and go back to a horse and cart could be classed as modern thinkers as they would caring for the environment etc.

All UK Govts that I have ever known want to take care of the vulnerable and keep the country stable. All countries were affected by covid, which removed about 10-15% of our economy almost over night. Taking care of the vulnerable is obvious , but making sure we dont bust the bank in the process is also important

---

All governments you have ever known have wanted to take care of the vulnerable ?

You are having a laugh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

All governments you have ever known have wanted to take care of the vulnerable ?

You are having a laugh

---

I would say for at least 100 years, yes. Obviously there is a range within that in terms of the extent of support and how it is done, but yes.

Who do you think didn't?

Let me guess..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Socialism is daft

The best to hope for is a modern government which tries to take care of the vulnerable and keep the country reasonably stable

---

That's all very laudable. What I find unacceptable is that people who want the same as you have hijacked a socialist party to achieve it. I think you would accept that is very far away from what the party was established to achieve? Obviously parties and their policies have to evolve. But the Labour Party was changed out of all recognition by Blair and his ilk. That's not on.

It's a cliche I know but Keir Hardie, Michael Foot, Nye Bevan, Dennis Skinner, Eric Heffer, etc would all be appalled by what it's become. Jesus even Harold Winston, Barbara Castle and Jim Callaghan would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost

That's all very laudable. What I find unacceptable is that people who want the same as you have hijacked a socialist party to achieve it. I think you would accept that is very far away from what the party was established to achieve? Obviously parties and their policies have to evolve. But the Labour Party was changed out of all recognition by Blair and his ilk. That's not on.

It's a cliche I know but Keir Hardie, Michael Foot, Nye Bevan, Dennis Skinner, Eric Heffer, etc would all be appalled by what it's become. Jesus even Harold Winston, Barbara Castle and Jim Callaghan would.

---

:thumbup: