The downfall of the Tory party.

[Agentgonzo]

lockdown debt

Tory handouts for the rich.

 

[Steve.]

genuine question re "tax breaks and other benefits for the rich" [and of course "rich" is a very subjective concept]

i am trying to think of a single change that the govt has made (and that has stuck) since the general election in 2019 that might be described as a "tax break and other benefit for the rich". Does anyone have an example ? Of course Truss and Kwarteng briefly proposed such policies, but none of them stuck. And the govt inherited some policies (eg charitable status of private schools) that might be described as such. But has a single change been made since 2019 that can be described this way ?

Not being snippy, genuine question because i cant think of anything.

PS - i completely agree that the Tories are *perceived* this way, but does their revealed behaviour match ?

Scrapping the cap on bankers bonuses

 

[Agentgonzo]

genuine question re "tax breaks and other benefits for the rich" [and of course "rich" is a very subjective concept]

i am trying to think of a single change that the govt has made (and that has stuck) since the general election in 2019 that might be described as a "tax break and other benefit for the rich". Does anyone have an example ? Of course Truss and Kwarteng briefly proposed such policies, but none of them stuck. And the govt inherited some policies (eg charitable status of private schools) that might be described as such. But has a single change been made since 2019 that can be described this way ?

Not being snippy, genuine question because i cant think of anything.

PS - i completely agree that the Tories are *perceived* this way, but does their revealed behaviour match ?

I know the triple lock pension policy was created well before 2019, but it's a continuing decision to apply it every year. Pensions went up by the rate of inflation last year (roughly 10%) whilst public sector workers, doctors, nurses, firefighters, teachers had to fight really really hard to get half that.

And whilst "all pensioners" is a huge category and we shouldn't be applying broad brush strokes, the pensionable age bracket is on average far better off than the next generation. And the one after that.

 

[Justin Dean]

Why didn't they use the money below

The baffling part for me is that 31% voted Conservative in Mid Beds. I don't understand how anybody coukd vote for more of what we've been subjected to. If they thought about it for 20 seconds.

That is a rather small minded opinion

 

[Justin Dean]

lockdown debt

Same thing. What is your point?

 

[clib]

That is a rather small minded opinion

I just find it difficult to understand having witnessed the last 13 years. I feel that the small mindedness is more about continuing to vote for something that is so obviously not working.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Why didn't they use the money below

That is a rather small minded opinion

Did you mean to quote both of us?

 

[Justin Dean]

I just find it difficult to understand having witnessed the last 13 years. I feel that the small mindedness is more about continuing to vote for something that is so obviously not working.

I agree. Both things are the same is my point. Seeing both sides with understanding makes a better decision

 

[Agentgonzo]

genuine question re "tax breaks and other benefits for the rich" [and of course "rich" is a very subjective concept]

i am trying to think of a single change that the govt has made (and that has stuck) since the general election in 2019 that might be described as a "tax break and other benefit for the rich". Does anyone have an example ? Of course Truss and Kwarteng briefly proposed such policies, but none of them stuck. And the govt inherited some policies (eg charitable status of private schools) that might be described as such. But has a single change been made since 2019 that can be described this way ?

Not being snippy, genuine question because i cant think of anything.

PS - i completely agree that the Tories are *perceived* this way, but does their revealed behaviour match ?

https://www.taxjustice.uk/blog/40bn-in-tax-cuts-given-to-businesses-and-the-wealthy-under-johnson

 

[Agentgonzo]

Oh. Let's not forget his very first election promise (which is yet another promise he broke). Raising the higher rate tax threshold to £80000 Boris Johnson promises tax cut for 3m higher earners

 

[Justin Dean]

https://www.taxjustice.uk/blog/40bn-in-tax-cuts-given-to-businesses-and-the-wealthy-under-johnson

The operative word is estimated

 

[Justin Dean]

Wait until labour get in power then we can all bash them. It is the fashion. Always has been.

 

[MattH1973]

I know the triple lock pension policy was created well before 2019, but it's a continuing decision to apply it every year. Pensions went up by the rate of inflation last year (roughly 10%) whilst public sector workers, doctors, nurses, firefighters, teachers had to fight really really hard to get half that.

And whilst "all pensioners" is a huge category and we shouldn't be applying broad brush strokes, the pensionable age bracket is on average far better off than the next generation. And the one after that.

as you point out, this isnt really a benefit for the "rich" but the economic advantages the older generation (pensions, property) has over the younger generations is a huge issue in this country - and not an issue any of the major parties seems to be willing to confront.

Same thing. What is your point?

my point is that lockdown and covid are not the same thing. The countries and US states that didnt lock down, or locked down much less, have much better economic outcomes, (and as an aside) similar or better excess mortality than thier near neighbours. The biggest economic mistake of this government (and probably in the whole of history) was lockdown. They deserve to pay for that.

https://www.taxjustice.uk/blog/40bn-in-tax-cuts-given-to-businesses-and-the-wealthy-under-johnson
as someone else points out, this is an estimate - and one from a source that seems a long way from neutral....

 

[Agentgonzo]

... Reducing the rich tax bracket from 50% to 45%.

 

[Justin Dean]

as you point out, this isnt really a benefit for the "rich" but the economic advantages the older generation (pensions, property) has over the younger generations is a huge issue in this country - and not an issue any of the major parties seems to be willing to confront.


my point is that lockdown and covid are not the same thing. The countries and US states that didnt lock down, or locked down much less, have much better economic outcomes, (and as an aside) similar or better excess mortality than thier near neighbours. The biggest economic mistake of this government (and probably in the whole of history) was lockdown. They deserve to pay for that.

https://www.taxjustice.uk/blog/40bn-in-tax-cuts-given-to-businesses-and-the-wealthy-under-johnson
as someone else points out, this is an estimate - and one from a source that seems a long way from neutral....

Not just lock down the US for instance spent a lot of money on economic support. They are having more issues than is usual on balancing the public sector budget which is yet to have problems roost.

I guess you think lockdown was wrong thing to do. You must get a lot of people disagreeing with you on that. Personally I believe politicising a pandemic is pretty cheap politics. Anyone in a situation of following the science when scientists have many differing views on public measures is bound to fail and of course scientists that did not support a lockdown became more vocal after the pandemic.

Thanks for discussing

 

[Justin Dean]

... Reducing the rich tax bracket from 50% to 45%.

What is the definition of rich?

 

[Agentgonzo]

What is the definition of rich?

I think that was if your earned over £150k per year. I think we could all agree that qualifies as rich.

Oh, and tax relief limit on pension contributions is raising from £40000 to £60000 per year. That benefit certainly will certainly only affect the rich

Oh, and the income tax paid on electric company cars (which again, only the rich get) is charged at 2%, which may as well be exempt from income tax.

 

[MattH1973]

Not just lock down the US for instance spent a lot of money on economic support. They are having more issues than is usual on balancing the public sector budget which is yet to have problems roost.

I guess you think lockdown was wrong thing to do. You must get a lot of people disagreeing with you on that. Personally I believe politicising a pandemic is pretty cheap politics. Anyone in a situation of following the science when scientists have many differing views on public measures is bound to fail and of course scientists that did not support a lockdown became more vocal after the pandemic.

Thanks for discussing

haha yes. I do feel (and always felt) that the costs of lockdown (economy, missed cancer diagnosis, domestic violence, mental health, alcoholism etc etc) were assumed away, and now those costs are becoming more apparent i do feel lockdown was a mistake - and I am indeed used to this being a minority view - although in my view that is only because the media peddled, and continue to peddle, such a pro lockdown agenda. For example - why does no-one worry about excess mortality (which is continuing to be far higher than pore covid levels, and not explained by covid deaths) any more ? Do deaths as a result of lockdown matter less than deaths as a result of covid ?

You also nail a key point in the most above. "Following the science" was just Cummings 3 word slogan spin (ie "take back control", "get brexit done"). The implication that all scientists agreed on lockdown is absurd. What actually happened is that very respected scientists (Henegan, Bhattacharya etc) were smeared and rubbished so the government could suggests that their groupthink was in fact unanimity.

The government should have been clear, as happened in Sweden and Florida for example, that these were political judgements and that Covid deaths need to be weighted against the wider costs of lockdown, including deaths. This didn't happen at all until Sage proposed an Omicron lockdown in December 2021 and cabinet rejected it. If Sage were wrong on this, how do we know they were right in the preceeding 20 months ?

 

[Agentgonzo]

haha yes. I do feel (and always felt) that the costs of lockdown (economy, missed cancer diagnosis, domestic violence, mental health, alcoholism etc etc) were assumed away, and now those costs are becoming more apparent i do feel lockdown was a mistake - and I am indeed used to this being a minority view - although in my view that is only because the media peddled, and continue to peddle, such a pro lockdown agenda. For example - why does no-one worry about excess mortality (which is continuing to be far higher than pore covid levels, and not explained by covid deaths) any more ? Do deaths as a result of lockdown matter less than deaths as a result of covid ?

You also nail a key point in the most above. "Following the science" was just Cummings 3 word slogan spin (ie "take back control", "get brexit done"). The implication that all scientists agreed on lockdown is absurd. What actually happened is that very respected scientists (Henegan, Bhattacharya etc) were smeared and rubbished so the government could suggests that their groupthink was in fact unanimity.

The government should have been clear, as happened in Sweden and Florida for example, that these were political judgements and that Covid deaths need to be weighted against the wider costs of lockdown, including deaths. This didn't happen at all until Sage proposed an Omicron lockdown in December 2021 and cabinet rejected it. If Sage were wrong on this, how do we know they were right in the preceeding 20 months ?

"Eat out to help out" was possibly the stupidest thing that anyone could ever have come up with.

 

[MattH1973]

I think that was if your earned over £150k per year. I think we could all agree that qualifies as rich.

Oh, and tax relief limit on pension contributions is raising from £40000 to £60000 per year. That benefit certainly will certainly only affect the rich

Oh, and the income tax paid on electric company cars (which again, only the rich get) is charged at 2%, which may as well be exempt from income tax.

thanks for the examples you posted. I agree the pension changes benefit many rich people - but they also benefit long serving public sector workers who have accumulated very high pension pots - even at quite a low base salary. For example, an NHS worker on a final salary pension who finished at a salary of £55k after (say) 35 years service has a pension pot that would cost well over £1m to buy with the equivalent of a money purchase pension. No-one ever seems to mention this. I dont necessarily begrudge them that, but pension wealth of public sector workers, now life expectancy has increased, creates a vast inequity that no-one wants to talk about. I realise I am slightly changing the subject but it is very relevant when defining who is "rich" and how much they should be taxed. Whilst I agree people earning over £150k are likely to be "rich" there arent enough of them to raise significant tax funds - long run history tells us this, it is why super-tax has never worked as a way of raising revenue.

Small other points
- my question was about the post 2019 govt. I am pretty sure the 50pct tax rate was abolished years before.
- i think it is completely incorrect to suggest that only the "rich" drive company electric cars. Electric car subsidies have financially benefitted users of a wide degree of wealth.