General Election 2015

[eFestivals]

Of course, as I'm sure you will acknowledge, taxing the rich is not an option which has (yet) been available to Holyrood.

And as i'm sure you'll acknowledge, taxing the rich is a position any party would take if they supported taxing the rich.

Particularly when they'll never have the powers themselves to implement such a policy at Westminster, and so would never be held accountable for it.

So, I'm wondering why ... for a party that you seemed convinced as more left than Labour, why don't they want to tax the rich?

(Rhetorical. You can pick that one up in the indie thread if you like, to keep this one more general)

Edited February 27, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

Has anyone in this thread championed Danny Alexander?

Not in this thread

Our Chief Secretary to the Treasury has an 18% majority ( 8765 ) but looks set to lose his seat. Since taking his seat at the big table in 2010 I can think of atleast one person across the UK who has benefited from his rise to the top. Goodbye Danny.

[gary1979666]

Re the tuition fees cut, it was worked out that this would only be a benefit for anyone earning over £35k. Some simple maths show this - have assumed 2% interest and constant salary - just for simplicity, but the differences are apparent between the two systems of 27k debt vs 18k. Hardly progressive.

25k - Pays back roughly £11k over 30 years under both systems

35k - Pays back £35k over 28 years vs £21k over 17 yrs

45k - Pays back £31k over 15 yrs vs £20k over 10yrs

The dropping in funding is then replaced by a raid on pensions (fair enough), but universities are worried that the income is less certain, as the govt could switch it at whim, rather than a dedicated stream from the 'students'. They would then look at loss making courses, normally science and engineering ones, which if anything are areas we need to be excelling.

I know they plan to increase maintenance grants, but this will benefit the poorer students by only a few hundred £ a year.

I know the headline is a winner, but the detail of it should worry people.

[eFestivals]

Re the tuition fees cut, it was worked out that this would only be a benefit for anyone earning over £35k. Some simple maths show this - have assumed 2% interest and constant salary - just for simplicity, but the differences are apparent between the two systems of 27k debt vs 18k. Hardly progressive.

25k - Pays back roughly £11k over 30 years under both systems

35k - Pays back £35k over 28 years vs £21k over 17 yrs

45k - Pays back £31k over 15 yrs vs £20k over 10yrs

The dropping in funding is then replaced by a raid on pensions (fair enough), but universities are worried that the income is less certain, as the govt could switch it at whim, rather than a dedicated stream from the 'students'. They would then look at loss making courses, normally science and engineering ones, which if anything are areas we need to be excelling.

I know they plan to increase maintenance grants, but this will benefit the poorer students by only a few hundred £ a year.

I know the headline is a winner, but the detail of it should worry people.

How about the detail of another £250Bn of debt added to the national debt by 2030, and where far less debt would be added under labour's plans?

And who would be the ones that stopped that extra debt being added? It would those richest who were "benefitting" via a lower £3k in fees.

Fancy that, a tory saying that a plan which has the rich pay a greater share towards uni education is really a gidft to the rich. anyone might think you're either tory-trolling, or alternatively that your grasp of economics is as poor as the towel folder's.

Oh dear, the tory lies get exposed again.

[gary1979666]

How about the detail of another £250Bn of debt added to the national debt by 2030, and where far less debt would be added under labour's plans?

And who would be the ones that stopped that extra debt being added? It would those richest who were "benefitting" via a lower £3k in fees.

Fancy that, a tory saying that a plan which has the rich pay a greater share towards uni education is really a gidft to the rich. anyone might think you're either tory-trolling, or alternatively that your grasp of economics is as poor as the towel folder's.

Oh dear, the tory lies get exposed again.

Think I've missed something here. Care to go back a step (it is Monday morning afterall). Are you doubting the numbers in my calcs above as your use of " indicates?

I know there is extra debt written off as a result of higher fees (though not seen where the £250bn comes from) - and it's effectively kicking the can down the road. How would a grad earning £35k benefit from this?

And I'll have you know my towel folder's grasp of economics is pretty good, as once he's done folding, he reads the FT to me, while feeding me the grapes that he's peeled for me. Joking aside, bit of a poor assumption that a low paid job means they're a thicko - you almost sound like a Tory! ;o)

[gary1979666]

Slightly different topic - post election regardless who 'wins' - it's pretty likely to mean the 'loser' is for the chop. (Though read reports that the Tories have a plan to Save Dave, in case a Labour coalition doesn't last long)

Who do you reckon will be leading the parties in 6 months if they lose?

Tories - Boris must be in with a shout if he gets elected.

Labour - really open race - Cooper? Johnson

Libs - (hell, could do OK electorally, but still lose Clegg) - Farron?

[eFestivals]

Think I've missed something here. Care to go back a step (it is Monday morning afterall). Are you doubting the numbers in my calcs above as your use of " indicates?

I know there is extra debt written off as a result of higher fees (though not seen where the £250bn comes from) - and it's effectively kicking the can down the road. How would a grad earning £35k benefit from this?

And I'll have you know my towel folder's grasp of economics is pretty good, as once he's done folding, he reads the FT to me, while feeding me the grapes that he's peeled for me. Joking aside, bit of a poor assumption that a low paid job means they're a thicko - you almost sound like a Tory! ;o)

The current system will add £240Bn to the national debt by 2030. That £240Bn is a number that Labour are quoting, tho I suspect there's little argument about it as everyone is aware that a big chunk of fees will never be paid off via the current £9k system.

(I mis-typed as £250Bn in the first post, apols for that).

That debt will essentially be created via the Uni fees that don't ever get paid off, via the £9k fees.

If people are paying £6k fees instead, the ones who save that £3k are the better paid (because the worse paid will never pay off their debt anyway, which is what gets added to the national debt).

BUT ... those better paid are not merely getting £3k less in fees, they're ALSO (essentially) getting taxed at a higher rate, via lesser tax relief on pensions.

So, what is saved from being added to the national debt is paid for those better paid people. They don't save themselves £3k, they pay more than £3k extra in taxes.

It's quite simple. The debt that would otherwise be national debt is covered by higher taxes on the rich.

Towel folders like Gideon can't do the very simple maths.

Uni funding can get switched at will by any govt at any time anyway. There's nothing better for the Uni's via any method because the govt are aways the ones who decide their funding for all of the while they operate under a govt licence and with direct tax-payer support.

And where the fuck did I say anything about low paid jobs for thickos? Your economic take, as shared with Gideon, is the only thicko bit around here.

Labour's proposed change is not free money for the rich but the exact opposite - the rich paying more.

Edited March 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Slightly different topic - post election regardless who 'wins' - it's pretty likely to mean the 'loser' is for the chop. (Though read reports that the Tories have a plan to Save Dave, in case a Labour coalition doesn't last long)

Who do you reckon will be leading the parties in 6 months if they lose?

Tories - Boris must be in with a shout if he gets elected.

Labour - really open race - Cooper? Johnson

Libs - (hell, could do OK electorally, but still lose Clegg) - Farron?

Boris is the most obvious tory, tho I'm not sure he'll necessarily get it. Two ex-Etonites following each other as tory leader would expose the tories too much for what they are, I reckon. So the likes of May must be in with a chance I'd say.

Fallon is the name which gets dropped the most for the LibDems, tho I wouldn't be too surprised if it was a more public-familiar face such as Hughes.

Labour is the hardest to call, I reckon, because if Labour lose then what Labour stand for as a party will come under great sruitiny, and they could spin off in any number of different directions with a leader to suit that.

[gary1979666]

And where the fuck did I say anything about low paid jobs for thickos? Your economic take, as shared with Gideon, is the only thicko bit around here.

Apologies - didn't get your ref to Georgie Boy. THought you meant towel folders in general, ie the hired help.

[lost]

So, what is saved from being added to the national debt is paid for those better paid people. They don't save themselves £3k, they pay more than £3k extra in taxes.

It depends, the one in Gary's example wouldn't. He won't get hit until he's on around £72k. The moneys generally going to come from public sector workers and older private sector workers with final salary pensions due to the £1 million lifetime limit

[gary1979666]

The current system will add £240Bn to the national debt by 2030. That £240Bn is a number that Labour are quoting, tho I suspect there's little argument about it as everyone is aware that a big chunk of fees will never be paid off via the current £9k system.

(I mis-typed as £250Bn in the first post, apols for that).

That debt will essentially be created via the Uni fees that don't ever get paid off, via the £9k fees.

If people are paying £6k fees instead, the ones who save that £3k are the better paid (because the worse paid will never pay off their debt anyway, which is what gets added to the national debt).

BUT ... those better paid are not merely getting £3k less in fees, they're ALSO (essentially) getting taxed at a higher rate, via lesser tax relief on pensions.

So, what is saved from being added to the national debt is paid for those better paid people. They don't save themselves £3k, they pay more than £3k extra in taxes.

It's quite simple. The debt that would otherwise be national debt is covered by higher taxes on the rich.

Towel folders like Gideon can't do the very simple maths.

Uni funding can get switched at will by any govt at any time anyway. There's nothing better for the Uni's via any method because the govt are aways the ones who decide their funding for all of the while they operate under a govt licence and with direct tax-payer support.

And where the fuck did I say anything about low paid jobs for thickos? Your economic take, as shared with Gideon, is the only thicko bit around here.

Labour's proposed change is not free money for the rich but the exact opposite - the rich paying more.

OK, get you now.

So take a uni grad, let's call him George, he graduates with 18k of debt, earns £45k a year and pays it off through the usual way in 10 years. But because of the higher debt through write offs, tax rate go up/boundaries change, etc and he pays more to 'compensate' for the lower loan repayment.

But isn't that assuming the gap is made up by tax rises. Don't believe Labour have actually said that though. Plus the write offs won't likely hit the books for a good few (20?) years, so neither party is going to act on it until then. By which time even more cuts could be on the cards, or we'll have grown our way out of the problem.

In principle, I can see what you're saying, but don't think Labour have set it out like that. They're flying the flag for cutting the cost of university and to encourage people from poorer backgrounds.

[eFestivals]

Apologies - didn't get your ref to Georgie Boy. THought you meant towel folders in general, ie the hired help.

towel-folder is the only real job Gideon has ever had. It's a very widely used put-down for him.

[eFestivals]

It depends, the one in Gary's example wouldn't.

I didn't say "no one is better off".

I said "the rich pick up the tab of the fees cut". And they do!

The moneys generally going to come from public sector workers and older private sector workers with final salary pensions due to the £1 million lifetime limit

Do behave.

How many public sector workers do you think have a £1M pension pot? :lol:

Edited March 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

But isn't that assuming the gap is made up by tax rises. Don't believe Labour have actually said that though. 're flying the flag for cutting the cost of university and to encourage people from poorer backgrounds.

They have.

Not exactly "tax rises", because it's being done by lesser "tax relief" rather than a new tax or increase in a specific tax rate, but the effect is the same. The amount the treasury collects in revenue from taxes will increase, by (supposedly; i've not done the calcs myself) the amount needed to cover the £3k drop in fees from each student.

[lost]

Do behave.

How many public sector workers do you think have a £1M pension pot? :lol:

its calculated by their final income so it looks like anyone retiring on about £48k is going to be hit.

[eFestivals]

its calculated by their final income so it looks like anyone retiring on about £48k is going to be hit.

and how many peop[le do you think have a £48k pa.a pension?

Back in the real world, the poor pay nothing extra, and only those with more money than they can spend pay extra - so no one at all loses.

[lost]

and how many peop[le do you think have a £48k pa.a pension?

Back in the real world, the poor pay nothing extra, and only those with more money than they can spend pay extra - so no one at all loses.

Well I would guess it would start to hit middle managers/ deputy heads/ chief inspectors upwards. But you've probably answered your own question there regarding if labours figures add up as most can get around it simply by retiring early when they hit the limit.

Edited March 2, 2015 by lost

[eFestivals]

Well I would guess it would start to hit middle managers/ deputy heads/ chief inspectors upwards. But you've probably answered your own question there regarding if labours figures add up as most can get around it simply by retiring early when they hit the limit.

what proportion of the population are "middle managers/ deputy heads/ chief inspectors " or upwards of that?

And the "retire early" bit is bollocks, an impossible way to manipulate things to those rich people's advantage from what I've understood of Labour's changed tax-relief plans. How can someone make more by earning less? That's what would have to happen for what you say to take place.

Edited March 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[pink_triangle]

Boris is the most obvious tory, tho I'm not sure he'll necessarily get it. Two ex-Etonites following each other as tory leader would expose the tories too much for what they are, I reckon. So the likes of May must be in with a chance I'd say.

Fallon is the name which gets dropped the most for the LibDems, tho I wouldn't be too surprised if it was a more public-familiar face such as Hughes.

Labour is the hardest to call, I reckon, because if Labour lose then what Labour stand for as a party will come under great sruitiny, and they could spin off in any number of different directions with a leader to suit that.

I think the conservative selection uses MPs to narrow the choice for 2, before the members get their say. Im sure Boris would win if his name went ot the voters, but suspect the MPs will engineer a selection where his name isnt on the ballot.

I suspect if Ed loses, they will look to the next generation. It wouldnt shock me if its a name not known to those outside political geeks

I think Farrons a cert for the lib dems, he has kept his hands clean by staying out of govenrment.

[lost]

what proportion of the population are "middle managers/ deputy heads/ chief inspectors " or upwards of that?

And the "retire early" bit is bollocks, an impossible way to manipulate things to those rich people's advantage from what I've understood of Labour's changed tax-relief plans. How can someone make more by earning less? That's what would have to happen for what you say to take place.

Nope haven't said they'd make more. I'm saying there is now an incentive to retire early and so those estimated tax gains may never appear. Actually as people who have these skills tend to be in demand what they could do is retire early taking the pension to cover their living costs then do the same job as a contractor keeping all that income sheltered in a limited company. Edited March 2, 2015 by lost

[eFestivals]

Nope haven't said they'd make more. I'm saying there is now an incentive to retire early and so those estimated tax gains may never appear. Actually as people who have these skills tend to be in demand what they could do is retire early taking the pension to cover their living costs then do the same job as a contractor keeping all that income sheltered in a limited company.

There's no incentive to retire earlier unless a person wants to retire MUCH poorer. What part of that aren't you getting?

And anyway, if a rich git retires early, does that high-earning-potential job position sit there unfilled? Of course not. Someone fills it, and they hand over the tax.

what they could do is retire early taking the pension to cover their living costs then do the same job as a contractor keeping all that income sheltered in a limited company.

yeah, cos handing over corp tax instead is going to save them loads.

Simple fact is they could do all of that already. The thieves will keep trying to thieve and the decent people won't. Which one are you?

As you seem to be saying that thievery shouldn't be acted against as people will sill thieve, care to tell me your attitudes to murder?

Edited March 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[lost]

There's no incentive to retire earlier unless a person wants to retire MUCH poorer. What part of that aren't you getting?

And anyway, if a rich git retires early, does that high-earning-potential job position sit there unfilled? Of course not. Someone fills it, and they hand over the tax.

yeah, cos handing over corp tax instead is going to save them loads.

Simple fact is they could do all of that already. The thieves will keep trying to thieve and the decent people won't. Which one are you?

As you seem to be saying that thievery shouldn't be acted against as people will sill thieve, care to tell me your attitudes to murder?

1) There is a massive incentive to retire.. Belive me most people would happily retire early if they are not going to be better off

2) as already mentioned we are talking about different generations with final salary vs money purchase so your second point isn't comparing like with like.

3) now I know you haven't looked at the figures corp tax is what 21% not 55%

4) not sure what theives have to do with it maybe they are related to the squirrels? we are talking about if the levy on pension pots over a million will raise enough to cover the tution cut

Edited March 2, 2015 by lost

[eFestivals]

1) There is a massive incentive to retire.. Belive me most people would happily retire early if they are not going to be better off

2) as already mentioned we are talking about different generations with final salary vs money purchase so your second point isn't comparing like with like.

3) now I know you haven't looked at the figures corp tax is what 21% not 40%

4) not sure what theives have to do with it maybe they are related to the squirrels? we are talking about if the levy on pension pots over a million will raise enough to cover the tution cut

1. They would fail at being better off by the fact of retiring. They will have a lower lifeterm earn, and fewer years in which they'd paid into their pension. Therefore it could only be the mega-wealthy who could afford to take early retirement just on the basis that they resent paying a reasonable amount of tax.

2. Only those with disproportionate wealth will pay, who have more money than they can spend. What's not to like?

3. that's a scam they could be running anyway. As I said, the thieves will keep trying to thieve. That's no reason to abolish anti-thievery laws.

4. theivery is from those who look for ways out of paying the same taxes as others pay.

Edited March 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[lost]

1. They would fail at being better off by the fact of retiring. They will have a lower lifeterm earn, and fewer years in which they'd paid into their pension. Therefore it could only be the mega-wealthy who could afford to take early retirement just on the basis that they resent paying a reasonable amount of tax.

Well I guess I'm different though I don't have any kids but I'm already semi-retired and I'm not mega wealthy.. once your mortgage is off you can take a pretty big pay cut I find.

2. Only those with disproportionate wealth will pay, who have more money than they can spend. What's not to like?

3. that's a scam they could be running anyway. As I said, the thieves will keep trying to thieve. That's no reason to abolish anti-thievery laws.

4. theivery is from those who look for ways out of paying the same taxes as others pay.

Haven't said anything is wrong with policy just pointing out there maybe an issue with that £250bn overspend you seem so worried about. As far as I can see Labour haven't provided the figures but I'm saying if they are based on the current boomer pension pots then the amount of tax generated will drop off dramatically over the next 25 years as people from my generation who have money purchase schemes, lower employer contributions and negative bond yields will not grow our pension pots to the same size

[grumpyhack]

The main problem with retiring (money apart) is making the transition from working full time and having a job that gives a shape and sense of purpose to your life to the stage where you don't have to set the alarm and get up at silly o clock.

Mrs GH and I are in that transition stage now and are both working part time - her as a well paid 'consultant' and me as a poorly paid adult ed tutor.

The main reason why I continue to work part time isn't money - though something has to keep me in cigarettes - it's that I still enjoy work (mostly) and wouldn't know what to do with myself as a total gentleman of leisure.