AIBU to not understand why "normal" people vote Tory?

[olddogsnewtricks]

OK, so I'll probably get flamed for this but am genuinely interested! All the people I know who vote Tory are pretty well off so use private schools and healthcare. As a family we need the NHS and we need a good education system - and I can't see them getting any better under the Tories. Are these just not priorities for Tory voters or do they really believe they will improve even with a Conservative government?

But I don't agree that Labour wasted loads of money

Labour did waste money, I personally attended taxpayer paid for events that were . There were loads of jobs in the public sector/ quangos that weren't needed - I know because I worked with a lot of them!

But to some extent I don't see the point in these 'brown did x', 'osborne did y' discussions (and we can all find things we disagree with in either) because they are all in the past. All we can do now is judge based on manifesto. The last labour government was in power a few years ago now so let's listen to what they want to do in the future. Running any economy is bloody hard and any approach has advantages and disadvantages - if it was easy then there wouldn't be all this discussion.

Also £34bn allegedly tax avoidance (lawful) is just a figure plucked out. tax avoidance includes mumsnetters who pay into a pension and get tax relief on that. Or who trake money from their parents for a house deposit (rather than inherit it when the parents die with 40% tax taken off) or where husband and wife both work for £11k a year so both use their tax allowance rather than one earnins £22k and paying tax. it is the same with my business or companies - we pay tax as the rules allow. if the state wants to change the rules that's fine.

For example I would support capitals gains tax at income tax rates - something Lawfon had years ago - simple taxes at the same rate. instead we now have 10% on business sales, 18% on others, 28% on houses and if it's income you are making then 45%+. It has got very complex which is not the fault of business or tax payers but that of the state.

Both parties have a massive problem of low tax receipts partly due to very low wages for many and huge huge expenses. It is not going to be easy whoever gets in. If May can abandon Cameron's commitment to the pensions triple lock etc that is probably sensible although may be not what voters want to hear.

I know workshy families. One is a branch of my own family. They treat benefits like wages.

And higher income groups avoid many tens of billions of tax which is a rather bigger problem than a small percentage of workshy.

What always interests me more about that point though is that it was the Thatcher government who made it socially acceptable amongst the working class to be unemployed and on benefits. Unemployment used to be something people hid and were ashamed of (I can remember as a small child the disparaging terms used for anyone thought to be 'on the take'). Under Thatcher, the destruction of industry caused unemployment on such a wide scale that entire communities were hit and unemployment was accepted as a fact of life.

I'm not saying that shaming people was good but that culture you describe of 'acceptability' is a direct inheritance of Thatcherism

So if you have a problem with 'workshy families' presumably you're working day and night to secure the abolition of the monarchy? Nope? Didn't think so!

Which members of the Monarchy do no work?

Posted too soon - And are funded by Benefits paid to them by the State?

I think the government needs to tackle tax evasion from the wealthier spectrum as well as people not working who could plus looking at things like council tenants subletting their properties and other corruption.

I am equally against people in any of the income brackets who take the piss out of the tax and benefits system. It shouldn't be acceptable for anyone.

Are we only allowed to reduce it in one demographic at a time? It shouldn't be about class war.

BMW - the royals are funded by the tax payer. So it doesn't matter that they are not actually paid 'benefits' - they are paid for With public money so it's the same thing. Does anyone really not know that? Their security alone costs a huge amount of money.

Until fairly recently the Queen didn't even pay tax.

The Royals are not publicly funded!! Lottie you really should check your fact's you come out with some right old carp.

Instead we have, from both parties, just a cherry picked list of "nice to haves".

Yes. A lot of these "how are you going to pay for it" questions are derailments. We all know where funding comes from. An honest talk about how much more tax we will all have to contribute (including corps) would be nice.

No, it's not a derailment to ask where the money is going to come from.

Because it's damned important to know if there is going to be an attempt to reduce borrowing, and when a balanced budget might be achieved, or if there is an intention to increase borrowing from the off and what the total increased amount would be.

The Royals are not publicly funded!! Lottie you really should check your fact's you come out with some right old carp

royal sovereign grant - they get public funding.

No, it's not a derailment to ask where the money is going to come from

It's tinkering around the edges. Instead all outgoings and incoming need costing overall. Then a total consideration of the must haves, what that costs. Then cost the nice to haves etc etc.

Instead of not picking bits and pieces. It creates a distraction.

If I'm looking at my overall finances, I wouldn't say "i will cut my phone bill to fund a hair cut". I would list my income, all expenditure then set out what I can and can't afford.

The possibilities of higher taxes (which, how much), more borrowing (how much) or countervailing cuts (roughly what) are much more than tinkering round the edges to me. They are at the very core of how a future administration will be running their programme.

So I'll continue to state that asking about the government budget is anything but a derailment, but I do realise that nit every voter would attach importance to that part of the underpinnings.

So I'll continue to state that asking about the government budget is anything but a derailment, but I do realise that nit every voter would attach importance to that part of the underpinnings

You misunderstand. I didn't say that asking about a budget is not important. I did say that tinkering around is the distraction. I would prefer that a prospective government set out, overall, their vision for the country and set out, overall how they would balance the books.

Telling me they will fund x by cutting y is tinkering and doesn't address the fundamental issue of the deficit. It's a distraction - to create the illusion that they can fund policies but in reality I want an overall management of the fiscal position not a snip here and a tweak there.

I would prefer that a prospective government set out, overall, their vision for the country and set out, overall how they would balance the books.

Yes. And I would go further...is talk of "balancing the books" a Tory (Republican in America) technique for controlling/derailing? Is running "debt" bad?

I think ultimately there are limits to the size of healthy debt. But debt isn't inherently bad, and in many cases is good. So framing the discussion in this way is either arguable....or perhaps a way to control the discussion.

As it stands now, we are running about a 50 billion/year deficit. And carrying a debt to GDP roughly equal to other European nations our size.

Looking forward, as is done here by the Institute of Fiscal Studies (who have the whiff of Tory about them), it becomes pretty apparent - given especially the ageing population - that if we are going to make substantial deficit/debt reductions, severe cuts and raised taxes will be needed:

www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8825

Again, their thesis is based on the sanctity of debt/deficit reduction, which may be a very false god. Too, economic growth....even a little, would make a huge difference.

But if every time when someone suggests changing the letterhead or using coloured push pins a scream of "how do you plan to pay for it?" goes up......well the answer is that in the grand scheme of things there are much much bigger concerns.

What is needed is a frank and honest conversation about whether we should lash ourselves to the mast of debt reduction or, as I feel, make plans for budgets and expenditures and taxation which move us towards a stronger/growing economy. And do this without using the most vulnerable as grease under the wheel.

We are in no danger at all of "bankruptcy". The British economy is resilient, our governmental structure/rule of law is sound, we will not be invaded, there will be no junta....tsunami is very, very unlikely.

With these conditions, one must ask why the rush to defenestrate the sick and poor.

I think we should be aiming to balance the books but that includes an element of debt. Sometimes we need to borrow to invest. Eg how many of us can buy a house outright?

Debt is not the same as a deficit. Some years we may have a deficit but we should aim to be reducing it over the medium term and pay off debt to prepare for the next downturn.

But if every time when someone suggests changing the letterhead or using coloured push pins a scream of "how do you plan to pay for it?" goes up......well the answer is that in the grand scheme of things there are much much bigger concerns

Completely agree. Your whole post makes perfect sense to me.

Balancing the books makes me laugh. There is no money it doesn't exist hasn't since before ww2. Fiscal lending I believe it's called, if you or I did it we would go to jail for fraud but that's how it works. It's all just numbers on a screen the actual money ran out a long long time ago

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/25/food-banks-report-record-demand-amid-universal-credit-chaos?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Would anyone like to guess how much we as a family get taxed by a Conservative government? As a percentage?

Take a punt.

I still vote for them though.

But guess.

The way I've always looked at it is if i'm paying 40% and that's a lot of money then I'm keeping 60% and that's a lot of money too. If actually looked at the cost of keeping you alive on the planet, your tax bill doesn't touch the sides, none of us pay anywhere near enough, the numbers just do not add up.
So your tax bill is of no interest really. Sorry.

My husband pays higher rate tax. My 20% on my nmw job is more painful TBH (especially as I'm used to being self employed and earning just under the tax threshold).

My eldest will never pay tax - he requires 24 hour 2:1 care (that equals ££££'s).

So the choice is between tax cuts or cuts to his care? Which is how the Tories frame things. No brainer (his care has already been cut as much as possible, if they cut any further he will end up costing the state more as his placement will break down - at huge emotional cost to all). If you're going to pretend that's how the economy works then raise the ruddy taxes to provide decent care to the most vulnerable. Why wouldn't you? Anyone who thinks that the cuts to disability benefits have been done in a way that they protect the most disabled hasn't a bloody clue. The most disabled are the most expensive and are those least likely to have a voice. They have been hugely affected by the cuts.

And you know severe disability can hit your family - even if you pay higher rate tax (at which stage you start to take a lot more than you put in - however much you earn).

Entirely agree with those above that the economics of running a country is very different from household budgeting. Tories rely on the electorate not understanding that and make up sound bites around it.

none of us pay anywhere near enough, the numbers just do not add up.

This is incorrect when you look at the cost of living and the way that it has increased relative to wage increases. The two do not add up.