Tory MN round 2 - a place for Tories to gather ...

[Goddessofgrowth]

And be ritually abused, of course

My husband just shuffled in and poured cold water all over me, said there are something like 3M newly registered voters, and most of them are under 35.... that's a bit of a wild card.

BBC Scotland did a bit of analysis on this. Newly registered voters are always skewed towards under 35s because they include 1st time voters. However it is also true to say that a proportion of newly registered voters are routinely duplicate applicants or not actually eligible to vote.

"During the 50 days before voter registration deadline day, more than a third of applications, 1.3 million, were from under-25s. And while that is a significant increase on the 2017 figure of nearly 900,000, it should be seen in the context of an overall boost to the numbers of people applying to register. As a proportion of overall applications it is almost exactly the same as in 2017.

However, there has been a fall in the proportion of applications coming from 25-34 year olds, a group that was seen by experts as key to Labour's result two years ago. In 2017 33% of applications were from this group, this year it's below 30%.

Conversely, there's been an increase in the proportion of applications by voters over the age of 45, who make up nearly 20 percent of the total this year, compared with 16.5% in 2017.

So - while nearly half a million young people applying to join the electoral register might initially look like good news for Labour, the detail suggests the figures might not be quite as helpful for them as they first appear."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50544602

On a lighter note, Prof Curtice says turnout will be higher than usual because the whole register has just finished its regular update. This means fewer dead people will be counted as not having bothered to vote.

Apologies - I thought it was obvious. Clearly not.

It was perfectly clear to me what you were getting at ajandjj 🤷🏻‍♀️

It was perfectly clear to me what you were getting at ajandjj 🤷🏻‍♀️

Perhaps you could explain it to me then because I’m genuinely mystified.

I'm a floating voter atm but I'm pulling towards the conservatives (despite having a disabled child and wanting more compassionate politics from them) . Sick of Corbyn promising the world when it's our children who will be picking up the bill in a few years.

Alsohuman.

I think the point ajandjj was making, was that the ‘additional tax liabilities’ incurred under a Labour government would cancel out any gain from the payment.

Thank you for that @Applepieco, it’s appreciated. So what are the “additional tax liabilities” because the phrase genuinely means nothing to me.

It means I would be paying a lot more money in tax under a Labour government! Simple enough for you?

Perfect. Thank you.

Additional tax liabilities - tax increases under Labour that you would have to pay. Personal tax, corporation tax, tax on second homes, inheritance tax, VAT on school fees (though not a tax, I suppose but would decrease your income) capital gains tax, financial transaction tax. I would have to look up the complete list. One, all or none of these, depending on your circumstances would affect your income.

Several of those you listed Apple.

And I'd lose the Married Couples allowance (or should I saw we would!) - as would even the lowest earners in society.

Also loss of married persons tax allowance, as well as increased tax on dividend income

Xpost aj 😊

So let me get this straight. A Labour government would give you £6k as a Waspi woman and you’d lose £250 in married couples tax allowance. OK.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies:

^"On the tax side the proposals in the Labour manifesto represent an enormous increase in the amounts they want to raise from corporation tax.

"If their proposals did raise the sums they suggest then we would be raising more in corporation tax, as a fraction of national income, than any other country in the G7, and more than almost anywhere else in the OECD. This would clearly come with substantial risks."

"The truth is of course that in the end corporation tax is paid by workers, customers or shareholders so would affect many in the population."

"In the end, it is unlikely that one could raise the sums suggested by Labour from the tax policies they set out."

"If you want to transform the scale and scope of the state then you need to be clear that the tax increases required to do that will need to be widely shared rather than pretending that everything can be paid for by companies and the rich.”

The Institute for Fiscal Studies:

Much of Labour’s manifesto should presumably be seen as a long term prospectus for change rather than a realistic deliverable plan for a five year parliament. Beyond renegotiating Brexit and doubling investment spending, overhauling substantial parts of the tax system and massively increasing day-to-day spending, their plans for widespread nationalisation, increased labour market regulation, changes to corporate governance and effectively transferring 10% of private share capital to a combination of employees and the state, would all be huge and complex undertakings that would all need to be carefully done.

All that said much of Labour’s vision is of a state not so dissimilar to those seen in many other successful Western European economies. Labour’s proposed increase in the size of the state would still leave UK public spending at a lower share of national income than that seen in Germany. Water companies are more often than not in public ownership. And, for example, collective pay bargaining is widespread in many European economies.

www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/manifestos

Alsohuman
Thank you for the link;

"Labour’s promise to abolish in work poverty within a parliament is not achievable."

"Indeed, one of the few relatively modest elements of their manifesto is the limited additional spending on benefits for the working age poor, one area where they are outdone by the Liberal Democrats."

"They would spend considerably more over a parliament on the so called WASPI women, a group who are relatively well off on average, than the additional sums they are providing to the much bigger group of much poorer working age benefit recipients."

Alsohuman.

I’m not sure if you are understanding this. Ajandjj has just commented that several of the tax increases would affect them, not just the withdrawal of the married couple allowance. It has been made clear, her liability of new taxes would increase enough to wipe out any gain from the Waspi payment. Labour still haven’t really explained where the money for the Waspi payments will come from, they mention using government reserves or further borrowing. Both will incur financial costs for the Country beyond the costs of the actual payments.

Did you even read what I posted before leaping on the link you failed to provide? Have you read the bit that says a no deal Brexit will cost billions more than Labour’s plans?

Ajandjj has just commented that several of the tax increases would affect them, not just the withdrawal of the married couple allowance

Some of those “tax increases” aren’t even in the manifesto and it seems unlikely that many of them would affect someone on less than £12.5k. You’ll forgive my scepticism

Alsohuman
Did you even read what I posted
I had already read those paragraphs 5 minutes previously - I only needed to skim over your post.

More;
"All other countries which tax and spend on the scale that Labour proposes have tax systems which levy more tax on the average worker than we do."

"The commitment to abolish university tuition fees remains an expensive giveaway to the highest earning graduates and has the potential to make it difficult to maintain a system without a cap on student numbers"...

"While quite a few of these pledges would benefit those out-of-work, there are no giveaways targeted specifically at low income working households; perhaps surprising given Labour’s target to abolish in-work poverty within 5 years."

I didn’t realise our government, whoever they are, are only there to serve those on £12.5k or less.

The increase in debt & taxation affects us all. As as example, increases in Corporation tax, particularly for medium sized firms, affects recruitment. What do you think will happen to the shareholders investments in those companies that are to be nationalised? Do you think the shareholders are all multi millionaires?

I’m really not sure where this is going. Several times you said you didn’t understand a point about increased tax liabilities. It’s been explained. Ajandjj has stated that several of the tax increases would affect her. I thought that is what you were asking about.

Which taxes mentioned are not in the Labour manifesto?

In the 1960's there was a scandal when it came out that 154 wealthy Americans paid no income tax through the use of various clever but perfectly legal tax strategies. So congress passed the Alternative Minimum Tax, a different way of calculating the tax due, specifically to catch the 154 miscreants.

7 million American tax payers now pay higher taxes under the AMT than they would under the normal rules because they have a lot of children of give generously to charities, for example. Taxes targeted at the evil rich always hit the middle class eventually.