When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

[Yew]

Fully costed with the assumption that by hiking up tax rates those affected wouldn't just go "bugger it, I'm off to another country" or use other legal ways to reduce their tax liability?

Such things are easily countered by robust legislation, or maybe closing down the massive number of tax havens that we own.

 

[Kite159]

Such things are easily countered by robust legislation, or maybe closing down the massive number of tax havens that we own.

Until said person decides to just clear off to another country, then suddenly tax revenues in the UK get reduced to zero.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Fully costed with the assumption that by hiking up tax rates those affected wouldn't just go "bugger it, I'm off to another country" or use other legal ways to reduce their tax liability?

Such things are easily countered by robust legislation, or maybe closing down the massive number of tax havens that we own.

How in a democracy do you counter people emigrating with 'robust legislation'?

Which tax havens do we own and would be able to close down without first having to negotiate international agreements with the Governments concerned - assuming those Governments are willing to play ball?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Apr 2022 ==

I made no mention of benefits. I was speaking of the reduction in income tax for high level earners, and a move to taxation at point of sale, It costs the same to put a litre of diesel in a 15 year old ford as a brand new Mercedes. And hence overall a less "progressive" taxation regime.

Ah, fair enough. But does that mean you think that it was a good thing that higher tax rates in the 1970s were in some cases close to 100%?

 

[jon0844]

Until said person decides to just clear off to another country, then suddenly tax revenues in the UK get reduced to zero.

How many people actually do this? I mean, how many politicians (and even celebrities) have said they'll leave if something doesn't go their way - and still here they are.

People and businesses are always taking advantage of loopholes or legal methods to avoid tax, and always will. It seems that a lot of people are merely bluffing that they'd up and leave, but ultimately succeed in preventing tax rises. Perhaps someone needs to call their bluff for once. That and perhaps seeking to stop making it so easy to avoid tax, or taking ages to adjust laws that still gives people plenty of time to profit before they have to move on to the next trick.

In the USA they're also told of trickle down economics. Let the rich get super rich and they'll let that wealth trickle down, with better pay and working conditions for all. Of course that never happens either.

 

[brad465]

The Times are running an article that goes a long way to explaining why Johnson is believed to be trying every trick possible to stop the full Sue Gray report coming out:

Sue Gray report ‘so damning Boris Johnson will have to quit’

A Whitehall report into lockdown-breaking parties in Downing Street is so damning that senior officials believe it could leave Boris Johnson with no choice but

www.thetimes.co.uk

A Whitehall report into lockdown-breaking parties in Downing Street is so damning that senior officials believe it could leave Boris Johnson with no choice but to resign as prime minister, The Times has been told.

The report by Sue Gray, a senior civil servant, is understood to be highly critical of Johnson both for attending some of the events and the culture in No 10 under his leadership.

The report has been put on hold until Scotland Yard has completed its own investigations, but a senior official familiar with its contents said the findings are “damning” for Johnson.

“Sue’s report is excoriating. It will make things incredibly difficult for the prime minister,” the official said. “There’s an immense amount of pressure on her — her report could be enough to end him. No official has ever been in a position like this before.”

Johnson attended at least six of the 12 events in Downing Street that are being investigated by the Metropolitan Police. He has already been fined for one, a celebration for his 56th birthday held in the Cabinet Room.

Police have started issuing fines for a second event attended by Johnson, a “bring your own booze” party in the Downing Street garden in May 2020. The event was organised by his principal private secretary at the time. Johnson went with his then-fiancée, Carrie Symonds, and more than 50 Downing Street staff. The prime minister has said he believed it was a work event and had attended only briefly. No 10 said that he had yet to be issued with a fine.

Gray’s interim report offered tacit criticism of Johnson, referring to “failures of leadership and judgment” by those in No 10 and the Cabinet Office. The full report is said to be more directly critical of the prime minister.

Johnson has insisted he will not quit and has suggested that the issue does not matter to voters. Oliver Dowden, chairman of the Conservative Party, said that Johnson had “plenty more fuel in the tank” and that there was a “strong case” for him staying in No 10. The prime minister will make a series of visits this week as part of the Conservative Party’s local election campaign. Some Tory MPs believe that he will face a confidence vote shortly after the elections on May 5 if bad results are followed by police issuing more fines.

Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, said that he would keep pressing for the prime minister to resign over the parties, adding that even Tory MPs were “sick of defending the indefensible”.

He said that Labour could not simply “pass over” the fact that Johnson and Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, had been issued with fixed-penalty notices for breaking the law. “They have been found to have broken the law — the criminal law at that,” he said. “No other prime minister in the history of our country has ever been found to have broken the law in office before. And I don’t think we can just pass over it.”

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Brexit opportunities minister, described the prime minister as a “great man” and insisted that the public still supported him. “I don’t think people are losing faith in him, the socialists don’t like him, of course they don’t, that’s their job,” he told GB News.

 

[Gloster]

If it is as bad as that, what is the betting that he will call an election just before it comes out: he is desperate to remain in No 10 and that might be his only chance. The Gray Report would immediately be put on hold because of purdah and any leadership challenges would have to be abandoned until after the election. If it looks like he might be on the way out, then that is worth a try: he might even win or at least do well enough to stay in Downing Street as leader of a coalition. The damage to the party and the country might be severe, but that doesn’t even enter into his calculations.

 

[GusB]

I think that this was Dorries doing a copy-paste job rather than any sort of centralised message to be tweeted out. I suspect there's some sincerity from Boris (well, as much as Boris is capable of managing)

Was it Dorries doing a copy-paste, or Johnson? I suspect neither - this looks like a knee-jerk reaction from the damage-limitation machine within the Tory party. On one hand, it's good that there's a consistent response ; on the other, it's rather sad that neither of them attempted.to personalise it!

 

[AlterEgo]

The Tories use Whatsapp groups to coordinate messages, so not too surprising the same message was tweeted from two accounts.

 

[Aljanah]

Ah, fair enough. But does that mean you think that it was a good thing that higher tax rates in the 1970s were in some cases close to 100%?

I remember once reading an article about the author Tove Jansson (Moomin books) who baled out when they tried to tax her at something like 102 or 103%!

 

[Acfb]

I'm not convinced Johnson will go this year TBH (as I don't think the polls are bad enough yet TBH, only 2% behind in the latest opinium poll) and I can see the Tories holding up better than expected in the local elections in Scotland and the Midlands.

The Wakefield by election might also not happen til the end of the summer or the Autumn at this rate. Johnson still could narrowly win a confidence vote in the near future or the Autumn and be in place for another year.

Its hard to predict but I don't think he'll go this year. He will either be removed in Summer/Autumn 2023 or make it all the way to the next election.

 

[jon0844]

They don't need to call an election to get rid of Boris, and obviously the party knows that - but they want people to think that it would force an election, which puts the Tories at risk... hence people then saying #BackBoris because staying in power trumps (sic) everything else.

 

[nw1]

I'm not convinced Johnson will go this year TBH (as I don't think the polls are bad enough yet TBH, only 2% behind in the latest opinium poll) and I can see the Tories holding up better than expected in the local elections in Scotland and the Midlands.

It's a bit sad IMO that, after all that has happened, Johnson is still only 2% behind. For some unfathomable reason, despite the lies, the hypocrisy, the appallingly badly-timed National Insurance rise, and the expectation that incumbents (throughout the world) would be blamed for post-Covid economic effects, he still seems to be popular with large sectors of the electorate. And it's not like France where the main opposition to the incumbent was a member of the far-right.

The performance of the Tories right now seems to be comparable to the mid-term performance of Thatcher in 1985/86 - after the miners' strike. In this period, the Tories were mostly behind by small single-figure quantities. Perhaps, like then, the UK is very divided but while I can reluctantly accept that many did well out of Thatcher in the mid-80s, it's hard to see what tangible benefits Johnson is bringing right now. Is it still the cult of personality? The cult of Brexit?

 

[birchesgreen]

Well 2% in that poll, but things are less rosy in this projection.

Who would win if an election was held today?

How the House of Commons would look according to our latest modelling.

sotn.newstatesman.com

In 2019 the Conservatives scored a large electoral win, relegating the Labour party to one of its worst defeats in history. But if in an election was held today, such result would be reversed. Labour would be the largest party.

 

[david1212]

The Times are running an article that goes a long way to explaining why Johnson is believed to be trying every trick possible to stop the full Sue Gray report coming out:

Sue Gray report ‘so damning Boris Johnson will have to quit’

A Whitehall report into lockdown-breaking parties in Downing Street is so damning that senior officials believe it could leave Boris Johnson with no choice but

www.thetimes.co.uk

IMO he should have walked weeks ago, long before receiving the fine and Russia invaded Ukraine.

It would leave the issue of who replaces him and their cabinet once the report is released and the names of others who attended at least one event known.

 

[Busaholic]

Identically worded tweets this morning from Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries regarding the misogynistic Mail on Sunday article about Angela Rayner.

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1518169693638561792

https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1518173739921334272

Wasn't Dorries in the jungle with Miss Oginy? Pretty sure she'd not be able to spell the word of her own volition, or even know what it meant. No, that's not an example of it, there are so many of both sexes sporting pretty low intellect in the Commons.

 

[brad465]

Looks like the next attempt at trying to save face is a new permanent bank holiday:

Tomorrow's Papers Today - UK Front Pages - Latest Newspaper Headlines

All of UK's Tomorrow's Front Pages ✅ Updated Daily between 7PM - 11pm ✅ The Mail, Express, Times, Guardian and many more Proudly supporting #buyapaper

www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk

 

[Yew]

How in a democracy do you counter people emigrating with 'robust legislation'?

I feel that you vastly overestimate the number of people willing to emigrate. And it would be easy to impose tarrifs on people moving money out of the country, above what a normal person would earn

Ah, fair enough. But does that mean you think that it was a good thing that higher tax rates in the 1970s were in some cases close to 100%?

I made no comment on that, I was critiquing people using a headline figure out of context. I believe one poster said that he would be £25000 worse off, when they had clearly ignored differences in tax thresholds and the relative burdens of taxation.

Regarding a 100% threshold, It would depend where it was. If it were are 150k in todays money, I struggle to see how someone can earn that through the value of their own labour, and therefore it must be through exploiting the labour of employees and subordinates. In cases where such amounts are legitimately earned, such a threshold would encourage the job to be split between two individuals on a part time basis; thus increasing the supply of high quality jobs in the market.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Apr 2022 ==

Which tax havens do we own and would be able to close down without first having to negotiate international agreements with the Governments concerned - assuming those Governments are willing to play ball?

I was specifically thinking of the overseas territories, if they don't play ball, then I would suggest taking the french model of having them as no different from the rest of the country.

 

[baz962]

I feel that you vastly overestimate the number of people willing to emigrate. And it would be easy to impose tarrifs on people moving money out of the country, above what a normal person would earn

I made no comment on that, I was critiquing people using a headline figure out of context. I believe one poster said that he would be £25000 worse off, when they had clearly ignored differences in tax thresholds and the relative burdens of taxation.

Regarding a 100% threshold, It would depend where it was. If it were are 150k in todays money, I struggle to see how someone can earn that through the value of their own labour, and therefore it must be through exploiting the labour of employees and subordinates. In cases where such amounts are legitimately earned, such a threshold would encourage the job to be split between two individuals on a part time basis; thus increasing the supply of high quality jobs in the market.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Apr 2022 ==


I was specifically thinking of the overseas territories, if they don't play ball, then I would suggest taking the french model of having them as no different from the rest of the country.

That was me . It doesn't take a lot. You had around £1000 personal allowance. The basic rate was 33% so that's an extra 13% on my first £49000 , just over 6k and the top rate was 83% + 5% ni. So an extra 46% on my top rate , just over 17k. And I'm an employed employee. No subordinates or anyone working for me.

 

[Domh245]

That was me . It doesn't take a lot. You had around £1000 personal allowance. The basic rate was 33% so that's an extra 13% on my first £49000 , just over 6k and the top rate was 83% + 5% ni. So an extra 46% on my top rate , just over 17k. And I'm an employed employee. No subordinates or anyone working for me.

Quoting from Wikipedia:

In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war.[17] This applied to incomes over £20,000 (£213,089 as of 2020).[7]

Now it's not clear if the 83% was applied from £20,000 or if that was where the investment income applied, but note that the equivalent value is north of £200k. It's unbelievably naïve if not downright misleading to assume that any government would be taxing at 83% from the current (bit over) £50k threshold..

 

[baz962]

Quoting from Wikipedia:



Now it's not clear if the 83% was applied from £20,000 or if that was where the investment income applied, but note that the equivalent value is north of £200k. It's unbelievably naïve if not downright misleading to assume that any government would be taxing at 83% from the current (bit over) £50k threshold.

Of course they might not have , but you don't know if they wouldn't. But Thatcher cut it massively straight away. So you have basically helped my point. It would be misleading to say the Tories are the party of high taxes , because Labour didn't get rid of all the indirect taxation and bring back higher direct taxation.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm not convinced the Tory party of 1979 is the same Tory party of 2022. Just as I'm fairly sure that the Labour party of that era is the same as the Labour party today.

The Tory party might not have been the party of high taxation then but I'm far from convinced that isn't the case now. Speaking as someone whose first pay slip since the NI rates went up it dropped yesterday it certainly doesn't feel like my tax burden has been cut...

 

[baz962]

I'm not convinced the Tory party of 1979 is the same Tory party of 2022. Just as I'm fairly sure that the Labour party of that era is the same as the Labour party today.

The Tory party might not have been the party of high taxation then but I'm far from convinced that isn't the case now. Speaking as someone whose first pay slip since the NI rates went up it dropped yesterday it certainly doesn't feel like my tax burden has been cut...

Of course not. Just don't think under Labour that you will be any better off. I didn't notice any difference when Blair had three terms.

 

[nw1]

Looks like the next attempt at trying to save face is a new permanent bank holiday:

Tomorrow's Papers Today - UK Front Pages - Latest Newspaper Headlines

All of UK's Tomorrow's Front Pages ✅ Updated Daily between 7PM - 11pm ✅ The Mail, Express, Times, Guardian and many more Proudly supporting #buyapaper

www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk

View attachment 113621

I wonder if this will actually replace the May Day holiday, which I am sure Johnson would like to ditch as it has socialist connotations.

Either way, and I realise this is being very controversial, one could say the Queen is just a figurehead so scarcely worthy of "thanks" in the same way that someone like, say, Alan Turing is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wonder if this will actually replace the May Day holiday, which I am sure Johnson would like to ditch as it has socialist connotations.

Either way, and I realise this is being very controversial, one could say the Queen is just a figurehead so scarcely worthy of "thanks" in the same way that someone like, say, Alan Turing is.

We need one in October/early November, to be honest, even if it moved one from May.

 

[nw1]

We need one in October/early November, to be honest, even if it moved one from May.

Perhaps but remember that (particularly late October onwards) the weather tends to be, on average, poor and it gets dark very early. I'd prefer the maintenance of two May holidays in all honesty, you can enjoy holidays more when there's at least a half-decent chance of good weather, and it's not dark by 7 or even earlier.

 

[Yew]

That was me . It doesn't take a lot. You had around £1000 personal allowance. The basic rate was 33% so that's an extra 13% on my first £49000 , just over 6k and the top rate was 83% + 5% ni. So an extra 46% on my top rate , just over 17k.

And yet again someone completely missed the point by failing to account for the fact that other taxes were much lower. Overall taxation levels have not changed that much, but the proportion of which has came through income tax, vs vat, fuel duties etc has changed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Apr 2022 ==

Of course not. Just don't think under Labour that you will be any better off. I didn't notice any difference when Blair had three terms.

Blair was hardly the most left wing prime minister in our history, regardless of the colour of his rosette.

 

[baz962]

And yet again someone completely missed the point by failing to account for the fact that other taxes were much lower. Overall taxation levels have not changed that much, but the proportion of which has came through income tax, vs vat, fuel duties etc has changed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Apr 2022 ==


Blair was hardly the most left wing prime minister in our history, regardless of the colour of his rosette.

Yes but I don't think I'm 25k worse off on vat etc. I don't drink or smoke and rarely use my car. But I'm not missing the point , you are. My point simply is that some people are saying that Tories are the party of high taxes. I'm simply saying that all the parties are the same. To be honest I ended up finishing work late on election day and missed my vote. I'm a swing voter and will happily vote Labour if I believe they will do better. That's a big thing for me as the illegal war in Iraq is by far the thing I detest most of any political decision. But my main bone of contention was Corbyn but is now the fact that Labour aren't exactly winning me over. Their whole ethos seems to be , let's bash the Tories and no actual answers to what they would do in power.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Blair was hardly the most left wing prime minister in our history, regardless of the colour of his rosette.

Maybe I've missed where this discussion is heading, but surely you're not suggesting that taxes would've been lower if we'd had a more left wing prime minister? I'd have expected the opposite: That a more left-wing prime minister would be more inclined to raise taxes?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Apr 2022 ==

I feel that you vastly overestimate the number of people willing to emigrate. And it would be easy to impose tarrifs on people moving money out of the country, above what a normal person would earn

It's very hard to estimate the numbers. I think it would be a minority of high earners - because actually emigrating is after all a huge step to take. But even a small minority of high earners emigrating could easily largely wipe out the incremental increased tax revenue that the Government would have expected to get from increasing the higher tax rate. Remember that, if you increase taxes above a certain point, the people with the most incentive to move away would be exactly the people who are paying the most in tax!

As for, easy to impose tariffs on people moving money out of the country, I would disagree. Unless you're willing to throw a big spanner into our external trade and make it difficult for every company that relies on importing or exporting stuff, as well as every organisation that works internationally, it'd be very difficult to impose tariffs on people moving money. It would also invite retaliatory action by other countries on the basis that, if we make it hard for people to move money from the UK into their countries, they may as well make it hard for people to move money into the UK.

 

[AM9]

Maybe I've missed where this discussion is heading, but surely you're not suggesting that taxes would've been lower if we'd had a more left wing prime minister? I'd have expected the opposite: That a more left-wing prime minister would be more inclined to raise taxes?

Maybe the Blair government's taxes amounted to more in total but I doubt that they would be as regressive as they are now.

 

[Cdd89]

And it would be easy to impose tarrifs on people moving money out of the country, above what a normal person would earn

Not that easy. A government would have to get such legislation through Parliament, by which time people will already have cleared off.