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

[Cloud Strife]

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 Mike Oldfield talking about this. He was taxed so heavily on Tubular Bells - something like 85% of his royalties went on tax.

 

[birchesgreen]

Ah good the Tories have come out with some ideas to help with the cost of living, they want to reduce the staff needed in nurseries and make MOTs every 2 years. Killing children and road users should save a few quid.

 

[Bayum]

Ah good the Tories have come out with some ideas to help with the cost of living, they want to reduce the staff needed in nurseries and make MOTs every 2 years. Killing children and road users should save a few quid.

The cynic in me makes me believe that he has nursery aged children that can’t get into nursery…

 

[Yew]

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.

It might be worth referring to @Domh245's post, suggesting that in todays terms such a tax rate would only be towards earners with incomes above 200k. I had tried to allude to this earlier, but had struggling to find a source for when the top rate of taxation kicked in.

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

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!

And how are they going to "earn" their money elsewhere? It seems that the highest paid jobs in the UK are leaders of large UK companies, something that is difficult to do without paying tax in the UK.

 

[jfollows]

http://www.worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/repository/incometaxrates_1974to1990.pdf

The top rate of tax was reduced to 40% (>£19,300) for the 1988-89 tax year; it had been 60% since 1979-80 (>£25,000).
EDIT RPI multiplier for 1974 to 2021 is 10.7x. So 83% income tax starting on today's salary of £215,000 - £220,000?

[This table shows the taxation rates after deduction of tax-free allowances and reliefs. The single tax-free allowance in 1974 was £625. Today's (adjusted for RPI) personal allowance is twice that.]

 

[The Ham]

Ah good the Tories have come out with some ideas to help with the cost of living, they want to reduce the staff needed in nurseries and make MOTs every 2 years. Killing children and road users should save a few quid.

Whilst the cost of nurseries would help those with children, it tends to be for a fairly short period of time even for those with 4 children. As it would only help from (at best) 7 months to 5 years, although more often from 1 to between 4 & 5. Even with a 3 year gap between children that's 12 years, out of a working lifespan of 35 years (that's before you consider the length of people's retirement too).

However the cost savings in the greater scheme of things would be fairly limited. As let's say nurseries can have 10 children rather than 8 at best that's as 20% reduction. However there'll be other costs (other than staff), which would likely reduce the savings.

As for MOT's every 2 years, that's only the same as (say) £2/month. Whilst helpful, hardly going to make much of a difference when costs have increased

 

[SuspectUsual]

Whilst the cost of nurseries would help those with children, it tends to be for a fairly short period of time even for those with 4 children. As it would only help from (at best) 7 months to 5 years, although more often from 1 to between 4 & 5. Even with a 3 year gap between children that's 12 years, out of a working lifespan of 35 years (that's before you consider the length of people's retirement too).

However the cost savings in the greater scheme of things would be fairly limited. As let's say nurseries can have 10 children rather than 8 at best that's as 20% reduction. However there'll be other costs (other than staff), which would likely reduce the savings.

As for MOT's every 2 years, that's only the same as (say) £2/month. Whilst helpful, hardly going to make much of a difference when costs have increased

Spot on. I had to check it wasn’t April fools day when I read this earlier.

 

[Busaholic]

The cynic in me makes me believe that he has nursery aged children that can’t get into nursery…

My sister used to run a children's nursery - she told me she certainly wouldn't have agreed to take any of his brats!

 

[Bayum]

My sister used to run a children's nursery - she told me she certainly wouldn't have agreed to take any of his brats!

Good on her!

 

[nw1]

I remember Mike Oldfield talking about this. He was taxed so heavily on Tubular Bells - something like 85% of his royalties went on tax.

To be fair he must have earnt a huge amount of money from it. I have little time for very wealthy people whinging about how much tax they have to pay. And the way they hold governments to ransom by threatening to move abroad if the government dares tax them too much - meaning the rest of us have to foot the bill in the form of tax rises or public spending cuts.

(I like Mike Oldfield's music on the whole, but - like some others such as Roger Daltrey - I have to draw a distinction between the good music and the bad politics).

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair he must have earnt a huge amount of money from it. I have little time for very wealthy people whinging about how much tax they have to pay.

I'm not super-rich (but am in the 40% bracket) but to me plenty of rich people have earnt it, e.g. by spending time, stress and personal financial risk on building up a business. So I think an 85% income tax rate is just "not on". I don't see an issue with a higher rate than 40%, maybe 50%, but not near-100%. What we need to concentrate on is removing the means to avoid it entirely. If they pay it, they pay huge amounts anyway, even at 20%.

 

[Shrop]

Ah good the Tories have come out with some ideas to help with the cost of living, they want to reduce the staff needed in nurseries and make MOTs every 2 years. Killing children and road users should save a few quid.

Killing road users is an interesting one. For literally decades successive Governments have shown little interest in saving the lives of road users. If this was of interest, they would introduce regular testing and monitoring like happens in most other professions, most of which don't kill 1500 people every year. Instead, these deaths and many tens of thousands of life changing injuries every year, are regarded as a price worth paying for our mobility. Very sad when there is so much tailgating, red light jumping, speeding, lack of attention etc etc which goes unchecked, when regular testing and technology could prevent most of the accidents that occur.
Okay, somewhat tangential, but a hobby horse of mine.

 

[MattRat]

And the way they hold governments to ransom by threatening to move abroad if the government dares tax them too much - meaning the rest of us have to foot the bill in the form of tax rises or public spending cuts.

They don't hold government's to ransom, most of them already left. They already thought the tax was too high. Raising it further achieves nothing. Getting them to actually pay tax in the first place achieves something, even at a lower rate. 20% is higher than 0%.

And this is why parties like the Labour party struggle, as even someone like me can see the holes in their plans. When the Tories make a plan, it looks somewhat reasonable, it's the execution where it all falls apart.

 

[nw1]

I'm not super-rich (but am in the 40% bracket) but to me plenty of rich people have earnt it, e.g. by spending time, stress and personal financial risk on building up a business. So I think an 85% income tax rate is just "not on". I don't see an issue with a higher rate than 40%, maybe 50%, but not near-100%. What we need to concentrate on is removing the means to avoid it entirely. If they pay it, they pay huge amounts anyway, even at 20%.

Yes this is a fair point, though an established rock star or someone with inherited wealth is in a somewhat different situation to a business owner. I'd be more sympathetic to an entrepreneur who built up their own business, as you say.

I suppose the idea of wealthy rock stars complaining just irritates me a bit - I wouldn't necessarily strongly support an 85% tax rate for the super rich.

 

[Purple Orange]

Yes this is a fair point, though an established rock star or someone with inherited wealth is in a somewhat different situation to a business owner. I'd be more sympathetic to an entrepreneur who built up their own business, as you say.

I suppose the idea of wealthy rock stars complaining just irritates me a bit - I wouldn't necessarily strongly support an 85% tax rate for the super rich.

How is the wealth accumulated by a rock star any different to that of an entrepreneur who built up their own business? Both acquired it based on being dedicated to using their talent and skill, and the resulting product supports employment in both cases.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes this is a fair point, though an established rock star or someone with inherited wealth is in a somewhat different situation to a business owner. I'd be more sympathetic to an entrepreneur who built up their own business, as you say.

I suppose the idea of wealthy rock stars complaining just irritates me a bit - I wouldn't necessarily strongly support an 85% tax rate for the super rich.

Perhaps we need to have more of a conversation about inheritance tax then? At the moment, speaking very broadly as there's various reliefs and concessions, if your estate is worth under £325,000 there's no tax to pay and if there's over £325,000 then it's taxed at 40%. Should there be a higher band for very large estates perhaps?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm not super-rich (but am in the 40% bracket) but to me plenty of rich people have earnt it, e.g. by spending time, stress and personal financial risk on building up a business. So I think an 85% income tax rate is just "not on". I don't see an issue with a higher rate than 40%, maybe 50%, but not near-100%. What we need to concentrate on is removing the means to avoid it entirely. If they pay it, they pay huge amounts anyway, even at 20%.

I would agree. Something around 50% seems completely reasonable to me. Once you're above ~60%, you're in the region where the Government are basically instantly grabbing the majority of what you earn, and that seems to me unethical as well as economically damaging. I wouldn't really have time for a multi-millionaire whinging about a 50% top rate of tax. But if you were talking about 1970-s top tax rates, then they would have every right to complain.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Apr 2022 ==

Killing road users is an interesting one.

This seems like hyperbole. Is there any evidence that MOTs every 2 years would cause large numbers of additional people to be killed? I was under the impression that mechanical error is implicated in only a tiny proportion of road accidents, with almost all being caused by driver/other-road-user error. And I thought there was some kind of argument that, with cars now much less prone to rust etc. than was the case in decades past, there is an engineering case for questioning whether annual tests are as necessary as they used to be? Or am I mistaken?

For literally decades successive Governments have shown little interest in saving the lives of road users. I

Yet the Government has just rewritten the basis of the Highway Code to prioritise pedestrians and cyclists. Almost everywhere you see cycle lanes, protected cycle/walking routes, and initiatives to slow down traffic being built in a way that just didn't happen 20-30 years ago. The UK's level of road deaths is per mile driven is - from what I understand - lower than the vast majority of other countries.

I don't doubt that much more could and should be done. But it doesn't seem correct to say that Governments have shown little interest in saving the lives of road users.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This seems like hyperbole. Is there any evidence that MOTs every 2 years would cause large numbers of additional people to be killed? I was under the impression that mechanical error is implicated in only a tiny proportion of road accidents, with almost all being caused by driver/other-road-user error. And I though there was some kind of argument that, with cars now much less prone to rust etc. than was the case in decades past, there is an engineering case for questioning whether annual tests are as necessary as they used to be? Or am I mistaken?

We have also had a real-world experiment on what would happen if MoTs were delayed an additional year, as that happened because of COVID to many people. If it's clear it didn't cause an increase in road traffic accidents due to unroadworthy vehicles, then it probably isn't going to be an issue. EVs are probably a bit of a paradigm shift in terms of what is required, too.

The main issue it might cause is more people driving round on bald tyres, but I suppose that could be countered by more Police spot checks.

I think it's fair to say, though, that now they've exempted classics from MoT inspections (and classics are the most likely sort of vehicle to have issues!) then it does call into question the whole system as it stands.

One thing they could perhaps do to replace it would be to say that if you can prove your car was serviced at the specified intervals at a VAT registered garage you would be exempt (while those who service at home could still pay a garage to do the standard checks). Pretty much all manufacturer's service schedules include most of the safety related MoT checks anyway.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The fact he’s a multimillionaire who has plunged millions of people into poverty to further line his own pockets makes it worse.

What is your source for the statement above that appears to claim that the stated currency millions of poor people went directly into his own personal wealth?

 

[baz962]

I'm not super-rich (but am in the 40% bracket) but to me plenty of rich people have earnt it, e.g. by spending time, stress and personal financial risk on building up a business. So I think an 85% income tax rate is just "not on". I don't see an issue with a higher rate than 40%, maybe 50%, but not near-100%. What we need to concentrate on is removing the means to avoid it entirely. If they pay it, they pay huge amounts anyway, even at 20%.

Exactly. If say Mike Oldfield made 10 million and paid 40% that's 4 million and that's more than acceptable. Also wouldn't have a tax free allowance as after 100k it gets reduced by £1 for every £2 you earn , so at around 125,000 you don't get any tax free income.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly. If say Mike Oldfield made 10 million and paid 40% that's 4 million and that's more than acceptable. Also wouldn't have a tax free allowance as after 100k it gets reduced by £1 for every £2 you earn , so at around 125,000 you don't get any tax free income.

And the life of a rock star isn't necessarily an easy one. Look at just how many suicides there are in that profession. For one thing if you're *really* big you can't go anywhere without your protection team. Want to go bashing* 319s on the south WCML on a random Saturday? Forget it.

In reality having a middle-high income (low 6 figures, and no, I'm nowhere near that) in some sort of upper-middle management role probably gives you the best life overall in terms of a combination of having no money worries and of not having to worry about being recognised in the street.

* Not that ridiculous, but I suppose Pete Waterman could buy the 319s if he wanted

 

[GC class B1]

We have also had a real-world experiment on what would happen if MoTs were delayed an additional year, as that happened because of COVID to many people. If it's clear it didn't cause an increase in road traffic accidents due to unroadworthy vehicles, then it probably isn't going to be an issue. EVs are probably a bit of a paradigm shift in terms of what is required, too.

The main issue it might cause is more people driving round on bald tyres, but I suppose that could be countered by more Police spot checks.

I think it's fair to say, though, that now they've exempted classics from MoT inspections (and classics are the most likely sort of vehicle to have issues!) then it does call into question the whole system as it stands.

One thing they could perhaps do to replace it would be to say that if you can prove your car was serviced at the specified intervals at a VAT registered garage you would be exempt (while those who service at home could still pay a garage to do the standard checks). Pretty much all manufacturer's service schedules include most of the safety related MoT checks anyway.

It is not correct that manufacturers service schedules include most of the safety related MOT checks. As an example the most import safety checks on brake performance and tyre condition are not on the service schedules I have seen. Also emissions are not included nor windscreen wiper, screen wash, windscreen condition, or suspension wear.
The maximum saving from two yearly MOTs is £28 per year. This is a drop in the ocean with regard to the increase in the cost of living. Any possible argument that there would be a bigger saving because the repairs arising from the MOT would not be necessary would imply that repairs to defective vehicles would not be carried out in a timely manner is an argument against extending the MOT to two yearly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is not correct that manufacturers service schedules include most of the safety related MOT checks. As an example the most import safety checks on brake performance and tyre condition are not on the service schedules I have seen. Also emissions are not included nor windscreen wiper, screen wash, windscreen condition, or suspension wear.

Emissions will increasingly be irrelevant as EVs take over, as they're zero anyway. Most garages will check stuff like tyres anyway, because it's an upsell opportunity for them and it takes 5 seconds.

 

[brad465]

Wow (if true):

Tory MP accused of watching pornography in Commons chamber

A review of the claims - made by two female MPs - is escalated to an independent complaints scheme.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Conservative Party is investigating claims a Tory MP watched porn on his mobile phone while sitting next to a female minister in the Commons chamber.
The incident was raised by the minister at a regular meeting of Tory MPs on Tuesday night, the BBC understands.
Another MP corroborated her account.
The name of the MP accused of watching porn was given to chief whip Chris Heaton-Harris, who is in charge of party discipline. His spokeswoman said he was "looking into the matter".
"This behaviour is wholly unacceptable and action will be taken," Mr Heaton-Harris's spokeswoman added.
The MP under investigation has not been publicly named and it is not known at this stage if they are a member of the government.

At Prime Minister's Questions, Green Party MP Caroline Lucas said 56 MPs were under investigation by the Parliamentary authorities for sexual misconduct, including three cabinet ministers. She asked Prime Minister Boris Johnson if sexual misconduct was grounds for dismissal under the ministerial code.
Mr Johnson replied that "sexual harassment is intolerable" and was "grounds for dismissal".
At Tuesday night's meeting, which was first reported by The Sun and The Mirror, women Tory MPs shared accounts of alleged sexism and harassment.
Asked about the allegations about an MP watching porn, Conservative MP Brendan Clarke-Smith told on the BBC's Politics Live such behaviour would be "unacceptable in any workplace".

At least someone in the house is upstanding.

 

[jfollows]

I would agree. Something around 50% seems completely reasonable to me. Once you're above ~60%, you're in the region where the Government are basically instantly grabbing the majority of what you earn, and that seems to me unethical as well as economically damaging. I wouldn't really have time for a multi-millionaire whinging about a 50% top rate of tax. But if you were talking about 1970-s top tax rates, then they would have every right to complain.

Because of the way the personal allowance reduces, anyone earning £100,000-£125,140 has a marginal tax rate of 60% today. That's obviously not a problem most of us have; I managed to avoid paying 40% for many years. Anyone earning above £125,140 pays a marginal rate of 40% again, until £150,000 when it goes up to 45%.
That's a bit bonkers really, but it's the way things have worked out, and I guess "most" people aren't going to be all that bothered.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because of the way the personal allowance reduces, anyone earning £100,000-£125,140 has a marginal tax rate of 60% today. That's obviously not a problem most of us have; I managed to avoid paying 40% for many years. Anyone earning above £125,140 pays a marginal rate of 40% again, until £150,000 when it goes up to 45%.
That's a bit bonkers really, but it's the way things have worked out, and I guess "most" people aren't going to be all that bothered.

It doesn't affect me but I do think it's silly. A 50% (or thereabouts) "super" rate makes more sense. This sort of "dodge" is very Tory - they won't be seen to increase the headline percentages so they fiddle with anything and everything else.

 

[PG]

Any possible argument that there would be a bigger saving because the repairs arising from the MOT would not be necessary would imply that repairs to defective vehicles would not be carried out in a timely manner is an argument against extending the MOT to two yearly.

While those who are arguing that there won't be a great change in accident statistics are probably correct, to me it is still concerning nevertheless.

Suppose LGVs and PCVs were also able to have their inspection frequencies reduced - would that be okay?
Both are statistically safer, I believe, than private cars/vans...

Also I doubt that the motor trade in general are ecstatic about seeing a good chunk of their trade cut?

 

[Bald Rick]

Killing road users is an interesting one. For literally decades successive Governments have shown little interest in saving the lives of road users.

oh come on.

for literally decades, successive Governments have progressively enacted stricter road safety measures* such that deaths on the roads have fallen from around 6000 in 1980 to 1752 in 2019. And in that time vehicle miles travelled have more than doubled. That is an 85% reduction in road fatalities per vehicle mile in 4 decades.

*such as
front seat belts
fog lights
rear seat belts
child seats / booster seats
airbags
ABS
eye level rear lights
improved crash resistance
Pedestrian protection crumple zones
ASR / ESP
improved tyre standards

and

improved highway design standards
encouraged pedestrianisation of city centres
enabled traffic calming in residential areas
speed cameras (and the clear effect that has had on speeding)
more stringent driving tests
changes to the Highway Code specifically for safety reasons.

and so on.
or perhaps you think all these happened by accident (if you’ll pardon the pun).


I am not saying 1,700 deaths on the roads a year is acceptable. It clearly isn’t. And without going in to detail I have personal reasons why I wish there were fewer. However it is inarguably that 1700 deaths a year is better than 6000.

Therefore to say that Governments have little interest in saving lives on the roads is patently not true given their record over the past 4 decades (and more), and backed up by the results.

 

[Kite159]

Suggestions about MOTs being reduced to only being required every 2 years are nearly as old as suggestions that the driving age should be 18 instead of 17. Comes up every few years before quietly getting dropped. (Mainly those in the motor trade who would loss business if it goes to every 2 years instead of every year)

 

[The Ham]

improved highway design standards

Indeed, including a significant refresh of Design Manual for Roads and Bridges in the last few years.

One of the big things which has helped in the designing of safer roads is the use of independent audits of road designs (of all sizes).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Apr 2022 ==

--------------------------------------------------------------

Things are looking better for the Tories, as I've just been sent an email confirming that they are taking on the big matters in the world and fixing something which had been broken for far too long:

Football is a defining part of our national identity. It brings friends, families and communities together. And our Premier League has grown to be the most-watched sports league in the world. But good governance of our clubs has not kept pace with this expansion and development. Owners sometimes make decisions that are not in the interests of fans or local communities, threatening the heritage of English football and its clubs. And after the collapse of the discredited and roundly condemned European Super League last year, we want to make sure steps are being taken to protect the beautiful game. We’re creating a strong, independent football regulator to usher in a new era of financial competency and sustainability for our clubs. We’re introducing an "integrity test", alongside new owner and director tests, to ensure that only good custodians and qualified directors can run our clubs. And we’re giving fans a greater say in changes to their club stadiums, logo, name and kit via a "golden share", so club owners cannot change a club’s heritage without fans’ input. Earlier this year, we announced a £230 million package to build or upgrade up to 8,000 grassroots football and multi-sport pitches across the UK by 2025.

Now whilst Football is important to a lot of people, it's hardly the biggest issue which needs dealing with. Certainly not on the same level as many of the things which need sorting out.