• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The Conservative Party under Kemi Badenoch

takno

Verified Rep - Traksy
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,601
I read that and was a bit baffled by it really. I would've thought the greater revenue would come from people whacking their pay into pensions and company cars to reduce their pay to under £100k, especially if they are people who currently benefit from the tax-free childcare which drops off a cliff at £100k. We must lose a significant amount of tax over that.

I don't think many people are avoiding working more hours to avoid the £100k trap; in fact I'm not sure there's that many people working hourly on that kind of gross income, and if they are they're likely invoicing hourly from a limited company and would have other ways of avoiding it anyway, like expensing their commute travel and lunches or giving themselves trivial gifts or maxing the annual social functions allowance, or even having their partner on as a shareholder. So of course the OBR's conclusion is that it wouldn't raise enough revenue via working extra hours.
IR35 has put paid to quite a lot of your suggestions for hourly/daily workers using companies to avoid tax.

The groups you are missing are doctors and various other professionals who are able to cut down to a 4 or 4.5 day week. In the case of doctors they also have the ability to work hourly overtime, and the structure of their pensions makes it quite difficult to even use that as a way to avoid the trap.

I don't have access to the data of course, but it seems entirely believable to me that you could increase tax take by removing the trap. There's a lot of highly trained experienced people starting to reach that ceiling, and if they all realise that they're better off working less and having free time then we're in some significant trouble.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

styles

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2014
Messages
4,961
Location
Gwynedd
I think many senior doctors (GPs, Consultants and Senior Registrars) are approaching or over the £100,000 limot once weekend and night working enhancements are included. This has led to some (many?) working part-time so has not to breach the £100,000 limit, which has a consequence on the availability of such doctors.
It would need to be more than just £100k gross mind, given NHS pension member contribution rates are 12.5% over £68k and are salary sacrifice. You'd have to find the clinicians who are paid over £100k after professional membership fees, pension (both the normal contributions plus any additional voluntary contributions), possibly company car from Fleet Solutions, etc have been deducted to find those who would be affected by the tax trap.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

IR35 has put paid to quite a lot of your suggestions for hourly/daily workers using companies to avoid tax.
Even working inside IR35, you can stick £60k a year into a pension - any reputable umbrella company will offer it, so if your financial goal is simply to minimise tax, we'd be talking about inside IR35 contractors who bring in over £160k/year.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,958
I think many senior doctors (GPs, Consultants and Senior Registrars) are approaching or over the £100,000 limot once weekend and night working enhancements are included.

Almost all senior doctors are well north of £100k. Many are double that with private work.
 

Egg Centric

Established Member
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
2,909
Location
Land of the Prince Bishops
You also lose the free childcare element when you go over £100k.

Unless Kemi wins now, happily: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmn06l362ypeo

Kemi Badenoch has said a Conservative government would scrap the "cliff edge" that mean parents in England lose out on childcare support when they earn more than £100,000 a year.
Speaking to the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg, the Conservative Party leader said: "What we want to see is that people who work harder don't get punished for doing so."
The earnings limit means only families where no parent earns more than this threshold are eligible for government-funded or tax-free childcare.
The announcement comes as Conservative members gather for the party's annual conference in Birmingham.
Badenoch, who arrived in the city on Saturday, has vowed the party was new and different from the one that lost the 2024 general election.
The Conservatives - who have been polling behind Labour and Reform UK over the past year - are expected to use the four-day event to lay out more of its policy agenda ahead of the next general election.
Ahead of the conference, the Conservatives produced a 100-page essay setting out their principles, external including a "central" belief that business, rather than governments, create growth.
It argues that governments should create the conditions for growth, particularly through the tax system.
In her interview with the BBC, Badenoch pitched herself as a "classic old-school Conservative" adding: "I believe in common sense - people working hard and being rewarded for that effort."
She insisted the Tories would keep the state pension triple lock, which Prime Minister Andy Burnham has pledged to change if Labour wins the next election.
She said the policy, under which state pensions rise each year by the highest of inflation, average wages, or 2.5%, was "the right policy for pensioners".
She added: "What we don't want to see is people going after the elderly, chasing after vulnerable and disabled people, and then the extremely large cohort of people who can work, who are not working, are left alone."
The Conservatives have long called on the government to cut the growing welfare budget including by implementing tighter restrictions on claimants.

'Wrong choices'​

The party said its childcare announcement would be a "first step" in broader efforts to address issues in the tax system which damage incentives to work or invest.
This will be a theme of shadow chancellor Andrew Griffith's conference speech on Monday.
Since September 2025, working parents in England have been entitled to 30 hours of free childcare, external for children aged between nine months and four years old.
However, to qualify both parents must earn less than £100,000 a year, although all three and four-year-olds are eligible for 15 hours of free childcare, regardless of parental income.
The same £100,000 eligibility threshold also applies to the government's tax-free childcare scheme, external, and has remained unchanged since it was originally set under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government.
For every £8 paid into an online childcare account, the government adds £2, up to £2,000 per child per year, which parents can then use to pay for childcare.
The Tories said that if they return to power, they would remove the £100,000 threshold entirely for tax-free childcare and free childcare hours.
The threshold has been criticised by economists, who point out it can leave parents worse off overall even after a pay rise of tens of thousands of pounds.
In her interview with Kuenssberg, Badenoch added: "What we want to see is more people in work and not taking the wrong decisions or the wrong choices, and it doesn't matter whether they're earning £10,000 or £100,000 - what matters is that people are out there working".
Asked if this could result in someone who earns £1 million a year get free childcare under a Conservative government, the Tory leader responded: "It doesn't matter what you earn - we don't want you to be punished for working hard. What we're trying to do is grow our economy."

Grasping a nettle like this bodes well not just because it is an excellent policy in its own right but because Labour are also starting to announce sensible policies, not least the scrapping of the triple lock that had me voting for them until this one came out.

If they can both keep coming up with decent stuff like this and ideally adopt the best bits from one another there's a possibility that we might have a choice of two (or even three if the Lib Dems get their act together) decent proposals next election for once. I can hope right?
 

takno

Verified Rep - Traksy
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,601
Unless Kemi wins now, happily: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmn06l362ypeo



Grasping a nettle like this bodes well not just because it is an excellent policy in its own right but because Labour are also starting to announce sensible policies, not least the scrapping of the triple lock that had me voting for them until this one came out.

If they can both keep coming up with decent stuff like this and ideally adopt the best bits from one another there's a possibility that we might have a choice of two (or even three if the Lib Dems get their act together) decent proposals next election for once. I can hope right?
Seems like a bit of a niche thing to change your vote over, particularly since it's likely 3 years out and hasn't been meaningfully costed. It is nice to see policies and positions about something other than immigration though.
 

Egg Centric

Established Member
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
2,909
Location
Land of the Prince Bishops
Seems like a bit of a niche thing to change your vote over, particularly since it's likely 3 years out and hasn't been meaningfully costed. It is nice to see policies and positions about something other than immigration though.

It's not a niche issue. It doesn't just affect parents of young kids around the 95-115k band as might naively be expected, but also anyone who relies on them or anyone who might be about to be that situation.

A couple of examples. There are some people in my team that I can't promote or give overtime because they're petrified of ending up around there. I've had another person had to take unpaid leave at a critical time to avoid it. I was overhearing on a train literally yesterday in a convo between two train crew (so don't know how true this is) that the effect of day and a half something something on Avanti is that drivers (not sure if it was Avanti drivers or another TOC but it was Avanti staff discussing it) end up on more or less exactly 99.5k on the standard rota so can't afford to do any overtime if they have kids. So more cancellations. There are lots of doctors with kids who are working 3 or 4 day weeks because of this while we have enormous waiting lists. Some less scrupulous companies are using the effect as a way of keeping wages down amongst bands lower than that since they can argue that that band can't been moved so why move lower ones. And so on and so on.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
6,137
It's not a niche issue. It doesn't just affect parents of young kids around the 95-115k band as might naively be expected, but also anyone who relies on them or anyone who might be about to be that situation.

A couple of examples. There are some people in my team that I can't promote or give overtime because they're petrified of ending up around there. I've had another person had to take unpaid leave at a critical time to avoid it. I was overhearing on a train literally yesterday in a convo between two train crew (so don't know how true this is) that the effect of day and a half something something on Avanti is that drivers (not sure if it was Avanti drivers or another TOC but it was Avanti staff discussing it) end up on more or less exactly 99.5k on the standard rota so can't afford to do any overtime if they have kids. So more cancellations. There are lots of doctors with kids who are working 3 or 4 day weeks because of this while we have enormous waiting lists. Some less scrupulous companies are using the effect as a way of keeping wages down amongst bands lower than that since they can argue that that band can't been moved so why move lower ones. And so on and so on.
But it's not just the child care aspect. Once you reach £100k, you start losing your tax-free personal allowance, with it reducing by £1 for every £2 you earn above £100,000, dropping completely to zero once your income reaches £125,140. Earnings between £100,000 and £125,140 face an effective income tax rate of 60%, plus National Insurance at 2%. If you have kids, over £100k you lose the Child Allowance and 30hrs child care allowance, so why would you want to earn more than £100k?
 

Egg Centric

Established Member
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
2,909
Location
Land of the Prince Bishops
But it's not just the child care aspect. Once you reach £100k, you start losing your tax-free personal allowance, with it reducing by £1 for every £2 you earn above £100,000, dropping completely to zero once your income reaches £125,140. Earnings between £100,000 and £125,140 face an effective income tax rate of 60%, plus National Insurance at 2%. If you have kids, over £100k you lose the Child Allowance and 30hrs child care allowance, so why would you want to earn more than £100k?

I agree and the de facto marginal tax rates of this country are crazy (it must not be lost sight of though when correcting it that universal credit withdrawal is an even worse marginal rate) but at least you're still better off for every £1 you earn. It is the cliff edges that are the worst.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,749
Location
Nottingham
I suggest it would be a good idea to taper these off so nobody faces a situation of seeing no or negative benefit from a pay rise. But I don’t see how extending what is essentially a benefit to people with very high incomes is either morally right or something the Tories will be able to sell to the wider electorate.
 

SuspectUsual

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
6,831
I suggest it would be a good idea to taper these off so nobody faces a situation of seeing no or negative benefit from a pay rise. But I don’t see how extending what is essentially a benefit to people with very high incomes is either morally right or something the Tories will be able to sell to the wider electorate.

Yes. This.
 

Egg Centric

Established Member
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
2,909
Location
Land of the Prince Bishops
I suggest it would be a good idea to taper these off so nobody faces a situation of seeing no or negative benefit from a pay rise. But I don’t see how extending what is essentially a benefit to people with very high incomes is either morally right or something the Tories will be able to sell to the wider electorate.

It's a benefit in the strictest sense of the word, yes, but so is state education which is essentially what it is. It's not as if they just dump the kids in a cage all day, a nursery is childhood education. I can't see a proposal to deny free schooling to the better off going down well.

Also 100k is not a very high income, at least in the south east. And that's going to be more the case each year.

But regardless this really isn't just about people on or about that figure but also those who rely on them which is all of us to one degree or another.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
6,137
It's a benefit in the strictest sense of the word, yes, but so is state education which is essentially what it is. It's not as if they just dump the kids in a cage all day, a nursery is childhood education. I can't see a proposal to deny free schooling to the better off going down well.

Also 100k is not a very high income, at least in the south east. And that's going to be more the case each year.

But regardless this really isn't just about people on or about that figure but also those who rely on them which is all of us to one degree or another.

You also need to look at the bigger picture. If people in the private sector and other 'wealth creators' affected by the £100,000 cliff-edge did not have this to contend with, they may be more inclined to do additional hours, which may improve productivity, increase GDP, and grow the economy; this could actually increase the amount of tax receipts (more income tax, more disposable income to increase discretionary spending etc etc.).
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
4,353
Location
University of Birmingham
Interesting development from the Conservatives that appears not to have hit mainstream media yet (possibly because it hasn't yet been actually announced...)

The Conservative party is due to announce an election pledge that would see it scrap the Environment Agency and Natural England

Supposedly this is to make house building easier (and will also be accompanied by changes to Section 106, affordable housing and community infrastructure requirements)
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,551
Location
Taunton or Kent
Those organisations do a lot more than just block home-building as the Tories claim. The EA is heavily involved in waste and industry regulation, and in live flooding is the main responder. So basically if they're scrapped everyone can look forward to more flooded properties and illegal waste dumping, along with waste fires, among other things. Natural England do a lot for protecting nature, which is something that traditional conservative voters want, so that won't go down well either.
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
4,353
Location
University of Birmingham
Those organisations do a lot more than just block home-building as the Tories claim. The EA is heavily involved in waste and industry regulation, and in live flooding is the main responder. So basically if they're scrapped everyone can look forward to more flooded properties and illegal waste dumping, along with waste fires, among other things. Natural England do a lot for protecting nature, which is something that traditional conservative voters want, so that won't go down well either.
Indeed - I'm very aware that they have far more important roles than (apparently) preventing development. Flooding and sewage/pollution inspection and enforcement, for starters.
Not sure I've ever come across any well-publicised examples of NE or EA actively blocking housing development, so I'm not sure how much of a benefit this move would bring. Not that I pay much attention to the actions of these two organisations on a day to day basis...
 

takno

Verified Rep - Traksy
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,601
Those organisations do a lot more than just block home-building as the Tories claim. The EA is heavily involved in waste and industry regulation, and in live flooding is the main responder. So basically if they're scrapped everyone can look forward to more flooded properties and illegal waste dumping, along with waste fires, among other things. Natural England do a lot for protecting nature, which is something that traditional conservative voters want, so that won't go down well either.
It does seem to be from the Chris Grayling school of anarchy dressed up as small government. Exactly the sort of thing that saves a couple of hundred million for the first 2 years, but then starts killing people and takes a few billion to put right down the line
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,042
Those organisations do a lot more than just block home-building as the Tories claim. The EA is heavily involved in waste and industry regulation, and in live flooding is the main responder. So basically if they're scrapped everyone can look forward to more flooded properties and illegal waste dumping, along with waste fires, among other things. Natural England do a lot for protecting nature, which is something that traditional conservative voters want, so that won't go down well either.

Indeed, the issues I come across are more too do with the cuts in local services having no resources to provide the required responses.

Arguably, the Tories previous cuts are the reason that building is slower than it needs to be.

The problem is, often people say x job at the council is a waste, however if a council like Kent got rid of half their staff it would be a budget saving of circa 5% (so basically they could have a 1 year freeze in council tax rises).

Yet that would come with its own problems.

However, the main point is that staffing is a small portion of their costs.

Ditching the EA wouldn't help, and as others have said, would likely cause people to be left to fend for themselves when there's flooding.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
6,137
Doesn't, or rather shouldn't, the EA undertake dredging of rivers. Since they were not very successful at that, maybe there will be a new organisation that will do that.
 

takno

Verified Rep - Traksy
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,601
Doesn't, or rather shouldn't, the EA undertake dredging of rivers. Since they were not very successful at that, maybe there will be a new organisation that will do that.
There could be, but what's the point in expensively setting up another new organisation? If you want the EA to dredge rivers you really need to restore some of the funding they've had cut over the years, or get rid of some of the other statutory obligations which have been piled on them.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,551
Location
Taunton or Kent
Doesn't, or rather shouldn't, the EA undertake dredging of rivers. Since they were not very successful at that, maybe there will be a new organisation that will do that.
Dredging is not the panacea for flood management many like to think it is. In major floods its impact is negligible, downstream areas from dredging sites get flooded worse and the riverbed just receives more silt before long anyway. Even where dredging is conducted, it's not always the EA, plenty of private contractors do it and require permits to be able to do this.
 

Farigiraf

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2023
Messages
1,214
Location
Bridge on the River Cam
Supposedly this is to make house building easier (and will also be accompanied by changes to Section 106, affordable housing and community infrastructure requirements)
Because who doesn't want more flooded overpriced homes in edge-of-town cul-de-sacs with no schools, third places or GPs nearby and a total of 2 buses a week? That's exactly what the country needs more of :D
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,042
Because who doesn't want more flooded overpriced homes in edge-of-town cul-de-sacs with no schools, third places or GPs nearby and a total of 2 buses a week? That's exactly what the country needs more of :D

If a new housing scheme (last 5 years) has flooded I would be surprised if it wasn't an extreme rainfall event (I know of one locally to me where there was surface water getting into homes, where it was flowing across the site, not water from steams or river flooding).

Given that anything in the last 15 years (at least) would have had to have been limited to green field run off rates and doing so for storms of 1 in 100 years plus a climate change allowance (early on was 5%, now going to be either 40% or 45%).

Compare that to a farm field which during the winter when saturated acts like concrete and so is no better than if it was a 1970's style development.
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,749
Location
Nottingham
If a new housing scheme (last 5 years) has flooded I would be surprised if it wasn't an extreme rainfall event (I know of one locally tomewhere therewas surface water getting into homes, where it was flowing across the site, not water from steams or river flooding).

Given that anything in the last 15 years (at least) would have had to have been limited to green field run off rates and doing so for storms of 1 in 100 years plus a climate change allowance (early on was 5%, now going to be either 40% or 45%).

Compare that to a farm field which during the winter when saturated acts like concrete and so is no better than if it was a 1970's style development.
A lot of that is down to the sort of regulation the Tories are now proposing to abolish.
 

Top