Personal tax guarantee

[AtW]

"Labour is pledging not to raise income tax for those earning less than £80,000 a year as part of a "personal tax guarantee" for 95% of taxpayers.

Shadow chancellor John McDonnell will vow to protect low- and middle-earners by also ruling out rises in VAT and employee national insurance rates.

But he will say the top 5% of earners will pay more to fund public services.

The Tories, who have also ruled out a rise in VAT, say there is a £45bn black hole in Labour's tax proposals.

Theresa May has said she has "no plans" to raise other taxes after the election, but has so far declined to say whether a manifesto pledge not to raise direct taxes ahead of the 2015 election will be retained."

General election 2017: Labour rules out tax rises for 95% of earners - BBC News

Even Taxing Labour offers some form of guarantee, and what about Tory Scum? Perhaps May would outdo Labour and lower 45% tax band for those on £50k+

[MarillionFan]

"Labour is pledging not to raise income tax for those earning less than £80,000 a year as part of a "personal tax guarantee" for 95% of taxpayers.

Shadow chancellor John McDonnell will vow to protect low- and middle-earners by also ruling out rises in VAT and employee national insurance rates.

But he will say the top 5% of earners will pay more to fund public services.

The Tories, who have also ruled out a rise in VAT, say there is a £45bn black hole in Labour's tax proposals.

Theresa May has said she has "no plans" to raise other taxes after the election, but has so far declined to say whether a manifesto pledge not to raise direct taxes ahead of the 2015 election will be retained."

General election 2017: Labour rules out tax rises for 95% of earners - BBC News



Even Taxing Labour offers some form of guarantee, and what about Tory Scum? Perhaps May would outdo Labour and lower 45% tax band for those on £50k+

It's all tulipe. Last Tory government promised not to raise taxes and then the next day came around with a 5p Tesco's bag & asked us all to pay extra.

W@nkers the lot of ;em.

[AtW]

That's not a tax, that's a fee...

[centurian]

John McDonnel is probably the most competent of the opposition front bench - although the bar is pretty low.

This is about as smart as he could get on tax.

The numbers won't add up of course. The problem with taxing the rich - is that there aren't that many of them. Jacking up the rate by 10% won't raise that much cash in the grand scheme of things - certainly not enough to fund their spending promises.

But fortunately for us - most of whom are probably on > £80K - he won't get a chance to implement it.

[DimPrawn]

Labour's spending commitments so far include:

Recruiting 10,000 new police officers
Giving NHS workers a pay rise of more than 1%
Reinstating training bursaries for student nurses
Bringing back the educational maintenance and carers allowances
Restoring student grants

The majority of these, it says, will be covered by the reversal of cuts to corporation, capital gains and inheritance taxes.

So huge increases in unemployment as big companies relocate to wherever workers are cheaper and corp tax rates are lower.

Vote Labour, vote yourself out of work.

[centurian]

Labour's spending commitments so far include:

Recruiting 10,000 new police officers.

The thing is - even if Dianne Abbott quotes the "right" figures - no-one is calling out that these are complete tulip as well.

300m per year for 10,000 police officers !!!

They have take the average salary for a junior PC - added on a bit - multiplied it by 10,000 - and hey presto.

No appreciation of :-
* Employers national insurance costs
* Employers pension contributions
* Overtime - most newly qualified PCs with no families pile on the overtime
* Equipment (uniform, radios, stab vests, cars)
* Support roles - for every 100 officers, forces need [x] amount of support staff and infrastructure

I reckon each plod costs at least £40K per year - and probably higher than that.

[WTFH]

The thing is - even if Dianne Abbott quotes the "right" figures - no-one is calling out that these are complete tulip as well.

300m per year for 10,000 police officers !!!

They have take the average salary for a junior PC - added on a bit - multiplied it by 10,000 - and hey presto.

No appreciation of :-
* Employers national insurance costs
* Employers pension contributions
* Overtime - most newly qualified PCs with no families pile on the overtime
* Equipment (uniform, radios, stab vests, cars)
* Support roles - for every 100 officers, forces need [x] amount of support staff and infrastructure

I reckon each plod costs at least £40K per year - and probably higher than that.

Loving this bit, slag off one party for their calculations, then hit it home with a guess and a claim, but not even bothering to find out the truth.

https://www.nottinghamshire.police.u...%20Officer.pdf

[malvolio]

One of the problems we face with persuading people that we are worth what we get paid is that 90% of contractors have no idea of the true costs of an employee. They are much closer per day worked to our own charges than people realise.

For any employee other than those in very basic roles, reckon on at least 75% overhead on annual salary. Add in overtime, shift or senior post perks and you can easily double that.

[centurian]

Loving this bit, slag off one party for their calculations, then hit it home with a guess and a claim, but not even bothering to find out the truth.

https://www.nottinghamshire.police.u...%20Officer.pdf

I'm not running for government though. If I was doing radio interviews on this stuff, I would have every fact researched and nailed down.

Besides, it seems to back up what I said....

The annual payroll cost of a new Police Officer is £30,520 per annum.

That's where they got the 10,000 x 30,000 from. But that doesn't include everything I listed above. Throw 300m at the police service - and you won't get 10,000 plods out the other end,

[jamesbrown]

The problem with taxing the rich - is that there aren't that many of them.

That depends entirely on your definition of "rich". If rich is defined as >80k annual income, that's around 5% of the electorate. The top 5% of earners pay around 50% of all income tax FFS! So, indeed, there are many of them and, like Sas, they're walking around with a massive sign that says "kick me". If you're going to define rich, you need to define it against wealth (preferably housing wealth, which is difficult to move around) not income, but the wealthy, and those with properly large incomes, can circumvent these measures to varying degrees. Ultimately, those with moderately large incomes always end-up with the greatest burden, proportionally, because they are "soakable" and they have something worth soaking.