The Theresa May General Election thread (edited)

bingefeller

Rocker said:

bingefeller said:

I bet if Corbyn gets in Sinn Fein will take their seats in Westminster.  

Is there a connection between the two?

Yeah, Corbyn campaigned for better visiting conditions for IRA prisoners during the 80s, he took part in an Republican event to commemorate IRA men killed by the SAS.  Don't forget Diane Abbott's past support for the IRA too.

jellyroll

joneve said:

jellyroll said:

• A 45p tax band for people earning £80,000

• A 50p tax band for people earning over £123,000

    "For the many, not the few"......or rather.....let's make the few pay for the many

I know it's easy to say, but if I was earning £80,000 per year (I currently earn £30k and struggle to make ends meet each month because of the cost of living), I'd be happy to pay a bit of extra tax if it meant helping fund the NHS and the like. 

I should be clear, I'm not a fan of Corbyn or May and wish they would both get in the fucking sea, but on 80,000 per year, even after tax, I'd still have enough to comfortably live and have my wife work part time or become a full time mum when our child arrives.

I should also note that I work fucking hard for that 30k a year, so I don't want any "well work harder or have more ambition so you can earn more money" arguments. As it's obviously not as black and white as that. 

Of course. Anybody on £30k now would logically accept a swap for £80k alongside  paying more tax. But for somebody presently on £80k, typically later in their career, with kids at school/university, trying to pay off the mortgage, trying to save for a pension, having lost child benefit, that £80k isn't going so far as you might think. 

TheBigDipper

I still think the Conservatives will win the election. There are lots of decent people who will find themselves in the quiet of the voting booth who will think "I'm a nice person. I love my family and my dogs. I'd like to have a fairer society with more equal opportunities for everyone, but Corbyn will bankrupt the country, won't push the button and he's a terrorist sympathiser". 

Without supporting Corbyn (because I don't) I don't believe the first, I'm pleased about the second and the third is just a question of timing and context in a world where yesterdays terrorist is todays national leader and yesterdays glorious leader is todays dead dictator. 

If the Conservatives don't improve their majority significantly, I suspect they'll kick Mrs May out and find another PM.

Vote May, get Johnson. Let's hope not. 

ICBM

bingefeller said:

I bet if Corbyn gets in Sinn Fein will take their seats in Westminster.  

They've said they won't.

It would be ironic if by not doing, they prevented him forming a government… unlikely but possible.

guitarfishbay

During the terrorist attack in London, what use were the nukes?

I think the whole won't push the button on nukes thing is a massive red herring when it comes to a security argument.  Not once has having nukes prevented an attack on UK soil by terrorists - and it is precisely this issue that people care about currently.  These are small clusters of individuals attacking at random intervals, the majority of whom are prepared to die anyway.  The nukes are no use against this threat, we can't use them.

Sporky

joneve said:

I know it's easy to say, but if I was earning £80,000 per year , I'd be happy to pay a bit of extra tax if it meant helping fund the NHS and the like.

If you were earning £80,000 a year you'd already be paying a metric shitload of extra tax, which would be pissed up the wall by the government. Nearly £80 a day. Over £20,000 a year, plus NI.

Instead of paying £3,700 in tax and £2,600 in NI, you'd be paying £20,700 in tax and £5,100 in NI - just over four times as much tax, for taking home 2.2 times as much. And you'd lose any child benefit, and access to most other benefits.

And that's assuming you didn't have healthcare through work, which would cost you yet more in tax even though you'd be using the NHS less.

Budgie

Another U-turn or just more ambiguous trickery? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-housing-policy-u-turn-affordable-homes-general-election-2017-manifesto-a7769866.html

Heartfeltdawn

capo4th said:

Are you Diane Abbott? What effect do you think this will have on the UK and its talent ? 

That depends on whether you think Britain is actually loaded with the talent that deserves that money. I suspect that a lot of the top earners in public and private sectors are much like certain English Premier League players: well remunerated for being quite average against the overseas folk. 

Legionreturns

Two points: 

Saying that raising tax on the top 5% and corporation tax will result in less spending and a loss of talent doesn't compute, because money is being hoarded offshore and not spent now. Reinvesting in our infrastructure instead of an austerity programme that is clearly stagnating our economy will also lead to growth. Giving lower paid workers back even a little bit of spending power has a massive effect on the cash economy, because they typically spend rather than nest egg. 

Secondly, I just wanted to giggle at the talk about wages of 80k / 30k etc. A long time ago, roughly ten years, I quit the corporate insurance industry and walked away from circa 60k a year, because I didn't like the person my job had turned me into. I wanted to work full time with disadvantaged kids, and had the skills to do so. I now do a job that, socially at least, benefits society. It's hard, emotionally draining work that puts me in real danger of actual harm on a daily basis. I get 16k, pro ratad (because I don't get paid for the school holidays). Even so, I would gladly pay more tax (hell I don't pay much as it is!) if I thought for a second it would get used for something worthwhile, like getting people off food bank support, properly funding the NHS or rebuilding public services or infrastructure. I have faith, that the Labour party would at least try and do some of these things. So please, realise that if you are comparing losing a few hundred quid a year when you're on 30k / 80k, you sound ridiculous. You're in the top 1% of earners worldwide. I'm wealthy by global standards and one person only needs so much. I've seen real, genuine poverty. I see it every day. Many of our kids come to school just so they get a meal, and it's the only one they get that day. 

ICBM

Budgie said:

Another U-turn or just more ambiguous trickery?

Any reason it can't be both? This is Theresa May's Tories we're talking about…

capo4th

thomasw88 said:

capo4th said:

Axe_meister said:

Exactly so now they will be hit with another 5% on top of what they have already lost if they are on £120K (a school head, a doctor), So if you are on £123K with 5% extra tax above £80,000 that is 5% of £43,000 = £2150 and the £2K you have already lost from your tax free allowance and that is £4140 a year. If you have two children and you used to get child allowance that is another £1644 do a total loss of £5784 since the recession hit. Which is about a months Salary after tax.
If you where a Head teacher/Doctor, i.e. in the public sector you would not have had much of a pay rise any way.

That's why UNintelligent OLD  people will elect Theresa May as Prime minister on Thursday

corrected that for you mr daily mail.

Genius Thomas your on form again 

capo4th

joneve said:

jellyroll said:

• A 45p tax band for people earning £80,000

• A 50p tax band for people earning over £123,000

    "For the many, not the few"......or rather.....let's make the few pay for the many

I know it's easy to say, but if I was earning £80,000 per year (I currently earn £30k and struggle to make ends meet each month because of the cost of living), I'd be happy to pay a bit of extra tax if it meant helping fund the NHS and the like. 

I should be clear, I'm not a fan of Corbyn or May and wish they would both get in the fucking sea, but on 80,000 per year, even after tax, I'd still have enough to comfortably live and have my wife work part time or become a full time mum when our child arrives.

I should also note that I work fucking hard for that 30k a year, so I don't want any "well work harder or have more ambition so you can earn more money" arguments. As it's obviously not as black and white as that. 

Everyone's circumstances, locations and commitments are different. Everyone works hard.

Corbyn  is just telling the people what they want to hear it's a ridiculous plan that will crush our countries economy again under a Labour government.

it's hilarious that people have no memory of previous Labour performance.

capo4th

jellyroll said:

joneve said:

jellyroll said:

• A 45p tax band for people earning £80,000

• A 50p tax band for people earning over £123,000

    "For the many, not the few"......or rather.....let's make the few pay for the many

I know it's easy to say, but if I was earning £80,000 per year (I currently earn £30k and struggle to make ends meet each month because of the cost of living), I'd be happy to pay a bit of extra tax if it meant helping fund the NHS and the like. 

I should be clear, I'm not a fan of Corbyn or May and wish they would both get in the fucking sea, but on 80,000 per year, even after tax, I'd still have enough to comfortably live and have my wife work part time or become a full time mum when our child arrives.

I should also note that I work fucking hard for that 30k a year, so I don't want any "well work harder or have more ambition so you can earn more money" arguments. As it's obviously not as black and white as that. 

Of course. Anybody on £30k now would logically accept a swap for £80k alongside  paying more tax. But for somebody presently on £80k, typically later in their career, with kids at school/university, trying to pay off the mortgage, trying to save for a pension, having lost child benefit, that £80k isn't going so far as you might think. 

Careful jellyroll your talking sense people will not get that.

Axe_meister

Legionreturns said:

Two points: 

Saying that raising tax on the top 5% and corporation tax will result in less spending and a loss of talent doesn't compute, because money is being hoarded offshore and not spent now. Reinvesting in our infrastructure instead of an austerity programme that is clearly stagnating our economy will also lead to growth. Giving lower paid workers back even a little bit of spending power has a massive effect on the cash economy, because they typically spend rather than nest egg. 

Secondly, I just wanted to giggle at the talk about wages of 80k / 30k etc. A long time ago, roughly ten years, I quit the corporate insurance industry and walked away from circa 60k a year, because I didn't like the person my job had turned me into. I wanted to work full time with disadvantaged kids, and had the skills to do so. I now do a job that, socially at least, benefits society. It's hard, emotionally draining work that puts me in real danger of actual harm on a daily basis. I get 16k, pro ratad (because I don't get paid for the school holidays). Even so, I would gladly pay more tax (hell I don't pay much as it is!) if I thought for a second it would get used for something worthwhile, like getting people off food bank support, properly funding the NHS or rebuilding public services or infrastructure. I have faith, that the Labour party would at least try and do some of these things. So please, realise that if you are comparing losing a few hundred quid a year when you're on 30k / 80k, you sound ridiculous. You're in the top 1% of earners worldwide. I'm wealthy by global standards and one person only needs so much. I've seen real, genuine poverty. I see it every day. Many of our kids come to school just so they get a meal, and it's the only one they get that day. 

But it's not a few hundred quid a year. It's a bloody months income.
We all make our life's choices, why should a government come in and decide, actually thanks for all the tax you pay, I'll have some more please.
Oh you have to sell your hourse because you won't be able to pay the mortgage anymore, well I'll have some more tax when you buy your smaller house then.
Or send the other half out to work, just so you can afford the tax bill. Not good if you have special needs kids the state won't help you with, because one of you earns over a certain threshold. The whole reason one of the parents stayed at home.

The top 10% already pay 50% of all tax, screwing them even more is not going to help.
We've got to stop spending more and more and actaully look at what we are spending our existing budgets on, especially as we have a sodding great Brexit bill to pay.

capo4th

Sporky said:

joneve said:

I know it's easy to say, but if I was earning £80,000 per year , I'd be happy to pay a bit of extra tax if it meant helping fund the NHS and the like.

If you were earning £80,000 a year you'd already be paying a metric shitload of extra tax, which would be pissed up the wall by the government. Nearly £80 a day. Over £20,000 a year, plus NI.

Instead of paying £3,700 in tax and £2,600 in NI, you'd be paying £20,700 in tax and £5,100 in NI - just over four times as much tax, for taking home 2.2 times as much. And you'd lose any child benefit, and access to most other benefits.

And that's assuming you didn't have healthcare through work, which would cost you yet more in tax even though you'd be using the NHS less.

People,don't get that they just see £80k or £100k jaws drop £80k -100k in London is not a richman if you have responsibilities and a large mortgage.

Axe_meister

100K would get you a mortgage (if sensible 3.5 salary) £350k Not even a 2 up 2 down in London.

capo4th

Heartfeltdawn said:

capo4th said:

Are you Diane Abbott? What effect do you think this will have on the UK and its talent ? 

That depends on whether you think Britain is actually loaded with the talent that deserves that money. I suspect that a lot of the top earners in public and private sectors are much like certain English Premier League players: well remunerated for being quite average against the overseas folk. 

Deserve ? 

We we are not talking about premiership footballers here.

We are talking about Doctors, teachers, lawyers, dentists directors, managers, bankers, sales people, businessmen. 

Some people in the public sector are hugely overpaid.

Modulus_Amps

joneve said:

I should also note that I work fucking hard for that 30k a year, so I don't want any "well work harder or have more ambition so you can earn more money" arguments. As it's obviously not as black and white as that. 

work smarter, not harder..... oops

Having earned 80k a year in previous employment, I can confirm money goes out just as fast as it goes in, and when you see your tax/contributions coming off your salary every month you realize how much the high earners are supporting the lower earners in the country. High earners should not be demonized.

Of course you have to be a low earner with a family/children and both parties working to benefit from those high earners paying into the system... ...

I am currently a low earner..... with high earner potential!

ICBM

capo4th said:

it's hilarious that people have no memory of previous Labour performance.

It's depressing that most people have no knowledge or memory of the true figures.

The Tories have borrowed more money under Osborne and Hammond than all Labour governments put together - in fact the Tories have historically borrowed more and repaid less, by any measure, than Labour. Only four governments since WWII have ever run a surplus - three of them were Labour.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/ (thanks to fretmeister for link)

If you want to bankrupt the country, vote Tory.

capo4th

Modulus_Amps said:

joneve said:

I should also note that I work fucking hard for that 30k a year, so I don't want any "well work harder or have more ambition so you can earn more money" arguments. As it's obviously not as black and white as that. 

work smarter, not harder..... oops

Having earned 80k a year in previous employment, I can confirm money goes out just as fast as it goes in, and when you see your tax/contributions coming off your salary every month you realize how much the high earners are supporting the lower earners in the country. High earners should not be demonized.

Of course you have to be a low earner with a family/children and both parties working to benefit from those high earners paying into the system... ...

I am currently a low earner..... with high earner potential!

Wiz from the amp man