Save the 10p starting rate!

[Silent Hunter]

Then let's look at the impact of the thing. Up to £446 does not mean everyone loses £446.

What reason did the Treasury give for this change, anyway?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's not just the Tories who have been evoking the 'f' word mind....

I never said that it was. I just don't think that people should do it unless it's accurate to do so (if that makes sense).

[afleitch]

What reason did the Treasury give for this change, anyway?

The events of 3rd May 2007

[Silent Hunter]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7333496.stm

So this seems to apply to those without kids, mainly.

[afleitch]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7333496.stm

So this seems to apply to those without kids, mainly.

Yes Ivan they will bear the brunt of it as I said and was outlined in the figures I posted. No one is disputing that.

But you seem to be going out of your way to try and excuse this. You've noticed it, but you've been questioning the figures and questioning the people it effects and how much they loose; 'just those without kids'. You're rationalising things down so it becomes pallatable.

I know you're a Labour supporter. But Gordon isn't spying on you He won't strike you down for daring to take an opposing view (unlike his own back-bench)

[Silent Hunter]

Yes Ivan they will bear the brunt of it as I said and was outlined in the figures I posted. No one is disputing that.

But you seem to be going out of your way to try and excuse this. You've noticed it, but you've been questioning the figures and questioning the people it effects and how much they loose; 'just those without kids'. You're rationalising things down so it becomes pallatable.

I know you're a Labour supporter. But Gordon isn't spying on you He won't strike you down for daring to take an opposing view (unlike his own back-bench)

Actually, I'm mostly questioning the Daily Mail and Tory analysis on this. I don't trust the Tory leadership as far as I can throw them, so I want confirmatory figures.

I don't like the elimination of the 10p starting rate, but for most people, the increase in tax credits makes up for it.

The simplification of the tax system saves money that could be used for other services- surely you'd favour that.

I would, ultimately, like the 10p rate restored and the 20p basic kept. But money doesn't grow on trees and I'd prefer those without kids to deal with it as opposed to those who do.

Simple solution of course- raise the minimum wage to £7.00 an hour.

[afleitch]

Actually, I'm mostly questioning the Daily Mail and Tory analysis on this. I don't trust the Tory leadership as far as I can throw them, so I want confirmatory figures.

I've already provided the Treasury's figures, plus the opinions of 2 Labour MP's and the Select Comittee! What more do you want?

I don't like the elimination of the 10p starting rate, but for most people, the increase in tax credits makes up for it.

Except for 2.2 million single people without kids who are not covered by the tax credits system, increase or not

The simplification of the tax system saves money that could be used for other services- surely you'd favour that.

Not at the expense of the poorest workers in the country, no. As a Tory and as someone who is passionate about identifying and targeting poverty I can't support bottom heavy tax hikes to fund anything. I don't consider that to be a fair deal particularly when higher income earners are being given a tax cut. That tax cut was directly funded by abolishing the 10p start rate,

I would, ultimately, like the 10p rate restored and the 20p basic kept. But money doesn't grow on trees and I'd prefer those without kids to deal with it as opposed to those who do.

Well many couples with kids will have to deal with it as the Treasury figures highlighted, but regardless, poverty is not selective; it affects those without kids as much as it affects those with them. It affects the young single person as much as it effects the elderly single person. Why should the poorest workers during a time of economic instability and a rising cost in living have to 'deal' with any increase in taxation when the middle classes are afforded a tax cut funded by the abolition of the 10p rate?

Simple solution of course- raise the minimum wage to £7.00 an hour.

Money doesn't grow on trees Ivan

Politics really has changed in Britain when it's our lot (and our increasing allies in the Commons; the Labour backbench) that are arguing against unfair tax burdens on the poor.

[Silent Hunter]

1. You gave me the figures- I was pointing out that I want them.

2. I don't like it either, but it's £232 a year- max. For most people it's less than that. I've forgotten how you end up losing £232 a year, BTW.

3. That said, your point is valid. There should have been another way to pay for it.

4. Actually it affects kids more than it does older people. They're the ones deprived of opportunities as a result. The young single people can get help to increase their earnings.

Define "middle classes".

5. Remind me which party wants to raise the inheritance tax threshold?

[afleitch]

5. Remind me which party wants to raise the inheritance tax threshold?

Labour...after the Tories had announced they were going to do the same. Or did you forget that was now Labour policy?

Which is a centralised levy. Bumping the minimum wage to £7 (which we all know would be bad for the economy, as the Scottish Labour Party stressed when the Scottish Socialists proposed this in 199/2003) requires regulation that effects both the public and private sector.

[Silent Hunter]

5. Remind me which party wants to raise the inheritance tax threshold?

Labour...after the Tories had announced they were going to do the same. Or did you forget that was now Labour policy?

You're right, but I doesn't mean I support either party on that issue. I'm not some robot- I do disagree with my party on occasions. I support the banning of cluster bombs for example- something I've asked the Prime Minister (when he was Chancellor) myself.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It affects the young single person as much as it effects the elderly single person.

Nonsense, at least as far as actual poverty goes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not sure what this has to do with class; with the exception of the very low paid (who don't pay income tax anyway) and the higher reaches of the middle class (who didn't benefit much from the budget in question unless my maths is even worse than I've always assumed) income and class haven't correlated all that strongly since the Post-War period. In practice the changes take a bit of money from people who tend not to vote and give it to people who tend to; in other words, as well as being cynical, it's short-termist and a little stupid.

[afleitch]

Joseph Rowntree research has shown that young Europeans in their late teens and early twenties are ''at a higher risk of poverty than all other groups except for children and older people.'' The % of young persons in poverty in the UK currently stands at 20% at the high end of the scale (this is using the accepted definition of poverty as 60% of median income). While the risk of poverty declines significantly in the late twenties, this is being increasingly hindered by escalating personal debt, tuition debt and unfair taxation meaning that many young people are not financially self reliant until their mid-30's. Infact those who have left home are, according to the report most at risk of poverty, particularly within the first year. Single young persons have been hit by the abolition of the 10p starting rate and have been roundly forgotten by the government with their losses not being compensated. Income tax is 'indiscriminate' as a levy. Tax credits are discrimininate in whom they target.

Holding a job is important. Not just getting one, but holding it for at least a year, as JR reports before. The believe in 'evaluating youth employment schemes on levels of job retention, not just numbers of young people getting work.' (which was and is the New Deal's biggest failure - training short term work of 13 weeks before going back through the revolving door and back on benefits or through the New Deal once again)

For the record, they will be reporting the day after the local elections, on child poverty. This is interesting as it will confirm if the last reported uptick in child poverty was a blip or the start of an upwards trend.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Joseph Rowntree research has shown that young Europeans in their late teens and early twenties are ''at a higher risk of poverty than all other groups except for children and older people.'' The % of young persons in poverty in the UK currently stands at 20% at the high end of the scale (this is using the accepted definition of poverty as 60% of median income).

Which is a definition of poverty that I profoundly disagree with, for a whole range of reasons.

But even if I were to accept that basic definition of poverty, I'd have to admit that, for obvious reasons, it's likely to be at least a little inaccurate as far as young people go.

[afleitch]

Joseph Rowntree research has shown that young Europeans in their late teens and early twenties are ''at a higher risk of poverty than all other groups except for children and older people.'' The % of young persons in poverty in the UK currently stands at 20% at the high end of the scale (this is using the accepted definition of poverty as 60% of median income).

Which is a definition of poverty that I profoundly disagree with, for a whole range of reasons.

But even if I were to accept that basic definition of poverty, I'd have to admit that, for obvious reasons, it's likely to be at least a little inaccurate as far as young people go.

Al if you can provide something like the JR report we can go on then we can look at that.

But the main point is being lost in all this, which was what I made to Ivan. Is it acceptable to increase tax on the lowest paid earners in order to ensure that middle income earners get a 2p cut? It's bad timing too, at a time where financial pressures are increasing. You can argue over statistics, but many people feel they are being shafted and millions of workers are taking a hit. The govt promised to look at this problem a year ago, they promised to review it in October (IIRC, thats what you believed when I posed the question to you last March) and did not, they promised to review it for this years budget and did not. Truth is, they were never going to.

[Silent Hunter]

1. I meant long-term impact on the person as a whole, not likelihood of occuring- it should have been clearer. Sorry.
2. Those short terms do add up. If you've got four 13 week jobs on your belt, that's a years experience, which opens up other jobs.
3. Speaking of unfair taxation, remind me which party's councils has the highest rate of council tax increases and pays its executives the highest?
4. OK, the Treasury needs to look it.
5. What people feel and what actually happens are two different things, but your point is valid. We need to explain this better.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al if you can provide something like the JR report we can go on then we can look at that.

Give me the money and I'd be happy to do so

But my basic point (for the second point that is) is this; let's say that a family with two children has an annual income of... er... around £25,000 and let's say that an individual has an income of around £15,000. Who's "poorer"? (who's less affluent would be more accurate, but let's ignore that).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm quite sure that there will be at least a few people who didn't lose out from the tax changes who will put down the fact that they now have less beer money to the tax changes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I probably did, yes. You might not have noticed but I'm not actually very pleased with they way things have turned out.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Perhaps we ought to alter the Tax Credits so they're directly in less taxes?

You mean raise the personal allowance? That would just work out as a tax cut for everyone.

[Silent Hunter]

Perhaps we ought to alter the Tax Credits so they're directly in less taxes?

You mean raise the personal allowance? That would just work out as a tax cut for everyone.

No, I meant alter the PAYE system, so those with Tax Credits don't get the money taken out of their pay packets to begin with.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Perhaps we ought to alter the Tax Credits so they're directly in less taxes?

You mean raise the personal allowance? That would just work out as a tax cut for everyone.

No, I meant alter the PAYE system, so those with Tax Credits don't get the money taken out of their pay packets to begin with.

But that would be logical

[Silent Hunter]

Bumping this due to the whole issue.

What is Frank Field's proposal?

[afleitch]

Bumping this due to the whole issue.

What is Frank Field's proposal?

I'm not quite sure what Frank Fields proposal is, other than 'not what's on offer' which is completely understandable. The government could pay for it by simply adding 2p onto the 20% rate - basically back to the way things were. Changes to the threshold may help offset the effect without doing thiis, but it would give everyone an effetive tax cut of sorts and throw projected expenditure out of whack.

However inaction is the worst course of action - Labour could have a defeat on their hands which would force a re-think (as opposed to them ''thinking' about offseting the abolition) The government is also facing likely defeat on the 42 day limit.

It could be a good opportunity for a plucky early day 'No confidence' motion if turkeys want to vote for Christmas.

[Silent Hunter]

Why not go 50:50? 15p basic, 21p standard?

[afleitch]

Why not go 50:50? 15p basic, 21p standard?

I don't know what that would quite do to the figures. I'll see if I can find out.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What is Frank Field's proposal?

Some form of compensation, though I'm not sure of the details.

I do wish that those up top would realise the extent to which this stupid mess is demoralising Labour voters and angering party activists. Being more afraid of nasty headlines screaming "U-TURN!!!!11" (in newspapers that your voters either don't read or largely ignore the politics coverage of) than of irritating your own members is bizarre, but distressingly typical, behavior.

[afleitch]

What is Frank Field's proposal?

Some form of compensation, though I'm not sure of the details.

I do wish that those up top would realise the extent to which this stupid mess is demoralising Labour voters and angering party activists. Being more afraid of nasty headlines screaming "U-TURN!!!!11" (in newspapers that your voters either don't read or largely ignore the politics coverage of) than of irritating your own members is bizarre, but distressingly typical, behavior.

I talked about in the doortops last May and how changes to WTC wouldn't cover the effects abolition. Had some impact in some areas. However then Labour activists were accusing me of 'dishonesty.' I have little sympathy for those who struggle on the streets today because they sat on their arses for a year