Bye bye Theresa

[NotoriousREV]

You have to remember that generally an election victory isn't decided by hardcore Conservative or Labour supporters because they'll almost always vote for their favourite team, it's decided by the floating voters. I suspect that more are actively put off by Corbyn than they are by Boris, and more will be actively drawn to Boris than to Corbyn.

However, we're in unprecedented times. The unknown in the current climate is where will Brexit Party voters put their cross? If the Twitter thread I linked to earlier is correct, and Boris is a closet Remainer, or at least a closet Customs Union (CU) and Freedom of MovemeNT fan, then his actions may well not appease the ERG and the rabid Hard Brexit morons.

[GG.]

but who can hand on heart say they need it more than the country?

Massive generalisation though isn't it. What about a single mum living in London earning 75k with two kids to support. She probably does need that extra money. Unfortunately the tax system just targets income not true wealth because its much easier.

The sort of underhand fiscal drag whereby taxes increase year on year by the same percentage as RPI shouldn't be acceptable - the US have a inflationary lock/automatic adjustment on tax bands for that reason. It allows politicians to get away with not making hard decisions on tax that people actually consider when voting for them because it just happens under the radar.

I agree that going to 80k in one go is not the most sensible way to do it. He should've committed to steady increases and a new law that tax bands move by reference to RPI but obviously that's not a big enough bribe is it!

[NotoriousREV]

What about a single mum earning 75k with two kids to support. She probably does need that extra money.

GG, you're fucking clueless. You clearly have no idea how most people actually live. I've got mates that consider themselves to be doing very well fro themselves at £35k total household income. Anyone with even a single income of £75k complaining about a lack of money needs to get their head from out of their arse, as do you.

The idea that prioritising tax cuts for the top 10% of earners is justified on the basis of need is fucking sickening.

[GG.]

You're not talking about £35k a year with two kids paying central london rent/mortgage or commuting into central london with an expensive annual rail ticket (i.e.£5k p/a) and childcare though are you?

I'm not saying they would be on the poverty line but they're not the "rich" as some would suggest.

[NotoriousREV]

Your not talking about £35k a year with two kids paying central london rent/mortgage or commuting into central london with an expensive annual rail ticket (i.e.£5k p/a) and childcare though are you?

*you're

No, I'm talking about real people who get dirty for a living, that start work at 4am to drive to work sites, then do a full days physical work, then drive home again.

Someone living as you describe could easily get a job paying similar money in an area that's cheaper to live in. No one on £75k per year is struggling, unless they've got a massive coke habit or are monumentally bad with money.

[NotoriousREV]

Median London household income in 2018: £30,677. That means 50% are living on less than that, even in London. £75k needs that additional income? Let them eat fucking cake.

[Mito Man]

Yeah, how the fuck else will they lease that Range Rover?

[Shlergen]

WTF is BJ thinking of, offering to move the 40% tax band up to £80k? Yes, fiscal drag had historically brought many more into the 40% band than was originally intended, but the Torys made efforts to fix that with the manifesto pledge and subsequent implementation of the move to £50k. Moving it to £80k is crazy. Sure, a lot of us would be better off to the tune of £500 a month, but who can hand on heart say they need it more than the country? It's not like the public finances are in a great shape is it?

I reckon it would have an effect on the contractor market, making it less appealing. Wonder what would happen with the planned IR35 changes planned as well. It's certainly not something that will appeal to the wider public. That said it's not like the money is or would be spent efficiently

[Rich B]

To be fair to GG - a single mum working full time with 2 kids needing childcare (lots of assumptions in this post!) could easily be paying £2k+ a month for that. There goes half her salary.

We’re paying about a grand a month for my little boy to go to nursery the 3 days a week my missus works.

[GG.]

Yep - plus another £1100 ish (minimum) for accomodation and you're down to a grand a month - 250 a week to feed, clothe, travelcard and whatever else you need, for a family of three, in London.

They all sound like silly figures when you live in the north, property is cheap and your kids are both at school with no childcare costs but unfortunately in London figures often get silly very quickly.

Of course I'm not saying all or even many people earning £75k a year are in that position, just that generalisations are always difficult and looking at median household income in London is a poor test as supposedly 40% of everyone in London doesn't earn whats needed for a minimum standard of income and 51% (!!) of all children in London.

[NotoriousREV]

To be fair to GG - a single mum working full time with 2 kids needing childcare (lots of assumptions in this post!) could easily be paying £2k+ a month for that. There goes half her salary.

We’re paying about a grand a month for my little boy to go to nursery the 3 days a week my missus works.

If she’s getting £75k a year, chances are she’ll be getting childcare vouchers on salary sacrifice. The fact that she has a choice to even consider spending £2k per month is a luxury most people would rather enjoy.

I’m not saying most people wouldn’t like to pay less tax, but if we’re talking about “need” after 11 years of austerity, this is not the tax band that should come first. This mythical £75k single mum isn’t visiting food banks.

[NotoriousREV]

Yep - plus another £1100 ish (minimum) for accomodation and you're down to a grand a month - 250 a week to feed, clothe, travelcard and whatever else you need, for a family of three, in London.

They all sound like silly figures when you live in the north, property is cheap and your kids are both at school with no childcare costs but unfortunately in London figures often get silly very quickly.

Of course I'm not saying all or even many people earning £75k a year are in that position, just that generalisations are always difficult and looking at median household income in London is a poor test as supposedly 30% of everyone in London doesn't earn whats needed for a minimum standard of income.

Again, you’re talking out of your arse. Those numbers don’t sound silly at all. Do you actually think that the north is still using shillings or something?

[Rich B]

I’m not taking sides - just chucking in some more info!

From memory, Childcare vouchers would cover about 2 days a month (£124) at that level.

[Swervin_Mervin]

More's the point, the higher rate band was only ever designed to share the genuinely wealthy, not professionals or senior management level earners. It's not just a bit of fiscal drag - it's fvcking massive fiscal drag.

It caught 1.7m earners in '91 but now catches 4.3m. And supposedly if it had increased in line with earnings since it was inttoduced it wouldn't be very far short of £80k.

Do I agree with it? Not sure. I think some upping of the threshold makes a lot of sense given that it's the middle earners that feel the biggest squeeze from taxes. Politically it makes a lot of sense as it's those same middle class voters that hold the largest sway in elections, an even bigger issue at present. But £80k does seem high.

[Swervin_Mervin]

I’m not taking sides - just chucking in some more info!

From memory, Childcare vouchers would cover about 2 days a month (£124) at that level.

You can get a max of £2k a year at the moment under the new tax free childcare system. That would pay for two month's worth of 5days a week at the nursery ours goes to.

Child benefit goes as well obvs tho.

[duncs500]

Well I'm certainly glad Leadsom has gone, but the remaining choices are pretty bad from what I've seen. It's got the feeling of BoJo winning by default, is there anyone out of the rest worth rooting for? I CBA to do my own research...

Are no Labour fans thinking "WTF are we doing? We could be hammering the Tory party into the dust for decades to come if we just backed a slightly more moderate leader"?

The only thing the Tories have going for them right now is how bad Labour are. Who knew when Corbyn was elected that he'd be the best chance the Tories had of winning a General Election.

[Rich B]

The fact that she has a choice to even consider spending £2k per month is a luxury most people would rather enjoy.

the choice between working and being unemployed. Great!

Swerve, for higher rate tax payers? The scheme I was on was £124 a month for higher rate, and nurseries in the south are £60+ per day (ours is £75).

[GG.]

Plus obviously if you're a single mum (or two parents) in full time work in a well paid job with a little one you probably need wrap around care (or top up after hours nursery fees) when you can't get out at 3.30 when nurseries kick out!

[NotoriousREV]

The fact that she has a choice to even consider spending £2k per month is a luxury most people would rather enjoy.

the choice between working and being unemployed. Great!

So what does the single working mum of 2 kids on £35k a year do? Genuine question.

Agonising over paying £2k per month nursery fees isn't struggling.

[GG.]

Go on the dole in all likelihood and avoid the childcare costs until they're old enough to go to school.