May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but
May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough to
convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but May
might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

How did she threaten to hit pensioners in their pockets? I must have
missed that.

On 30/05/2017 18:13, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough to
convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but May
might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

My take on it is that I also was going to vote for May intitially but
then for me she started showing her true colours, like she was going to
nail all to the wall. So although I think she is best of a bad bunch
for Brexit I believe it will be best if she has as small a majority as
possible (then she may just take the publics thoughts in to account)
So to do that I will proabably vote labour but expecting Cons to win.

On 30/05/2017 18:13, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough to
convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but May
might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

Where do you live? (which constituency)

Mark Allread pretended :
On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough to
convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but May
might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

How did she threaten to hit pensioners in their pockets? I must have
missed that.

I haven't really followed it, but I understood May was suggesting state
pensions were to be frozen and the winter fuel payment would only be
paid after a a means test. This suggests that those living close to the
edge, but not below it, maybe those who saved during their working life
will not get the WFP.

Clive George laid this down on his screen :
Where do you live? (which constituency)

Elmet.

Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I understood May was suggesting state
pensions were to be frozen

The original justification for the triple lock, was that pensions had
fallen behind over many years, so they would rise by the highest of
(2.5%, CPI or average earnings increase) now they are said to have
caught up, and in danger of becoming unaffordable for the current
workforce to contribute to. So they are not proposed to be frozen, just
that will rise by the higher of (CPI or average earnings).

Andy Burns wrote on 30/05/2017 :
The original justification for the triple lock, was that pensions had fallen
behind over many years, so they would rise by the highest of (2.5%, CPI or
average earnings increase) now they are said to have caught up, and in danger
of becoming unaffordable for the current workforce to contribute to. So they
are not proposed to be frozen, just that will rise by the higher of (CPI or
average earnings).

That sounds better, thanks..

Chris Hog formulated the question :
I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for.

Yes, I feel the same.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.
In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

That is my understanding too, it was just that there were so many
objections it seemed I must have misunderstood something.


As for income tax, I recall in the 1950's the highest rate of tax, for
top earners, was something like 19/6 in the £, i.e.97.5%*, yet now
there's a huge fuss when it's suggested it goes up to 50p/£, i.e. 50%,
which is generous by comparison, so why all the fuss?

19/6 was what I remember too.

On 30/05/2017 18:34, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Clive George laid this down on his screen :
Where do you live? (which constituency)

Elmet.

Presumably now Elmet and Rothwell?

Conservative if you want things to remain the same, Labour if you want
to give the current leadership a bit of a slap, UKIP if you want the
government to do more UKIPpy policies, Lib Dem or Green if you want them
to do less UKIPpy things, Yorkshire Party if you want to encourage them
by doing your bit towards them not losing their deposit.

It looks like your vote is unlikely to make a difference, so a protest
vote of some kind might be worth a go.

Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Clive George wrote:

Where do you live? (which constituency)

Elmet.

For some reason, I was under the impression you lived in That London.

Andy Burns pretended :
For some reason, I was under the impression you lived in That London.

No, terrible place to 'live'.

It was foxhunting for me, what the heck is the relevance of that to the
problems of a much greater nature the country faces? If that is all she can
see then I'd suggest look at the most likely other party to get in in your
area and throw your weight there and encourage others to do the same. a hung
parliament might bloody enough noses to make all parties think about waht is
real and not just play silly games with promises.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
news
May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket. Now
I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough to
convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but May
might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

On 30/05/2017 18:42, Andy Burns wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I understood May was suggesting state
pensions were to be frozen

The original justification for the triple lock, was that pensions had
fallen behind over many years, so they would rise by the highest of
(2.5%, CPI or average earnings increase) now they are said to have
caught up

Caught up with what? The state pension is still not enough to cover
basic expenditure taking housing costs into account.

--
Max Demian

On 30/05/2017 18:13, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough to
convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but May
might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.


These look like the winners

https://www.loonyparty.com/2017-gene...on-manicfesto/

--
Adam

On 30/05/2017 18:57, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Chris Hog formulated the question :
I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for.

Yes, I feel the same.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.
In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

That is my understanding too, it was just that there were so many
objections it seemed I must have misunderstood something.


As for income tax, I recall in the 1950's the highest rate of tax, for
top earners, was something like 19/6 in the £, i.e.97.5%*, yet now
there's a huge fuss when it's suggested it goes up to 50p/£, i.e. 50%,
which is generous by comparison, so why all the fuss?

19/6 was what I remember too.

#It's one for you nineteen for me#

--
Max Demian

On 30/05/2017 20:05, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/05/2017 18:42, Andy Burns wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I understood May was suggesting state
pensions were to be frozen

The original justification for the triple lock, was that pensions had
fallen behind over many years, so they would rise by the highest of
(2.5%, CPI or average earnings increase) now they are said to have
caught up

Caught up with what? The state pension is still not enough to cover
basic expenditure taking housing costs into account.


So you get housing benefit.

Max Demian wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

The original justification for the triple lock, was that pensions had
fallen behind over many years [...] now they are said to have
caught up

Caught up with what? The state pension is still not enough to cover
basic expenditure taking housing costs into account.

I suspect that varies wildly from individual to individual depending on
location, lifestyle choices, past career etc.

In article , Andy Burns
writes
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I understood May was suggesting state
pensions were to be frozen

The original justification for the triple lock, was that pensions had
fallen behind over many years, so they would rise by the highest of
(2.5%, CPI or average earnings increase) now they are said to have
caught up, and in danger of becoming unaffordable for the current
workforce to contribute to. So they are not proposed to be frozen,
just that will rise by the higher of (CPI or average earnings).
The minimum 2.5% came about after the fiasco of the 50p per week
increase based on inflation which Brown announced. It has only come into
play twice (I think) since 2010, so hardly earth shattering. Pensions
have not "caught up" just as the low paid never catch up when increases
are based on percentages( Do the maths). There is much bull**** putout
by a group called the Resolution Foundation formally the
Intergenerational Foundation and the BBC in particular seem to accept
everything they say without response.

Note also it is only the basic state pension that is covered. The rest
is increased in accordance with CPI. However we now have two state
pension system, the original with SERPS etc., and Guaranteed Income and
the new simplified single tier state pension (which is neither simple
nor single tier). The latter is wholly covered by the triple/dual lock.
The real justification for the proposed and abandoned increase in NI for
the self employed is that as a group they benefit significantly by the
switch to the new system.
--
bert

In article , Max
Demian writes
On 30/05/2017 18:42, Andy Burns wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I understood May was suggesting state
pensions were to be frozen
The original justification for the triple lock, was that pensions
had fallen behind over many years, so they would rise by the highest
of (2.5%, CPI or average earnings increase) now they are said to have
caught up

Caught up with what? The state pension is still not enough to cover
basic expenditure taking housing costs into account.

It's bull****. The state pension is well behind where it would have been
if the link to earnings had not been broken in 1986. The UK state
pension is one of the worst wrt average earnings in the OECD.
--
bert

In article , ss
writes
On 30/05/2017 18:13, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough to
convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but May
might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

My take on it is that I also was going to vote for May intitially but
then for me she started showing her true colours, like she was going to
nail all to the wall. So although I think she is best of a bad bunch
for Brexit I believe it will be best if she has as small a majority as
possible (then she may just take the publics thoughts in to account)
So to do that I will proabably vote labour but expecting Cons to win.
And if Labour should win?
--
bert

In article , Chris Hogg
writes
On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but
May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary,
Really? He is a Marxist and his Shadow Chancellor is a Trotskyist who
says his life's ambition is to destroy the capitalist system. Nether
creeds believe in social democracy.
just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for. In neither Abbot's nor Corbyn's media
performances do they seem to have the faintest clue about numbers,
which is truly alarming and totally unacceptable in politicians who
aspire to high office. OTOH the Conservatives are keeping very coy
about the cost and savings of their programme.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.
In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

At the moment your home is only included in your assets if you go into
residential care. The new proposal is to include it for assessment if
you need care at home but payment is deferred until your estate is
realised i.e. on death. So to call it a dementia tax is silly and in
fact wrong.
As for income tax, I recall in the 1950's the highest rate of tax, for
top earners, was something like 19/6 in the £, i.e.97.5%*, yet now
there's a huge fuss when it's suggested it goes up to 50p/£, i.e. 50%,
which is generous by comparison, so why all the fuss?

There has been talk of 75% but the point is that when the top rate
dropped back to 45% actual revenue went up. Hollande tried 75% in France
and many of the high French earners left and came to London
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
* in fact I see from Wikipedia that during the war, it was 99.25%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...nited_Kingdom#
Income_tax

"The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at
99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the
1950s and 60s"



--
bert

In article , Andy Burns
writes
Max Demian wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

The original justification for the triple lock, was that pensions had
fallen behind over many years [...] now they are said to have
caught up
Caught up with what? The state pension is still not enough to cover
basic expenditure taking housing costs into account.

I suspect that varies wildly from individual to individual depending on
location, lifestyle choices, past career etc.
Are you confusing state pension with total pension?
--
bert

In article , Harry Bloomfield
writes
Chris Hog formulated the question :
I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for.

Yes, I feel the same.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.
In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

That is my understanding too, it was just that there were so many
objections it seemed I must have misunderstood something.

The objections are largely emotional the attachment especially amongst
conservative voters to the "family home" and the desire to pass on
inheritance. It also becomes a bit of a lottery. Die quickly and you
don't pay, die slowly and you do. The counter argument is as with health
the risk should be shared by all. Socialists on the other hand,
especially Marxists like Corbyn despise property and the idea of
inheritance hence it is strange for such a proposal to emanate from a
Conservative Party and equally strange from a Marxist lead party to
criticise what is in effect a wealth tax.

As for income tax, I recall in the 1950's the highest rate of tax, for
top earners, was something like 19/6 in the £, i.e.97.5%*, yet now
there's a huge fuss when it's suggested it goes up to 50p/£, i.e. 50%,
which is generous by comparison, so why all the fuss?

19/6 was what I remember too.

--
bert

In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any
but May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for. In neither Abbot's nor Corbyn's media
performances do they seem to have the faintest clue about numbers,
which is truly alarming and totally unacceptable in politicians who
aspire to high office. OTOH the Conservatives are keeping very coy
about the cost and savings of their programme.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.

Because the tax take will go down, just as it did when Brown did it,
and when Monsewer Hollande did it.

In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

No, this is correct. And the state will pay the up-front costs, which
will be met by realising your assets after you die (how this works in
regard to a surviving spouse I don't know. That may be something that
the promised consultation will go into.)

Yes it could introduce significant cash flow problems for the local
councils.
The point is - something needs to be done about social care costs.

Agreed. Dilnot was a complete an utter waste of time but then he was an
economist no an accountant
Funny how Labour is against it. The proposal is that rich people will
pay their own costs and instead Labour wants the poor to contribute to
rich peoples's social care costs.

Agreed
--
bert

On 30/05/17 20:36, bert wrote:
In article , Chris Hogg
writes
On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but
May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary,
Really? He is a Marxist and his Shadow Chancellor is a Trotskyist who
says his life's ambition is to destroy the capitalist system. Nether
creeds believe in social democracy.
just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for. In neither Abbot's nor Corbyn's media
performances do they seem to have the faintest clue about numbers,
which is truly alarming and totally unacceptable in politicians who
aspire to high office. OTOH the Conservatives are keeping very coy
about the cost and savings of their programme.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.
In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

At the moment your home is only included in your assets if you go into
residential care. The new proposal is to include it for assessment if
you need care at home but payment is deferred until your estate is
realised i.e. on death. So to call it a dementia tax is silly and in
fact wrong.
As for income tax, I recall in the 1950's the highest rate of tax, for
top earners, was something like 19/6 in the £, i.e.97.5%*, yet now
there's a huge fuss when it's suggested it goes up to 50p/£, i.e. 50%,
which is generous by comparison, so why all the fuss?

There has been talk of 75% but the point is that when the top rate
dropped back to 45% actual revenue went up. Hollande tried 75% in France
and many of the high French earners left and came to London

the age of the corporate perk

Have a company fat, rolls, butler, Mediterranean yacht and stuff em all
on expenses....


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
* in fact I see from Wikipedia that during the war, it was 99.25%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...nited_Kingdom#
Income_tax

"The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at
99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the
1950s and 60s"





--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On Tue, 30 May 2017 20:27:25 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , ss
writes
On 30/05/2017 18:13, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough to
convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but May
might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

My take on it is that I also was going to vote for May intitially but
then for me she started showing her true colours, like she was going to
nail all to the wall. So although I think she is best of a bad bunch
for Brexit I believe it will be best if she has as small a majority as
possible (then she may just take the publics thoughts in to account)
So to do that I will proabably vote labour but expecting Cons to win.
And if Labour should win?

Lord Elpus


--
Regards, Paul Herber
http://www.paulherber.co.uk/

On 30/05/17 18:13, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.

Only state pensioners.

Civil servants on unfunded inflation-proofed pensions (i.e. paid for
out of taxes) are not mentioned.

Another Dave

--
Change nospam to techie

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield writes:
May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but
May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I'm very disappointed with both main parties.

Corbyns's figures don't add up and will generate high levels of
unemployment and loss of homes, something which Brown, the Coalition,
and Cameron all did exceeding well to avoid (very much better than any
other country hit by the recession - indeed we carried on creating more
jobs right through the recession). Lack of money will force either much
worse austerity, or massive borrowing from your children and grand-
children's generations. (That's historically how Labour governments end
after just one term, if you ignore Blair's period which is the only
time Labour have ever lasted more than one term in government.)

OTOH, May has turned the Conservative party back into the Nasty party
in the last year, maybe just in the last week, or maybe that's when it
became most apparent. Conservatives have failed to take responsibility
for the difficult issues governments are expected to resolve, such as
NHS (you can't just say "we've put more money in" - you actually have
to fix the problems), social care, etc. They've done an appalling job
of outlining their case in the election - probably just assumed it was
in the bag. A significant portion of them are having to pretend they
believe in things they don't (e.g. May is a remainer) just to try and
keep the party together, at the expense of the country.

Basically, two **** choices, hard left, or hard right.

Both main parties cross some of my red lines (not the points above),
so I can't vote for either anyway. I might vote LibDem as I like most
of their manifesto. My ideal outcome would be another Conservative
LibDem coalition - I think that worked very well before considering
the situation it found itself in.

However, I am in the safest Conservative seat in the country (30,000
majority), so my vote doesn't count anyway. I should just ignore all
this and do something useful instead.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:44:24 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but
May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for. In neither Abbot's nor Corbyn's media
performances do they seem to have the faintest clue about numbers,
which is truly alarming and totally unacceptable in politicians who
aspire to high office. OTOH the Conservatives are keeping very coy
about the cost and savings of their programme.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.
In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

As for income tax, I recall in the 1950's the highest rate of tax, for
top earners, was something like 19/6 in the £, i.e.97.5%*, yet now
there's a huge fuss when it's suggested it goes up to 50p/£, i.e. 50%,
which is generous by comparison, so why all the fuss?

* in fact I see from Wikipedia that during the war, it was 99.25%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...m#Income_t ax

"The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at
99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the
1950s and 60s"

The problem at the moment is that people who are paid via PAYE pay a
very large percentage in tax if they are in the higher rate. And the
highest rate is actually between 100k and 150k; which is high, but not
in the super-rich league.

The company pays Employer's NI at 13.8% (the employee doesn't see that
on their payslip, but it's a cost of employment for the company)

The employee then pays Employees NI (which thankfully goes down to 2%
after around 45k p.a.)

The employee then pays 40% income tax on anything above 45k, and 45%
on anything above 150k.

But when the salary exceeds 100k, the personal allowance is reduced,
meaning that the marginal tax rate for someone just over 100k is
something like 60%; and higher when you factor in employer's NI.

I'm "lucky enough" not to be earning that much, as I'm sure are many
others, but the "income tax rate" is just one part of the equation:
Employer's NI, Employee's NI, and the reduction of personal allowance
over 100k all play a part.

There are many measures, but an interesting one is "Tax Freedom Day",
which is an average. In 2016, it was June 3rd; so on average the
first 154 days of everyone's pay was taken as tax:

https://www.adamsmith.org/taxfreedomday/

"bert" wrote in message ...

In article , ss
writes
On 30/05/2017 18:13, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough to
convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but May
might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

My take on it is that I also was going to vote for May intitially but then
for me she started showing her true colours, like she was going to nail
all to the wall. So although I think she is best of a bad bunch for
Brexit I believe it will be best if she has as small a majority as
possible (then she may just take the publics thoughts in to account)
So to do that I will proabably vote labour but expecting Cons to win.
And if Labour should win?

Then all the people who said "I will proabably (sic) vote labour but
expecting Cons to win" will cry foul and say "I didn't expect labour to
win".

Harry Bloomfield wrote

Vote for the Torys because voting for anything else is wasting your vote.

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.

Like hell she did.

Now I'm a floating voter,

More fool you with the current alternatives.

with none of the parties offering me
enough to convince me to vote for them.

So the only sensible thing to do is to vote for the least worst.

I am even less convinced that any but May might have
the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

Yep, she does have the balls to tell the EU to go and **** itself
if they try to monster Britain into what makes no sense for Britain.

Yes, its certainly worth attempting to do more than
just say "our voters have voted, we're off, see ya"
but it makes no sense at all to agree to anything that
the voters voted to leave because of after leaving.

And it certainly makes no sense to end up with anything
like what Norway, Switzerland and Iceland have.

Makes no sense at all to have free movement of EU citizens
to Britain after leaving, or for the EU to have any say what
so ever on British policy, or to be handing the EU a penny
after Britain has left, or to give the EU a damned thing that
they claim Britain owes them now.

It certainly makes sense to rub the EU's nose in the fact that they
need aircraft engines and wings and financial services from Britain
and to have free trade with the EU like all of these have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

But if the EU wants to play silly buggers to attempt to dissuade
any other country from leaving, they should be told to go and
**** themselves very unambiguously indeed and May is the
only one capable of being in govt and doing that currently.

On 30/05/2017 18:19, Tim Streater wrote:
In 2009/2010 under Labour the minimum wage was £12064/year. Tax
allowance was $6475. Tax paid: £1117.80 (9.27% of annual salary). Take
home pay £10946.20

In 2017/2018 under the Conservatives minimum wage is £15600/year. Tax
allowance is £11500. Tax payable £820 (5.26% of annual salary). Take
home pay £14780.

Plus deduct NI

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
news
Mark Allread pretended :
On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough to
convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but May
might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

How did she threaten to hit pensioners in their pockets? I must have
missed that.

I haven't really followed it,

That's obvious.

but I understood May was suggesting state pensions were to be frozen

Like hell she ever did.

and the winter fuel payment would only be paid after a a means test.

And so they should be. It makes absolutely no sense what so ever
to be collecting vast amounts of tax revenue, pumping it thru the
bureaucracy and straight back to the same people it was collected from.

It makes no sense to be handing anything to those who can
afford to pay for their own winter fuel, that just encourages
them to not be so efficient about what they do about winter
heating, because the govt will be paying for it.

Its just another utterly insane bribe to get voters to vote for your party.

This suggests that those living close to the edge, but not below it, maybe
those who saved during their working life will not get the WFP.

Yes, but that's the downside of any means testing.

Its completely ****ing stupid to be handing out
handouts to everyone to avoid that downside.

On 30/05/2017 20:27, bert wrote:
My take on it is that I also was going to vote for May intitially but
then for me she started showing her true colours, like she was going
to nail all to the wall. So although I think she is best of a bad
bunch for Brexit I believe it will be best if she has as small a
majority as possible (then she may just take the publics thoughts in
to account)
So to do that I will proabably vote labour but expecting Cons to win.
And if Labour should win?

Unlikely but if they do then so be it, whatever party gets in wont put
more money in my pocket.

Harry Bloomfield wrote
Clive George wrote

Where do you live? (which constituency)

Elmet.

So how you vote is completely irrelevant, the Tory candidate will get
elected anyway.

On 30/05/2017 21:48, Rod Speed wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote
Vote for the Torys because voting for anything else is wasting your vote.
May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.

Like hell she did.
Now I'm a floating voter,

More fool you with the current alternatives.
with none of the parties offering me enough to convince me to vote for
them.

So the only sensible thing to do is to vote for the least worst.
I am even less convinced that any but May might have the gumption to
see us through the Brexit process.

Yep, she does have the balls to tell the EU to go and **** itself
if they try to monster Britain into what makes no sense for Britain.
Yes, its certainly worth attempting to do more than just say "our
voters have voted, we're off, see ya"
but it makes no sense at all to agree to anything that the voters voted
to leave because of after leaving.
And it certainly makes no sense to end up with anything
like what Norway, Switzerland and Iceland have.
Makes no sense at all to have free movement of EU citizens
to Britain after leaving, or for the EU to have any say what
so ever on British policy, or to be handing the EU a penny
after Britain has left, or to give the EU a damned thing that
they claim Britain owes them now.
It certainly makes sense to rub the EU's nose in the fact that they need
aircraft engines and wings and financial services from Britain and to
have free trade with the EU like all of these have.

They only need them now. That could change in 5 years or so. Both France
and Germany would love to become the new European financial centre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

But if the EU wants to play silly buggers to attempt to dissuade any
other country from leaving, they should be told to go and ****
themselves very unambiguously indeed and May is the
only one capable of being in govt and doing that currently.

I have often thought this, and perhaps make it known that we could have
very good deals with other 'developed' countries that leave thee EU.

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
news
Chris Hog formulated the question :
I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for.

Yes, I feel the same.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.
In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

That is my understanding too, it was just that there were so many
objections it seemed I must have misunderstood something.


As for income tax, I recall in the 1950's the highest rate of tax, for
top earners, was something like 19/6 in the £, i.e.97.5%*, yet now
there's a huge fuss when it's suggested it goes up to 50p/£, i.e. 50%,
which is generous by comparison, so why all the fuss?

19/6 was what I remember too.

One of the scandinavian countrys, Denmark from memory, even had
it over 100% for a while. That terminal stupidity didn't last that long.

"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 30/05/2017 18:42, Andy Burns wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I understood May was suggesting state
pensions were to be frozen

The original justification for the triple lock, was that pensions had
fallen behind over many years, so they would rise by the highest of
(2.5%, CPI or average earnings increase) now they are said to have caught
up

Caught up with what? The state pension is still not enough to cover basic
expenditure taking housing costs into account.

Bull****.

On 30/05/2017 22:00, Fredxxx wrote:
On 30/05/2017 21:48, Rod Speed wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote
Vote for the Torys because voting for anything else is wasting your vote.
May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.

Like hell she did.
Now I'm a floating voter,

More fool you with the current alternatives.
with none of the parties offering me enough to convince me to vote for
them.

So the only sensible thing to do is to vote for the least worst.
I am even less convinced that any but May might have the gumption to
see us through the Brexit process.

Yep, she does have the balls to tell the EU to go and **** itself
if they try to monster Britain into what makes no sense for Britain.
Yes, its certainly worth attempting to do more than just say "our
voters have voted, we're off, see ya"
but it makes no sense at all to agree to anything that the voters voted
to leave because of after leaving.
And it certainly makes no sense to end up with anything
like what Norway, Switzerland and Iceland have.
Makes no sense at all to have free movement of EU citizens
to Britain after leaving, or for the EU to have any say what
so ever on British policy, or to be handing the EU a penny
after Britain has left, or to give the EU a damned thing that
they claim Britain owes them now.
It certainly makes sense to rub the EU's nose in the fact that they need
aircraft engines and wings and financial services from Britain and to
have free trade with the EU like all of these have.

They only need them now. That could change in 5 years or so. Both France
and Germany would love to become the new European financial centre.

The British banks are already moving staff to other EU countries so they
can continue to trade under EU rules if we fail to negotiate the correct
deal.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

But if the EU wants to play silly buggers to attempt to dissuade any
other country from leaving, they should be told to go and ****
themselves very unambiguously indeed and May is the
only one capable of being in govt and doing that currently.

I have often thought this, and perhaps make it known that we could have
very good deals with other 'developed' countries that leave thee EU.

But would it be better than they have in the EU and would it cost us to
ensure it is better?