ITV debate
- Thread starter Murdochcat
- Start date
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,607
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,607
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
Like your Brexit calculations. Are you using the Brexit calculator?
Until then you can read the Spectator's calculation of Tory tax rises.
Fraser Nelson
My colleague Ross Clark has shown how the Tories cooked up that £2,000 figure. They worked out the total cost of what they think Labour will do, using standard HM Treasury costings. Then, they divided that by the number of in-work households (18.4 million). This is a subset of the 21.4 million total UK households, so no pensioners or workless households. By choosing a smaller denominator, you concentrate the increase and conjure up a scarier figure. Then they quadruple-counted. So they took each year’s estimate for tax rise and then added them together over four years and – presto! – you end up with £2,000.
But let’s apply a similar method to the published plans of the Conservative government. We don’t need to guess what the cost of government would be: the projected tax haul figures were published by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) and updated in March after the Budget. It will be £1.02 trillion in the current financial year. That’s with the tax/GDP ratio at 36.5 per cent. Let’s use that as our baseline. The OBR says the Tories plan to increase taxes to 37.1 per cent of GDP by 2028/29. So the 0.6-point increase works out at £20 billion more tax raised in that year than if the tax/GDP ratio (below) had stayed flat.
Add up all four years (as the Tories did for their Labour calculation) and you end up with a £320 rise in year one, £620 in year two, £930 in year three and £1,150 in the final year. So a sum of £3,020 per working household. Except this would be just as misleading as the £2,000 figure that Sunak used so often in the debate last night.
There are serious issues at stake in this general election and the Tories have just released nonsense figures with fake attribution then given them to newspapers, who took it on trust. I’m not sure that this will help their chances.
The bottom line is a simple one: there will be tax rises whoever wins this general election. The Tories are in a big old glass house on taxes – yet here they are, still throwing stones. It’s a risky strategy.
www.spectator.co.uk
Fraser NelsonOn Sunak’s maths, Tories will lift taxes by £3,000 per household
- 5 June 2024, 1:31pm
My colleague Ross Clark has shown how the Tories cooked up that £2,000 figure. They worked out the total cost of what they think Labour will do, using standard HM Treasury costings. Then, they divided that by the number of in-work households (18.4 million). This is a subset of the 21.4 million total UK households, so no pensioners or workless households. By choosing a smaller denominator, you concentrate the increase and conjure up a scarier figure. Then they quadruple-counted. So they took each year’s estimate for tax rise and then added them together over four years and – presto! – you end up with £2,000.
But let’s apply a similar method to the published plans of the Conservative government. We don’t need to guess what the cost of government would be: the projected tax haul figures were published by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) and updated in March after the Budget. It will be £1.02 trillion in the current financial year. That’s with the tax/GDP ratio at 36.5 per cent. Let’s use that as our baseline. The OBR says the Tories plan to increase taxes to 37.1 per cent of GDP by 2028/29. So the 0.6-point increase works out at £20 billion more tax raised in that year than if the tax/GDP ratio (below) had stayed flat.
Add up all four years (as the Tories did for their Labour calculation) and you end up with a £320 rise in year one, £620 in year two, £930 in year three and £1,150 in the final year. So a sum of £3,020 per working household. Except this would be just as misleading as the £2,000 figure that Sunak used so often in the debate last night.
There are serious issues at stake in this general election and the Tories have just released nonsense figures with fake attribution then given them to newspapers, who took it on trust. I’m not sure that this will help their chances.
The bottom line is a simple one: there will be tax rises whoever wins this general election. The Tories are in a big old glass house on taxes – yet here they are, still throwing stones. It’s a risky strategy.
Fraser Nelson is editor of The Spectator
On Sunak’s maths, Tories will lift taxes by £3,000 per household
There are serious issues at stake in this general election, and the Tories have just released nonsense figures with fake attribution.
www.spectator.co.uk
They don't want to improve the 'state' education sector, which is effectively privatised by the way...
I'd say that the nasty policy is to not bring 'state' education up to the level of the institutions enjoyed by the ruling elite...
Equal opportunity is the overriding human right!
Gov's have to relate it to GDP or reactions can be much like Truss caused. The fiscal rules are intended to ensure that even to cause debt expressed this way to fall.
What is ignored in this respect is private entity loans that the gov backs. The level of some of those make it difficult to buy back. I did look at Seven Trent. Company value ~£11b. Debt levels tricky but appear to be at least £7b. There are loans with various pay back periods. Upgrades need share rights issues or more debt. The dividends would be too low if any was held back for improvements. LOL Might be an interesting way to make them bankrupt with zero share value but if taken on by the state the general problems still remain.
Eeeek I have just mentioned some of the neo liberal ideas that didn't get a mention when they were sold off in the first place It gets them off the gov's books. We pay what we need to pay including low % profit level and they of course get corporation tax.
Suicidal more like
Are you just being contrary?
Furlough wasnt a manifesto policy
Labour would not be able to win with unfunded spending plans
You are being more than a tad disingenuous
It is being funded by a windfall tax on energy companies so will get around £8b investment
thats substantially more than "a quango"
I agree its to a state owned GB energy company like EDF, but unions have calculate that would cost £80b which we dont have
Please try and look beyond your narrow "I hate Starmer" goggles
GB Energy: What role will Labour's state-owned energy company really play?
Labour’s pledge to create a state-owned energy company is key to its 2030 clean power target – yet has received little attention so far. Sienna Rod...
www.politicshome.com
its a fair question
I believe the British energy company is being funded by windfall tax on energy companies
and the increase in teachers is being funded by removed the charity status of private schools
I dont know the other items as their manifesto hasnt been released
I still dont know where or how the Conservatives are going to find £20b shortfall in their NI tax cut funding. They have announced they need to cut public services by £20b but thats not realistic
that question also applies to Labour
"Hunt’s tax cuts at the autumn statement were almost entirely funded by £20bn of real-terms reductions to public spending planned from 2025. Reports have suggested the chancellor could impose tighter restraint on the public sector on Wednesday to find more money for tax cuts."
Budget in five charts: what will underpin Jeremy Hunt’s statement?
Falling inflation and so-called fiscal headroom will guide a chancellor keen to heed calls from Tories for tax cuts
www.theguardian.com
They could cut maintenance of crumbling schools and hospitals, reduce police and military numbers, let the roads rot into potholed cart tracks?
Sell off the sewage system?
Oh no.
Already done that.
Public services are public spending.
Thanks Notch appreciate trying to give some context. I despair over all parties trying to outdo each other over Tax and spending. It's a false argument at best.its a fair question
I believe the British energy company is being funded by windfall tax on energy companies
and the increase in teachers is being funded by removed the charity status of private schools
I dont know the other items as their manifesto hasnt been released
I still dont know where or how the Conservatives are going to find £20b shortfall in their NI tax cut funding. They have announced they need to cut public services by £20b but thats not realistic
that question also applies to Labour
"Hunt’s tax cuts at the autumn statement were almost entirely funded by £20bn of real-terms reductions to public spending planned from 2025. Reports have suggested the chancellor could impose tighter restraint on the public sector on Wednesday to find more money for tax cuts."
Budget in five charts: what will underpin Jeremy Hunt’s statement?
Falling inflation and so-called fiscal headroom will guide a chancellor keen to heed calls from Tories for tax cuts
I do have a concern over the potential Tax burden on pensions and those with occupational pensions. I am about (hopefully) about to retire and have worked for 40+ years and have a decent pension and savings. Not for me but to help my son and daughter on their journey from uni to employment and home ownership. In this no new cars no foreign holidays saved where I could and paid off mortgage early to help save a nest egg.
I do fear that this will be diluted by extra taxes that I have already paid on earnings on and saving (minus ISA of course) that have also been subject to tax.
I get the equality bit but is it right to penalize those that have been frugal to look to the future and support their children?
The contributions to your pension scheme were tax free. Surely you know that?