Previous Tory voters

M0nica

I agree GSM but other posters on this thread have been suggesting much higher rates.

That’s probably because they haven’t paid tax at 45% or 50% and want to hear the pips squeak. I have and I don’t. Many people paying higher rate taxes employ others - it’s no picnic.

Germanshepherdsmum

Even at the current highest rate of tax, you keep a fair amount of your salary. It’s not as if we have the 90% rate of years ago - if we did I could understand people deciding not to take a promotion if it took them into that bracket. Currently we are talking about the difference between 20% and 40%, 40% and 45% and 45% and 50%. If someone is serious about their career they will take a promotion. It may not be offered again.

In my job, shorter hours was a total impossibility, as is the case for my son and daughter in law now. If you work with people in different time zones you accommodate their hours, not yours.

Precisely.

My (uneducated) proposal was easy. Fairer at the bottom and middle. I allowed for a mere 5% on top of the 45% and raised all the bands considerably. Nobody was to be impacted apart from actual high earners:

It seems to me changing the bands and adding to the top band would yield the government and lower income people more spendable money.

Here's my proposal again:

Up to £20,000 -- 0% [good!!!]
£20,000 to £70,000 -- 20% [good!!!]
£70,000 to £170,00 -- 40% [good!!!]
over £170,000 -- 50% [nice for tax revenues]

I agree GSM but other posters on this thread have been suggesting much higher rates.

Even at the current highest rate of tax, you keep a fair amount of your salary. It’s not as if we have the 90% rate of years ago - if we did I could understand people deciding not to take a promotion if it took them into that bracket. Currently we are talking about the difference between 20% and 40%, 40% and 45% and 45% and 50%. If someone is serious about their career they will take a promotion. It may not be offered again.

In my job, shorter hours was a total impossibility, as is the case for my son and daughter in law now. If you work with people in different time zones you accommodate their hours, not yours.

Well, of course shortening hours and looking for higher productivity does not suit every occupation or every worler.

But the original discussion was the extent that people would choose to cut back working hours to avoid penal tax rates on their income.

Shorter hours does not necessarily mean 4 day weeks or companies being open less. A 4 day week can work perfectly well on a 24/7 rota.

The arguments being made against shorter hours for most people are very similar to those made by factory owners in the 19th century when the Factory Acts wee passed. How having children working less than 10 hours a day would affect output and profitability. They said the same when the hours were reduced further and again when the minimum wage was introduced.

Sorry - higher level of candidate

Grantanow

The trouble with the party list system is that some awful politicians would float to the top. Just look at the present selection of Tory Ministers who presumably represent the best that Party can find.

Alternatively, it may encourage a higher of candidate, with some life experience, instead of the 'career politicians' predominating today. Are you suggesting that FPTP doesn't result in 'some awful politicians'?

Germanshepherdsmum

Four day weeks have been trialled, with some success - but it’s not possible for everyone.

Indeed.

Some tasks needs to be accomplished daily, or do here.

There is also something to be said with having work to fill ones time at least 8-10 hours a day plus commute. Devil, idle hands comes to mind.

Four day weeks have been trialled, with some success - but it’s not possible for everyone.

So, if people reduce the number of hours that they work then surely their employers would need another worker?

Not necessarily so, usually the worker is expected to do the same work as before but be more productive. There is considerable evidence to support this belief. here is one example www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220711-the-case-for-a-six-hour-workday

Some years ago I spoke to someone who had set up a successful business. he told me how in the early years he had worked all the hours God sent, but after 3 years his family got restve because they never saw him, so he decided to cut his hours down to 8 a day and be home weekends, for a short period - and was amazed to discover that his work rate went up, because he was not permanently tired and worn down by the relentless pressure of the job. 8 hour days and no weekends became the norm.

The trouble with the party list system is that some awful politicians would float to the top. Just look at the present selection of Tory Ministers who presumably represent the best that Party can find.

GrannyRose15

dayvidg

I have often voted Conservative, though also UKIP, Lib Dem and Green in recent years. Only if Labour fully commit to Proportional Representation would I consider voting for them, as I feel all majority Government over the years has been to detriment of the British people.

Just out of interest which system of proportional representation would you advocate. Remember we had a referendum on the subject not so very long ago and the chosen system didn’t seem to impress the voters at all.

The 2011 referendum was not about PR; it was a choice between FPTP (used by 1 other country) and AV (used by 3 countries), neither of which are proportional. Personally, I would prefer the party list system, where representation is directly related to the proportion of votes cast.

M0nica

DAR There is absolutely nothing wrong with people swopping cash for more time off - and I never said there was, in fact my own DD does it,

What i was pointing out is that tax take from increasing higher rates might be lower than expected because of people doing that. On the other hand it could also lead to people not going for higher managerial posts to the disadvantage to their employer, who is unable to maintain the quality and skills of the higher echelons in the company.

DD has certaainly been doing the calculations and deciding at what point her income gain after tax, from further promotion is not worth the extra work and responsibility entailed in earning it.

Thank you MOnica. That does make more sense.

Dinahmo So, if people reduce the number of hours that they work then surely their employers would need another worker?

Logically I'd assume the same. Room to move people up, hire more people. When workers, here, need time away, more workers are hired.

Saving extra in pension pots whilst earning more and not paying extra in taxes is a huge bonus for retirement, especially as it seems obvious full retirement age needs to become older soon.

Our children like any chance to enhance pensions to the future. Added time off is also wonderful in their books.

Presunably, but most companies, or rather DD's limit cash for leave to one week a year, and when they are at work they work their socks off and she often works late.

She is a management consultant and I think the company hires the best, eases out anyone who is considered not to have made the grade, makes working for the company pleasant and lucrative - and then works them all very hard.

M0nica

DAR There is absolutely nothing wrong with people swopping cash for more time off - and I never said there was, in fact my own DD does it,

What i was pointing out is that tax take from increasing higher rates might be lower than expected because of people doing that. On the other hand it could also lead to people not going for higher managerial posts to the disadvantage to their employer, who is unable to maintain the quality and skills of the higher echelons in the company.

DD has certaainly been doing the calculations and deciding at what point her income gain after tax, from further promotion is not worth the extra work and responsibility entailed in earning it.

So, if people reduce the number of hours that they work then surely their employers would need another worker?

DAR There is absolutely nothing wrong with people swopping cash for more time off - and I never said there was, in fact my own DD does it,

What i was pointing out is that tax take from increasing higher rates might be lower than expected because of people doing that. On the other hand it could also lead to people not going for higher managerial posts to the disadvantage to their employer, who is unable to maintain the quality and skills of the higher echelons in the company.

DD has certaainly been doing the calculations and deciding at what point her income gain after tax, from further promotion is not worth the extra work and responsibility entailed in earning it.

So you would cut spending on the NHS, pensions and other benefits and Lord knows what else by 10% fancythat? And you think that would make no difference to the way people live?

How about, for a start, getting rid of the subsidising of food and drink in Parliament? That’s an utter disgrace when people can’t afford basic food.

fancythat

I was answering your first post.
Now see you have written a 2nd.

I apologise again for misreading...

I was answering your first post.
Now see you have written a 2nd.

I agree with a poster up thread.
You seem to be of the opinion that printing money is the answer to everything, there are no repersussions, and the national debt is not real debt anyway.

To answer your question here. It is like in one's own budget. There are always areas[well nearly always] when savings can be made, with no little difference to the way we live.

I would like to have written more.
But my memory is bad.
Sometimes we hear of government spending on the tv, and I think, I would cut that part right out altogether.
From now on, I will make a written list. So that when questions like this come up, I will be more ready with my answers!

Oh ignore the last. I misread the relevant sentence.

What 'other categories' are you proposing to cut funding from? Justice? NHS? Social Care? Roads?

Why do you think they need it on top of the cuts the tories have been making for the last 13 years?

fancythat

winterwhite

OP, please tell us where you would "quite happily make many cuts in the current tory budget".

In a GE it's common to judge the outgoing government on its record and opposition parties on their manifestos. I don't think it's enough to snuffle through opposition policies picking holes. What is about the tory party's record that impresses people so much?

Apart from what I wrote in the op

I would cut 10% of spending across all categories
apart from education, local government, policing and possibly defenece.

Then start again from there.

Why would you do that when every area you propose to cut funding from is falling apart because of underfunding?

winterwhite

OP, please tell us where you would "quite happily make many cuts in the current tory budget".

In a GE it's common to judge the outgoing government on its record and opposition parties on their manifestos. I don't think it's enough to snuffle through opposition policies picking holes. What is about the tory party's record that impresses people so much?

Apart from what I wrote in the op

I would cut 10% of spending across all categories
apart from education, local government, policing and possibly defenece.

Then start again from there.

M0nica

Norah bear in mind that doctors retired in droves or refused to work when it was realised that if they did extra sessions their pension payments would go over a specified limit and result in a huge tax payment.

DD, who I do not think is quite in the higher tax bracket is choosing to buy extra leave and feed her pension fund to avoid being too well paid and she is not alone in her company, quite a number of her colleaagues do this as well.

It helps to balance the extra pay coming to her with promotion.

I know Doctors retired and I realize reasons why.

We know quite well to balance pension and extra leave against income. I think that's a very good thing looking to the future.

However I suggested raising all bands by a significant amount, attempting to 'help' low earners whilst not burdening average high earners. I was attempting by numbers, to raise the 0%, 20% and 40% bands, add another for people who do indeed high earn and capture money at the top.

Better ideas?