Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 1
 

I did mine last week, and two days later I got it confirmed for the next 3 years. :)

Its not going to work, they are just looking more and more nuts as the days go on. :nutter:

Well thats the vote of all parents of teenagers just gone out the window. :rolleyes:
Have they forgotten that when you turn 18 you're an adult, and responsible for your own actions.
How would any parent force their adult child to do this :confused:

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 1
 

Conservative campaign is surprisingly poor. They don't seem to be addressing the issues that concern voters and just emphasise how out of touch they are with each policy announcement.

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 1
 

I want to see polling on the movement since last week and how popular this national service policy is.

Can they recover simply by promising the world or will their credibility be damaged instead?

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 1
 

It seems the Tories only want older voters at this election.
How is it logical that someone receiving the state pension pays no tax, yet another person who earns an equivalent wage through working has to pay tax?

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 1
 

I suppose one point of view is that people who are receiving state pension have paid tax and NI throughout their working lives ?

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 1
 

That argument would be false - I have no idea how big the cohort is but there are pensioners who have paid little or no tax and had their NI credits paid for them due to extensive unemployment.

At the other end of the scale there are those who were so highly paid in their working life that they have amassed vast pension funds for retirement. And earnings diverted into pension were diverted from their payslips pre-tax. So those pension pots are full of untaxed income.

I think it’s fair to say the situation isn’t black and white. It is certainly ambiguous enough that it wouldn’t be sensible to give pensioners a blanket exemption from paying tax, although no tax on the state pension alone would seem to be a sensible approach (as the state pension, despite all the right wing squealing, is not that large by European standards).

(EDIT)

There is an interesting table here that shows the monthly pension of European countries compared with the cost of living in those countries. It then calculates how far above or below the break-even point each national pension is. tl;dr: we pay above break even but not by much.

https://www.almondfinancial.co.uk/pe...est-of-europe/

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 1
 

Surely income is income, regardless of the source, so the personal allowance should apply equally to everyone. I agree that the state pension isn't overly generous compared to other European countries, but then surely someone earning the equivalent amount through employment is also on a relatively low income, yet the government would deem it appropriate to tax them.

Of course, it would seem daft for the government to tax income that it is itself handing out. Which leads to the real problem here - the government has chosen to freeze the personal allowance, rather than up-rate it with inflation. But instead of looking at that, the Tories are coming up with divisive sticking plasters.

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 1
 

The large personal allowance was always a Lib Dem policy, introduced after 2010 via the coalition agreement. I suspect once the LDs were out of government the Tories have been wanting to erode it ever since. But it’s politically easier to introduce a big tax relief than it is to remove one, so it takes time to do so via fiscal drag. The recent burst of inflation will have helped in that aim though.

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 1
 

Why should someone earning over 100k per year have the same personal tax allowance as someone earning less than that ?

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 1
 

I’m not sure your premise stands up. There are oodles of ways in which higher earners can be hit for more tax, the simplest of which is to introduce higher income tax bands. A basic, universal tax free allowance isn’t objectionable as part of a broader tax policy.

Notwithstadning any of the above it is worth noting that once again the Tory election pledge du jour amounts to a core vote strategy aimed at boomers.

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 1
 

The changes in personal tax allowance once you earn over £100k and up to £125k per year are basically a sliding tax band ?

Unless you want to introduce a band for £100-105k, £105k - £110k etc up to £125k and then move into the band 125k+ band ?

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 1
 

I suspect the way it works right now has more to do with the perceived political difficulties of higher income tax bands coupled with a general desire to get rid of the large personal allowance over time.

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 1
 

Because it's not controversial for everyone in society to be able to earn the same amount before they start paying tax. The tapering for those earning over £100k was a daft policy designed to try to hide a tax rise instead of increasing the higher rate. It makes the tax system more complicated.

However, my point was about about those in society who earn the least.

If the state pension needs to rise in order for those in receipt to cover their basic costs, then we shouldn't be taxing people who earn the same amount either.

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 1
 

There’s a higher rate of tax above £125k……

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 1
 

And?