Technology2 mins ago
Latest Political Opinion Polls
CONS LABOUR
28% 45%
-4 +5 .......Oh Dear ,Oh Dear
28% 45%
-4 +5 .......Oh Dear ,Oh Dear
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gulliver1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Instead of change, they voted for more of the same, and that is exactly what Truss has delivered.//
Are you seriously suggesting that the policies announced last week amount to "more of the same?" By any definition (and whether you consider them good or bad) they are a radical departure from the policies the Johnson administration pressed on with (continually expecting different results by doing the same thing).
Are you seriously suggesting that the policies announced last week amount to "more of the same?" By any definition (and whether you consider them good or bad) they are a radical departure from the policies the Johnson administration pressed on with (continually expecting different results by doing the same thing).
New Judge,
//By any definition (and whether you consider them good or bad) they are a radical departure from the policies the Johnson administration pressed on with (continually expecting different results by doing the same thing).//
…..the very same that Truss voted for in 10 years as a cabinet minister but now wants to turn on its collective head in an admission of failure, only to turn it into a catastrophe?
//By any definition (and whether you consider them good or bad) they are a radical departure from the policies the Johnson administration pressed on with (continually expecting different results by doing the same thing).//
…..the very same that Truss voted for in 10 years as a cabinet minister but now wants to turn on its collective head in an admission of failure, only to turn it into a catastrophe?
//…..the very same that Truss voted for in 10 years as a cabinet minister but now wants to turn on its collective head in an admission of failure, only to turn it into a catastrophe?//
The comment was “When the contest turned out to be between Truss and Sunak, I said they had missed an opportunity. Instead of change, they voted for more of the same, and that is exactly what Truss has delivered.”
Ms Truss cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered to have delivered “more of the same.” That’s precisely why the markets are spooked.
//I have yet to hear a cogent argument in favour of lowering the 45% tax rate, even from the Tories.//
The “cogent argument” is that there is no justification for confiscating such a large proportion of someone’s income. If the government needs more money there are a myriad ways it can cut its expenditure.
The comment was “When the contest turned out to be between Truss and Sunak, I said they had missed an opportunity. Instead of change, they voted for more of the same, and that is exactly what Truss has delivered.”
Ms Truss cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered to have delivered “more of the same.” That’s precisely why the markets are spooked.
//I have yet to hear a cogent argument in favour of lowering the 45% tax rate, even from the Tories.//
The “cogent argument” is that there is no justification for confiscating such a large proportion of someone’s income. If the government needs more money there are a myriad ways it can cut its expenditure.
I remember the 70s -
"In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war."
Happy days!
"In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war."
Happy days!
davebro
//I remember the 70s -
"In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war."
Happy days!//
You need to stop dragging up what happened 50 years ago like ToraToraTora so often doe……oh, never mind, just realised who’s posting! Lol.
How many got here in the Jag today?
//I remember the 70s -
"In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war."
Happy days!//
You need to stop dragging up what happened 50 years ago like ToraToraTora so often doe……oh, never mind, just realised who’s posting! Lol.
How many got here in the Jag today?
New Judge,
//The “cogent argument” is that there is no justification for confiscating such a large proportion of someone’s income. If the government needs more money there are a myriad ways it can cut its expenditure.//
Already been suggested.
Mrs Flip-Flop doesn’t want to unnecessarily relieve her previous employers and campaign backers of the obscene profits they could never hope to vaguely spend in one lifetime, she’d rather shaft the electorate….and her Party to boot.
//The “cogent argument” is that there is no justification for confiscating such a large proportion of someone’s income. If the government needs more money there are a myriad ways it can cut its expenditure.//
Already been suggested.
Mrs Flip-Flop doesn’t want to unnecessarily relieve her previous employers and campaign backers of the obscene profits they could never hope to vaguely spend in one lifetime, she’d rather shaft the electorate….and her Party to boot.
How does the Government or an opposition party know its policies are popular if not by conducting opinion polls?
Listening only to those who shout the loudest does not mean they are justified in their support or opposition to a specific proposal.
The poll is an indication of the opinions of a sample of those affected by a proposal and if it's a negative opinion, it might be that the proposal is valid but the benefits were not explained fully.
Listening only to those who shout the loudest does not mean they are justified in their support or opposition to a specific proposal.
The poll is an indication of the opinions of a sample of those affected by a proposal and if it's a negative opinion, it might be that the proposal is valid but the benefits were not explained fully.
//Kwarteng's decision to scrap the 45% rate of tax for those earning over £150 000, was opposed by 72% of voters.//
True and it was politically a bad move even if it might actually raise more tax as avoidance is reduced and more high earners people (including doctors dont forget) feel its worthwhile taking on more work or coming out of retiremnt.
But to be fair any poll will allways show most people are apposed to tax cuts to anyone richer than themself..... most think they deserve a tax cut themself but anyone alot or even a bit richer should pay more
True and it was politically a bad move even if it might actually raise more tax as avoidance is reduced and more high earners people (including doctors dont forget) feel its worthwhile taking on more work or coming out of retiremnt.
But to be fair any poll will allways show most people are apposed to tax cuts to anyone richer than themself..... most think they deserve a tax cut themself but anyone alot or even a bit richer should pay more
Never heard of doctors earning over £155,000?
https:/
Are you Kwarteng’s scribe?
https:/
Are you Kwarteng’s scribe?
In a democracy (or as near as the world presently gets to it) no party can 'move on' from an admission of not being interested in the democratic will of the people. It's the very antithesis of what western democracy is all about, and that makes them permanently busted and valueless. I doubt that any right thinking person would consider them worthy of even a protest vote: if anyone does they may consider it a wise move to pay a visit their GP, or local hospital, for a check, just to be on the safe side. Meanwhile I reiterate my belief that none of the existing parties are looking worthy of electing.
Latest Posts
Is This Man A Good Pick For Secretary Of...
News18 mins ago
Chicken Drumstick, Pork Pie, Glass Of...
News33 mins ago
Crime Cases Still Using Cassettes
Technology46 mins ago