10p or not 10p: Ask Gordon on live webcast tonight

Peter Kenyon Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:11:38 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Gordon Brown is conducting a live webcast at 7 pm tonight. Why not focus on the one issue increasingly dominiating the airwaves? Tell him what you think about the cost of the 10p income tax band cut on 5.3 million hard-working people, and ask him to fix it.
Details of how to send in your question either by eMail or text are set out below.
Peter Kenyon
chair, Save the Labour Party



Dear Subscriber,
Text Gordon

Tonight Gordon Brown will hold a live webcast at 7pm on labour.org.uk to answer your questions ahead of the 2008 local elections on 1 May.

You can ask a question by texting GORDON to 60022 followed by your question and your name. You can also ask a question by visiting www.labour.org.uk/local_elections

The webcast follows the launch of the Labour Party's party election broadcast on ITV1 at 6.25pm and on BBC1 at 6.55pm. Following the party election broadcast, for the first time ever, members of the public will be able to ask a head of government questions live online.

The webcast will be hosted by Arabella Weir, who will put texts sent in from members of the public to Gordon Brown.

The Prime Minister said: "I am excited that the webcast will give me the opportunity to listen to what people across the country are saying. I want to respond directly to the questions that people want answered.
 
"I'm proud of Labour's achievements over the last eleven years, but not satisfied. We need to hear the people's priorities so I can know where we must pick up the pace of change."

Text GORDON to 60022 followed by your question and your name or click here to submit your question.

You can also watch the party election broadcast here .

Reproduced from an email sent by the Labour Party, promoted by Chris Lennie, Acting General Secretary, the Labour Party, on behalf of the Labour Party, all at 39 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0HA



tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
10p or not 10p: Ask Gordon on live webcast tonight | 24 comments (24 topical)

Re: 10p or not 10p: Ask Gordon by webcast tonight (#1)

by Peter Kenyon on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:50:50 PM GMT

My question is:

I want to convey a positive message on the doorstep about Labour's income tax policy. The abolition of the 10p income tax rate leaves (arguably) some 5.3 million people worse off than last year, in terms of income tax/national insurance liabilities. Labour is committed to helping hard working people. Will you accept this is an unintended consequence of your efforts to simplify the tax system, not fair, therefore does not reflect Labour values, and ensure compensation for those adversely affected?


Re: 10p or not 10p... (#2)

by alexanderbaker on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:19:56 PM GMT

I checked a little earlier and according to the Labour Party website, the webchat is taking place on "Monday 4th April".

As I point out on my blog - there isn't a Monday 4th April till 2011!

Should we take this as a sign of confidence that Gordon will win the next election....?


Re: 10p or not 10p... (#3)

by Peter Kenyon on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:40:49 PM GMT

Dear alexanderbaker

You wouldn't want to discourage members from posing questions to our Great Leader by any chance?

The covering letter clearly states:

Tonight Gordon Brown will hold a live webcast at 7pm ...


[ Parent ]

Re: 10p or not 10p... (#4)

by alexanderbaker on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:57:44 PM GMT

Peter,

Of course not. I was merely surprised by the apparent confidence of the team in Victoria Street!

In any event, it appears the typographical error has been corrected and the webchat will in fact take place tonight, and not in 4 years time as originally advertised...


[ Parent ]

Re: 10p or not 10p: (#5)

by jljb2 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:34:17 PM GMT

It's utterly disgraceful, sickening and unneccessary. I cannot believe a Labour government would deliberately and blatantly prefer to increase tax on the poor than the rich. It makes me sick, and I'm seriously considering not renewing my membership.


Re: 10p or not 10p: (#6)

by alexhilton on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:53:56 PM GMT

While the move does seem senseless - and I was furious when I originally heard the proposed measure - leaving the party doesn't help.

Stay in the party and select parliamentary candidates who hold Labour values - or stay in the party and be a candidate who holds Labour values.

Leaving only benefits those who you oppose


[ Parent ]

Re: 10p or not 10p: (#11)

by grimupnorth on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:38:43 PM GMT

But  how  many times  do we have to say that.It is a disgrace. So is brown.I'm sick and tired of  these PR stunts.


[ Parent ]

Re: 10p or not 10p: (#7)

by rwendland on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:51:15 PM GMT

You have to remember that for those with children Tax Credit increases compensate (and more) for this change. It's not as bad as often presented.


[ Parent ]

Re: 10p or not 10p: (#8)

by alexhilton on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:20:40 PM GMT

rwendland,

I remember a time as a teenager when i left home - was working for peanuts before the minimum wage existed. I remember having no more than £15 a week to spend on my weekly shop and panicking every time i ran out of washing powder because it was the most expensive thing on my list. I remember getting gastric flu one winter and noticing the benefit to my finances of eating nothing but toast.

i remember the fear of my shoes wearing out.

so 5 million people might be an exaggeration but is it any better if we're putting 500,000 or even 50,000 into that situation?


[ Parent ]

Re: 10p or not 10p: (#9)

by Peter Kenyon on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:21:14 PM GMT

Dear rwendland

Unfortunately, even allowing for the massive hike in personal income allowances for those aged 65 and over, and the improvements in tax credits, there are still an estimated 5.3 million losers. Under Labour why should there be any people earning less than the median wage who are worse off. It is not fair and it can and should be fixed asap. 


[ Parent ]

Re: 10p or not 10p: (#10)

by rwendland on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:11:46 PM GMT

If there are 5.3 million losers, this fuss is most worthwhile. I've not looked at the numbers for this, just accepted the line that those with children on tax credits would be compensated for this!

It's annoying that DWP haven't produced a 2008 Tax benefit model tables yet, which is what I usually use to assess these types of changes.


[ Parent ]

Re: 10p or not 10p: He was asked but didn't answer (#12)

by Peter Kenyon on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:53:50 PM GMT

Dear All

I blogged during webcast - a lost opportunity. Not the first and not the last.


New Labour's poll tax? (#13)

by Free Socialist on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:50:09 AM GMT

I'm seriously concerned that the 10p tax rate issue could be New Labour's poll tax. Virtually everyone I know, certainly every twentysomething graduate, fits in the "under £18,000 a year with no kids" bracket penalised by this change. Brown came across in the webcast as not even being concerned by this.


Re: New Labour's poll tax? (#14)

by rwendland on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:04:08 AM GMT

I'm sorry, but I don't really think new-grads earning a little under £18k are really the type of hard-up people we should be thinking about. They will be very marginally to the detriment by the new scheme, and have good prospects.

The most affected single people will be at around £12.5k/year I think (a little over NMW), loosing out at a maximum of £125 per year.

I wonder how many of these single people check if they are entitled to Housing Benefit, which can often help single people at the £17k level - depending on rent, savings etc. See table 1.1d example of 2007 Tax benefit model tables.


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour's poll tax? (#15)

by pipesmoke on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:09:08 AM GMT

Surely it doesn't matter whether the person is single, married, recently graduated, without qualifications, with children or without; all of those below the 18k level will receive less in their wage slip than before, whilst those above that level will receive more. It can be argued that some of these will be compensated by increased 'benefits' be it Housing Benefit or Tax Credit. Even those that are gainers overall are likely to be mightily cheesed off that they are receiving less as 'fruits of their labour'. 
It's as true now as it always has been that workers want to receive the maximum in their wage packet and the minimum from as benefits from the state. Nothing new in that; it is part of the human condition. As a party we've always known it and have pursued full employment policies, and minimum wage regulation throughout our history. The 10p tax rate was a winning formula and we've gone and thrown it away. 
A friend of mine (a party member) was doing the wages to be paid next week. She was fine; she'll be better of by a tenner a month; but her part time administrator is going to be £15 worse off. My friend is considering leaving the party in disgust and the administrator says she'll never vote for Labour again. It doesn't matter to her that her tax credit is going to more than compensate the deduction in her wage, she's totally furious that she's having to pay for this whilst her boss isn't. It's the most ludicrous policy that the fiendishly clever great leader has ever dreamt up.


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour's poll tax? (#17)

by rwendland on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:10:06 PM GMT

Don't get me wrong, I don't support getting rid of the 10% band either, but I'm not convinced these changes are as detrimental to poverty-reduction as some people suggest. eg while women 60-65 can lose a bit in this change they also gain from the Winter Fuel Payment increase.

We have to accept that help like Tax Credits is perfectly normal and OK, because the plain facts are that parents in NMW jobs do not get enough money to support children in a modern-day non-poverty environment that limits social-exclusion. The NMW would have to go up a lot to avoid this situation, and I'd like to see some of that, but that route runs into the dual problems of pricing jobs out of existance and encouraging more EU immigration. Really large NMW increases has to be pan-EU to avoid large population movement within the EU.


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour's poll tax? (#18)

by pipesmoke on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:38:09 PM GMT

I think we're pretty much in agreement here. I too support tax credits or income supplements. I also support my tax going up to finance increased funds. Trouble is my tax is going down and the less well paid are financing it. I'm ashamed as a beneficiary and ashamed as a party member


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour's poll tax? (#20)

by rwendland on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:19:48 PM GMT

I think part of the rationale for this change was that the introduction of the 10% band was an early crude quick help for low-earners soon after Labour came into power, to be used while a better more targetted system was implemented (NMW & Tax Credits). Now we have the better system of help working, it's time to undo the crude temp fix and go back to a simpler tax system which avoids some technical problems, and add more targetted help via Tax Credits. The crude temp fix benefitted some who didn't really need it, so unwinding that will obviously create some complaints we have to live with.

Politically, I think we should have unwound it much slower through fiscal drag so people would not really notice a big change. eg over the years not increasing the 10% band in line with inflation as Tax Credits increased.

But I think Gordon Brown has poverty reduction at his core, and this is one area he does not deserve attack. He may have faults, but in this area he has done a lot. He pushed through Tax Credits against some Blairite "Middle England" opposition I believe, and outright hostility from people like Frank Field.

This could have been handled better, but the opposition should have been 1 year ago when it was announced, not now. It has happened, and this current public fracas is just something we do not need now.

My worry is that the Tories would quietly and slowly undo Tax Credits "to make families stand on their own feet". And we will have much more poverty. Time to pull together on this one I think.


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour's poll tax? (#21)

by Free Socialist on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:22:30 PM GMT

"I'm sorry, but I don't really think new-grads earning a little under £18k are really the type of hard-up people we should be thinking about. They will be very marginally to the detriment by the new scheme, and have good prospects." You're not a recent graduate yourself then? You've failed to remember that over a certain wage, we have increasing deductions to the student loan company via the tax system (ignoring any bank loans that may be in place), which the uneducated poor don't. Unfortunately I'd hardly say most graduates I know have prospects classifiable as "good" unless we have nepotism or wealthy parents to fall back on. I feel that New Labour has impoverished my generation.


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour's poll tax? (#22)

by rwendland on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:21:46 AM GMT

Yep, I come from the lucky student grant generations. But my kids are stacking up the student loans right now, and house prices are so high I know housing will be a struggle for them. But even so, I think we should prioritise kids whose parents earn little above NMW for help, who have a tougher time and less certain opportunities.

On the bright side, electronic gizmos are so much more fun now than when I was a student! Though socialism seems a more distant prospect.


[ Parent ]

Re: 10p or not 10p: (#16)

by progressivefuture on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:57:36 PM GMT

I'm a new Labour loyalist.
However, I'm in a *state of disbelief* about Gordon Brown hitting some of the lowest income tax payers.
I'm *ashamed* of the policy and the arrogant disregard for ordinary people who don't happen to have children.
Childless people do contribute to society, you know, and to hit those of them on low incomes even harder with this 'tax simplification' is reprehensible.
It's just beyond the pale and this tax increase on low-income people is a worrying sign of how disconnected some of our representatives appear to have become.


Re: 10p or not 10p (#19)

by jkitleft on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:48:12 PM GMT

What disgusts me is that although there is a cigarette paper between the policies of the two main parties, the one thing that differentiated Labour from the Tories was its attitude to families on welfare spending. The Tax Credits are fine, they can be improved. They're over-complicated, and can be reformed. But why are we punishing young-working people for not having children? Or on another matter, women aged 60-64


Re: 10p or not 10p (#23)

by Free Socialist on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:18:02 AM GMT

In further reply to some posters here, having more tax credits and housing benefit is most certainly NOT adequate compensation for abolition of the 10p rate. Personally I would never think of claiming either, after hearing first-hand horror stories of over- payments and the crippling after effects. Besides, the bureaucratic paperwork for tax credits is dense, it's a wonder than anyone receives them at all!


Re: 10p or not 10p (#24)

by Laski on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:58:05 AM GMT

There seem to be some very confused people here; and some severe misunderstanding over what the effects of a 10p starting rate are.

 

Take the debate retrospectively:

 People talk about a 10p rate as if it is a profitable tax for the poor. It's not. It's a profitable tax for the entire working population.

If people want to help low incomed people more, then help them more directly. Giving the entire population a 10p starting rate for the first 2.2k is not the correct way to do it.

Surely scrapping the 10p rate, and saving billions from those that don't need the 10p relief off 2.2k, then using it to directly fund tax refunds for the most needy, is a far more beneficial system than the shoddy blanket 10p rate. 

 
It was a mistake to bring it in initially, this is the problem.

 

The way to help the poor is direct support into the lowest earners. It would be great if we could retrospectively apply a different starting rate to every citizen depending on what they earn, but we can't. It's not workable. But the Tax Credit system effectively performes this exact principle. 

 

What we need to work on is the tax credit system being more immediate; more accessable; and more automated.


10p or not 10p: Ask Gordon on live webcast tonight | 24 comments (24 topical)