Some numbers to encourage both halves of the coalition
Jonathan Jones 12:25pm
Yesterday's YouGov poll for the Sunday Times had a few interesting nuggets buried beneath the top line
(Lab 40, Con 39, as it happens). Here are some of the most topical findings:
1) Clegg’s tax proposals are very popular. 83 per cent support the Lib Dems’ policy of increasing the personal allowance to £10,000. This might explain the 12-point jump in Nick Clegg’s net approval rating since last week. And there’s strong support for the ‘mansion tax’ that Vince Cable’s been pushing since 2009. 66 per cent back ‘a new tax upon people with houses worth more than £2 million’ — something Clegg called for again last week — and 50 per cent support taxing those with houses worth over £1 million.
2) The benefit cap is also very popular. 72 per cent back the government’s planned cap on the amount of benefits a household can receive, with just 17 per cent opposed. As
you’d expect, support is strongest with Tory voters, at a whopping 94 per cent. But there’s also 2-to-1 support among Labour voters, suggesting just how powerful the policy could be
come election time. As for the level of the cap, the public’s view seems to roughly match the government’s £26,000:
3) The bishops are on thin ice. YouGov find 2-to-1 opposition to excluding child benefit from the £26,000 cap, as advocated by an amendment put forward by the Bishop of Ripon
and Leeds and passed in the Lords last week. Some have suggested that taking a stand against both the government and public opinion might hurt the standing of the 26 ‘Lords Spiritual’,
and this poll seems to bear that out. 65 per cent say CofE bishops are ‘out of touch’, and 58 per cent say they shouldn’t sit and vote in the Lords. The coalition’s plans
for Lords reform already include reducing their number to 12, but these results suggest eliminating them completely would be a popular move.
Previous
Mudplugger
January 30th, 2012 12:43pm Report this commentEliminating the Bishops would be an excellent idea - but I suspect the article just meant removing them from the House of Lords.
Shame that, although at least it would be a start.
Publius
January 30th, 2012 12:58pm Report this commentI do find pollsters such a bore, don't you? Endless scratching around in detail - detail collated on the flimsiest of evidence - while ignoring the bigger picture.
michael
January 30th, 2012 1:10pm Report this commentPutting money back in the hands of regular folk WILL drive spending.
Much as I detest the social outcomes of the minimum wage, I concede that in its in it's early years it drove both spending and growth.
Sacre Bleu
January 30th, 2012 1:19pm Report this commentPeople still playing games with Child Benefit being in or out of the £26k. Could somebody please explain to me why the Government is obliged to pay child benefit at all. I don't recollect anybody asking the government's permission to breed and the government saying "yes please, we will pay you to do that". If you can't afford to have kids and pay for them, don't have them.
Kick all the bishops etc out of the Lords and let them get on with their proper job of saving lost souls or supporting kids of unmarried mothers, immigrants whatever - they are not short of projects or a few quid either I am sure.
Rhoda Klapp
January 30th, 2012 1:38pm Report this commentThat mansion tax, if implemented, will have unforeseen consequences. What are they? Well, if I knew that, they wouldn't be unforeseen, would they?
Deepsnoozer
January 30th, 2012 1:49pm Report this commentCan't wait for the poll when they ask 'How decisive is David Cameron?? I've just read that when asked recently if he would block million-pound bonuses at state-owned banks, he answered as follows: "The short answer is Yes." And his long answer??.. "I don't know".. presumably :)
Louisa
January 30th, 2012 1:52pm Report this commentI may be wrong but wasn't child benefit brought in after the last WW to encourage families, for obvious reasons, to have more children? For equally obvious reasons we surely don't need to encourage them any more. So why is it still being dished out?
Agree bishops definitely superfluous to requirements.
JB
January 30th, 2012 2:05pm Report this commentOf course 66% are in favour of a tax on houses worth more than £2m. If you live in a house worth less than £2other m, this is a free ride: more taxes paid by people, and a reduced proportion of the tax burden for you.
But that doesn't make it a good policy. In fact, assuming 95% of the population live in homes worth less than £2m, 66% polling in favour suggests people really aren't convinced.
Tax wealth on death if you must, but not before.
But assuming
Magnolia
January 30th, 2012 4:01pm Report this commentIt's a great idea to raise the threshold for tax and I support it along with everyone else even though I suspect that it will largely suck in Chinese imports but I'm very worried about the way that The Treasury intends to pay for it.
So far we have plans to remove child benefit from higher rate tax payers and we have the very real removal of any tax allowance at all for those earning over £100,000.
A single income family on this sum now pays approximately £39248 in tax and NI while a double income family with two earners each earning £50,000 pays £30,516 tax and NI in total.
The single income family pays £8732 more than the double income family on the same amount of wages. The stay at home mum/dad family keeps approx 9% less of the family income because the state removes it from them.
If the tax bands are to be lowered to pay for the increased tax threshold then it will be the single income family that is penalised even more than they are already.
Any move in this direction will only work with transferable tax allowances.
Why does the government view the stay at home parent as such a vile and despicable entity that their partner has to provide for everyone else and some before their own dependents?
Could The Treasury tell us how fair this is?
HFC
January 30th, 2012 5:15pm Report this commentWhy does the government view the stay at home parent as such a vile and despicable entity that their partner has to provide for everyone else and some before their own dependents?
Valid point Magnolia but the penalty is equally severe for higher taxpaying single parents - widowed or divorced - bringing up a family.
Cynic
January 30th, 2012 6:11pm Report this commentI'm with Louisa on this one; at a time when the population is rising to unsustainable numbers we should be discouraging reckless breeding. Certainly women (and in these days of easy contraception, they're the ones who have ultimate control) should not have children they can't afford. Perhaps it the state stopped picking up the bill they might be encouraged to think twice before reproducing, particularly without a long-term partner.
Anne Allan
January 31st, 2012 11:33am Report this commentObvious result of mansion tax:
1. In the short term, all big houses, particularly those owned by LibDem millionaires will miraculously be priced at £1.999 million.
2. in their efforts to scrape up something from this ridiculous idea, the threshold will be lowered. Watch out for anything costing more than £250,000 being lined up. In the interests of the LibDm love of localism, the limit will be dropped to £100,000 in less expensive parts of the country.
Dan
February 17th, 2012 4:52pm Report this commentChild benefit is there to support the children of the future Sacre bleu. Your parents would have received a similar allowance to bring you up and I'm sure that your parents are grateful they received it and have the knowledge that they will be looked after by you in their later years (healthcare pensions) etc. It is also an investment in the countries future. Who knows where the children of low income earners will end up later in life. Imagine the possibilities.
Back to top