The Labour Government

bluethrunthru said:
were we at Govt spending being 97% of GDP back then? Did we have record taxation then? Time change and you have to change with them - many documents released by Govt Depts the IFS and the OBR being released today will haunt your favoured Tories for years to come - they can no longer claim to be the Party of business nor fiscal responsibility
Click to expand...

It’s ok to kill pensioners when we can’t afford it? Fuck me this is a new low even from you.
 
BrianW said:
I would advise any young person to start putting money away for their private pension asap. The SIPP is a good one, but take advice if you're in doubt. Your retirement may seem a long way away, but it soon creeps up on you. It's well worth missing a few gigs, or even holidays, if that's what it takes.

Don't leave yourself reliant on the state as the way things are going the state will give you SFA, and you don't want to spend your last 20-30 huddling over a candle and eating cold baked beans.
Click to expand...
I put my contributions up to the maximum 2 months ago, and I'm considering VC's, primarily because I'm edging into the higher rate income tax bracket.

It's also a good idea to start looking into long-term saving options such as a stocks and shares ISA. There are many funds which are rated by risk and more importantly it's tax-free.
 
BrianW said:
I'm not pleased about losing my winter fuel payment but this is what happens when politicians are manipulated into making unrealistic pledges not to touch the main taxes. You can expect more of the same, instead of basic tax going up to (say) 22p.

Income tax is the fairest tax, although it would be a lot fairer if fewer cunts dodged paying it.

The other thing is, there should be more focus on taxing assets. I have argued before for Land Value Tax, but the problem is the Norman families would kick up a fuss, and the Daily Mail would tell us every pensioner would be taxed on their garden. So it's hard to do politically.

As for Bamford, if he really does owe £500,000,000 in tax, it's a fucking scandal and he should have all his assets sequestrated. But the other scandal is why was it allowed in the first place. HMRC would be on to me like a ton of bricks if I owed £100. I know that from experience.
Click to expand...
Land value tax was tried by Wilson. It was a disaster.
 
KS55 said:
It will be a bumpy ride. One problem is the income tax structure. Talk of taxing the rich is nonsense because the amount raised is small. The only way to raise meaningful sums is to increase tax in the middle because that’s where the vast amount of the money is. But most votes too are there and we know what that means.
Click to expand...
I have absolutely no problem paying more tax. Where everybody will clench their fists is when they start paying more tax and everything stays shit. I know it's early days but for Labour to get their knickers in such a twist over £20bn is alarming. They can blame the last government but the last government spent 15 years blaming the last government.

It meanwhile boils my blood that we are still continuing with certain projects like HS2 which has eyewatering costs. I just do not get why governments are incapable of seeing this. It's a project that nobody wants and cancelling it now would allow them to open the taps on many different projects.

I know they've already started it but it can still be repurposed so that the money already spent isn't wasted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PPT
mosssideblue said:
If it were so controlled by the government, why didn’t the Tories force interest rates down and, why were they really pissed off when they didn’t drop them as inflation was falling?
Click to expand...
No idea, stupidity possibly?

But without doubt Reeves is Baileys boss. He was appointed by Javid when he was Chancellor.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
It was a specific solution to him. If Ethel lives in a larger house that she can't afford to heat, she could sell it and downsize (if there are suitable properties nearby) or she could stay where she is living and take in lodgers (for some of the time).
Click to expand...

Out of interest did you approve of the so called “bedroom tax” that was designed to make people give up social housing that was too large for their needs?
 
metalblue said:
Out of interest did you approve of the so called “bedroom tax” that was designed to make people give up social housing that was too large for their needs?
Click to expand...

I agree with the stated rationale (although there were obviously some in the conservative who saw it as a method welfare claimants) not the methods.

It's not right that people in social housing occupy extra bedrooms they don't need when there's a shortage of appropriate social housing, but then some of the people penalised were disabled or elderly and needed the rooms. And there also needs to be sufficient numbers of appropriate properties for people to move out of under occupied social housing.

It was wrong to not do anything serious to enable councils to maintain and grow their social housing stock.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
You don’t seem quite as energised about the cunts who lied about their own black hole and were dishonestly promising tax cuts.
Click to expand...
Oh I was. Maybe not in the Socialist echo chamber that most Politics threads are.
But see last post for my actual opinions.
The problem is we need growth to pay for anything. We aren't getting it (and BTW many EU nations are in a worse state).
You can't increase the cake to divide amongst society needs via government expenditure without growth.
That has to be the KEY goal of any government.
If you just pay off the debt our society is doomed to stagnation.
 
Last edited:
Mr Kobayashi said:
I agree with the stated rationale (although there were obviously some in the conservative who saw it as a method welfare claimants) not the methods.

It's not right that people in social housing occupy extra bedrooms they don't need when there's a shortage of appropriate social housing, but then some of the people penalised were disabled or elderly and needed the rooms. And there also needs to be sufficient numbers of appropriate properties for people to move out of under occupied social housing.

It was wrong to not do anything serious to enable councils to maintain and grow their social housing stock.
Click to expand...

Mother in law lives in a 3 bed council house, they only need a 1 bed bungalow now really and would make life easier for them imo, there should be an incentive to make them want to downsize. They pay the rent so the tax has no effect on them, but I bet there is alot like that.
 
KS55 said:
Land value tax was tried by Wilson. It was a disaster.
Click to expand...
The Poll Tax was tried by Richard II in the 14th Century. It was a disaster, but that didn't stop Thatcher from reviving it, or many Tories from applauding how 'fair' it was.

Times change. Methods become more sophisticated. Some kind of wealth tax is needed to remove some of the burden from people paying tax on income, which in this country is often wholly inadequate to sustain a reasonable life. As I have remarked before, modern governments don't run on air. It's no use complaining about disorder, for example, if police, courts and prisons are all underfunded.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
I agree with the stated rationale (although there were obviously some in the conservative who saw it as a method welfare claimants) not the methods.

It's not right that people in social housing occupy extra bedrooms they don't need when there's a shortage of appropriate social housing, but then some of the people penalised were disabled or elderly and needed the rooms. And there also needs to be sufficient numbers of appropriate properties for people to move out of under occupied social housing.

It was wrong to not do anything serious to enable councils to maintain and grow their social housing stock.
Click to expand...

Fair enough mate, agree with everything you wrote there.
 
BrianW said:
The Poll Tax was tried by Richard II in the 14th Century. It was a disaster, but that didn't stop Thatcher from reviving it, or many Tories from applauding how 'fair' it was.

Times change. Methods become more sophisticated. Some kind of wealth tax is needed to remove some of the burden from people paying tax on income, which in this country is often wholly inadequate to sustain a reasonable life. As I have remarked before, modern governments don't run on air. It's no use complaining about disorder, for example, if police, courts and prisons are all underfunded.
Click to expand...
I think the only risk free wealth tax is inheritance tax. Taxing ‘live’ assets risks upsetting the market, which is what happened to Development land tax. Russian kleptomaniacs bought up half London by using offshore companies, an example of putting assets beyond the tax regime. There is also the phenomenon of divesting assets to complex trusts.
Inheritance tax, aimed at beneficial owners of all assets might get round some of these problems. Just a thought, I am no tax expert. Incidently, I think the beneficial owners of these schemes have to be identified within them now.
 
BlueAnorak said:
Oh I was. Maybe not in the Socialist echo chamber that most Politics threads are.
But see last post for my actual opinions.
The problem is we need growth to pay for anything. We aren't getting it (and BTW many EU nations are in a worse state).
You can't increase the cake to divide amongst society needs via government expenditure without growth.
That has to be the KEY goal of any government.
If you just pay off the debt our society is doomed to stagnation.
Click to expand...
growth and investment is the only way out of this mess.
I thought Labour might see that but the speech yesterday was all about cuts again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top