bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
most of them look at complex problems and want a 3 word fix when that is impossible
stop the boats
get Brexit done
You start to question them and they fall apart - any more than 3 words and they are confused
The Labour Government
- Thread starter SkyBlueFlux
- Start date
most of them look at complex problems and want a 3 word fix when that is impossible
stop the boats
get Brexit done
You start to question them and they fall apart - any more than 3 words and they are confused
Not exactly true:
Reform to non-dom rules: Labour party announcements
This article was published before the UK Government’s Autumn Budget 2024. For our most recent article, published following the Autumn Budget 2024 and therefore reflecting latest developments, please click on the link below. Read more This article was first published on 19 April 2024. Background...www.farrer.co.uk
Labour are getting rid of existing exemptions that the Conservatives laid out for non-doms in their proposed tax reforms. Under these proposals if somebody lives here for 4 years, having previously been non-resident, then they are getting taxed on their whole income regardless of whether the income originates in the UK or overseas. That is a big change from the very forgiving nature of the previous system and the new one the Conservatives were proposing.
I work with people in Luxembourg and they have told me they have seen a definite up-tick in British registered assets being moved there in the past few months - luxury cars that have British licence plates are becoming a more common sight in the streets (this is just anecdotal I have no further evidence it is true). Whether the amount of people moving their affairs overseas outweighs the benefit these tax reforms bring in remains to be seen - LSE suggest it should raise roughly £4Bn a year. They are saying they will throw in some exemption if people bring their untaxed foreign income to the UK to invest it into infrastructure and British business but it's not exactly clear how that policy looks in practice.
I'd say they also seem quite openly critical of the current situation with capital gains tax and I'm fairly sure we'll see some kind of reform on that in the budget to the effect of it being taxed more in line with regular income. That will definitely disproportionately impact people with wealth.
You can argue whether these initiatives go far enough, but I think Labour are allergic to doing anything that is seen to be too radical. Especially while the economy is doing surprisingly well and growth forecasts are improving. I think we will only know if this "softly, softly, catchee monkey" approach to resuscitating our ailing national fortunes is actually working in 3-5 years time. There's almost no point in thinking too hard about it right now.
The people saying this is anything close to Marxism are just preposterous simpletons who have never opened a book.
My rather basic point was, whatever proposals are made, if any, is that it will have negligible impact on the very rich as opposed to the impact such as stopping the winter fuel.payment will have on pensioners just above the qualifying criteria. The wealthy just move assets around to offset any possible hits. Sure if they lose a few pounds off their profits they will have a gripe but they're hardly likely to be frightened to put the heating on in winter.
Blue and true
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2015
- Messages
- 4,465
The people who are struggling to get by won't be struggling to get by because they are burdened with high taxes. In fact, those on the lowest rung won't be paying much tax at all
My point was those who are pissing and whining seem to be those higher earners who begrudge paying a little more for the betterment of public service, even when a slightly higher rate won't be prohibitive to them in the slightest.
metalblue
Well-Known Member
metalblue
Well-Known Member
It’s not my problem. I think he’s more of a Tory than me.
metalblue
Well-Known Member
Certainly not mate. I really hope they succeed as it’s in all our interests.
SkyBlueFlux
Well-Known Member
Of course, and I agree with that. I'm just adding the nuance that people commenting to the effect of Labour are not taxing anything from the wealthy, it isn't strictly accurate. You can argue they're not taxing enough but the majority of their planned fiscal additions to national revenue are quite demonstrably coming from people who are asset rich. Unfortunately, they are also maintaining the freeze in the tax bands which means that they are not totally levying income from the rich. The truth is therefore somewhere in between.
And I do agree that the criteria being cited for WFP is not well thought-out (maybe they will change tack on that). But I also have little sympathy for the argument that all pensioners should get it. My grandparents were sitting on a house worth half a million while using their WFP on the lottery. Nobody my age has ever got something for nothing like that out of the government, so I don't see why we should make an exception here. It might have made sense 20 years ago when the country was in a very different financial situation.
I have no idea what formula provides that equation but, assuming that "per passenger" means a daily commuter, it must value the "productivity" of time (not) spent on a train at about £25 an hour.
And if someone happens to work near Victoria rather than Piccadilly where NPR would go, then total journey time is no quicker than the present service Leeds to Victoria. And of course NPR from Liverpool to Manchester would be no quicker than a non-stop train now from Lime Street to Victoria.
Without HS2 into Piccadilly bearing the construction costs and providing most of the services, none of it makes commercial sense.
Last edited:
Kompany Car
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 4,231
Its not just about Manchester or Leeds but the whole area and achieving net zero whilst enhancing mobility across the North.
If you want to read about the economic benefits of the project I would suggest reading this which give the holistic view...
https://www.transportforthenorth.co...2023-Summary-Report-For-Final-Publication.pdf
Last edited:
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
what most people seem to be reacting to is the (Right Wing ) Press floating arguments to stay relevant. Things to remember are
1/ since July 5th most of the influential commentators have no "in" to the Govt. No Leaky Sue no Jnr Minister authorised to leak so all they can do is make shit up based upon own fears and the fact that they need to produce a Leader or an Op Ed to suit their paymasters as they have an expensive mortgage and school fees to pay.
2/ Parliament is in recess - No laws have been changed / passed
3/ Labour can float ideas in this time as govt's do - see what sticks - see what creates a reaction - would not be surprised by the time of the budget the fuel allowance is tapered and the fringes of wealth tax are explored
4/ Wait until Parliament comes back and the budget is announced ............ also when they come back the Tory leadership race heats up - the press will be focused on that as they won't have to make stuff up plus they will have the problem of persuading Sunak to turn up for PMQ's to be humiliated week in week out having had a summer in the sun where he wants to be. He will be pushing for a quick selection not a long drawn out process and as we have seen that usually means a piss poor candidate wins out
1/ since July 5th most of the influential commentators have no "in" to the Govt. No Leaky Sue no Jnr Minister authorised to leak so all they can do is make shit up based upon own fears and the fact that they need to produce a Leader or an Op Ed to suit their paymasters as they have an expensive mortgage and school fees to pay.
2/ Parliament is in recess - No laws have been changed / passed
3/ Labour can float ideas in this time as govt's do - see what sticks - see what creates a reaction - would not be surprised by the time of the budget the fuel allowance is tapered and the fringes of wealth tax are explored
4/ Wait until Parliament comes back and the budget is announced ............ also when they come back the Tory leadership race heats up - the press will be focused on that as they won't have to make stuff up plus they will have the problem of persuading Sunak to turn up for PMQ's to be humiliated week in week out having had a summer in the sun where he wants to be. He will be pushing for a quick selection not a long drawn out process and as we have seen that usually means a piss poor candidate wins out
I understand that they can't and won't just hammer the very wealthy as they'll lose any support and votes they had amongst those people. By the same token Labour are supposed to be a more sympathetic party towards those less well off. At the moment they are showing they are anything but. In fact, as simplistic as it is, by cancelling the winter fuel payment it makes them look worse.
A property's worth is subjective though isn't it? It was probably bought for a much lower price but grew in value as properties tend to do. When they took on the original mortgage it was probably a struggle for them. What a property is worth doesn't help to pay the bills unless they go for one of those equity release schemes, or sell up and move to a smaller property.
They didn't get anything either when they were younger, it's for people of pension age. I have no idea how long this payment has been in operation for but any party who cuts it isn't going to look good.
hampshireblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 2,864
I'm sure they will, but doing so effectively will take some time.
I'm supportive of the removal of universal fuel allowance. But the way they have done it is nothing other than clumsy and naive. Maybe they should have started the process by taking it away from those pensioners who are getting over £50k and therefore in the 40% tax band. There are a surprising number of these. It would be easy to do through the tax system. I would also look at changing the way the utility companies charge. The first £380 that all of us pay goes towards the standing charge and therefore nothing towards heating and lighting-that is just wrong. how it can be done, I don't know but there must be a solution. In this digital world, I would also ensure that anyone paying on a meter (usually the less well off) pays exactly the same rate as someone on a direct debit. This should be quite easy as meters can be programmed remotely to a particular tariff.
Now to the system: what is wealthy? I don't know as it's all subjective. For example, Yestedray, I paid £7 in a chippy in Mossley, that down here where I live is £13.What is wealthy in one part of the country is by no means in another, yet we have a one size fits all approach to it. We have a system that gives benefits on those earning upto £60k-are they wealthy, should they be getting any welfare at all? The same system has a "minimum wage" that is subject to tax and NI-if it's a minimum, why are there deductions if it's a minimum? It's those on minimum wages who are subsidising those on £60k-is it right? The same system decided that one day I had to pay for prescriptions but the next I didn't. I can afford to buy an annual certificate for £110ish, but suddenly I didn't need to. It's a small thing but multiplied many times over put an increasing strain on restricted resources. Instead I gift aid the amount to cancer research instead and it benefits to the tune of £140ish.
The whole system needs a root and branch re think. But it needs to be done sensitively and have some rationale behind it-not just plucking numbers out of the air. Someone earning over £100k pays tax at 62% upto £125k. Yet after that it drops to 40% and then 45% after £150k. There is no logic and it actually disincentivises people to succeed. None of this is easy or quick, but in my mind, necessary to make a fairer society.
Last edited:
We got free prescriptions, free dental treatment, free university if you wanted it, housing might have been a struggle but most young people now would think the chance for a "struggle" would be nice. Most pensioners own their own homes with no mortgage or rent, and most of them have a decent occupational pension. Most are not choosing between "heat" and "eat".
hilts
Well-Known Member
Where did I say high taxes?
I hate this punching down attitude amongst the working class, we should be punching upwards not looking down in envy at people who grafted all their lives to try and better themselves. I don't remember free prescriptions for everybody, nor free dental treatment. NHS dentistry still exists if you're lucky enough to find one but even back then if you wanted more specialist work you had to pay for it.
Is it today's pensioners fault wages haven't kept up with inflation, so many of today's youth can't afford a property?
Not all have good occupational pensions and many still live in council or rented accomodation. Many are actually choosing between heat or eat.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
He most certainly is, you're right.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Perhaps. Either way, I think the red wall will be voting Reform after he's told life long Labour supporters they are all far right thugs.
hilts
Well-Known Member
Well, what you think is wrong.
Why do you do it? It's dead easy really. "How many pensioners own their own home?" and press "search".
Point 2:
Living longer - Office for National Statistics
Trends in renting and owner-occupation by age group have changed in recent years. In the future, older people may be more likely to rent privately.
www.ons.gov.uk
It's not divisive to recognise that a generation voting Tory (and Brexit) have screwed the younger generation.