The Labour Government

[urban genie]

Impossible, they are being completely drowned out by right wing media and social media , no one cares about their achievements and what good they have already done. It’s pure abuse and annihilation and it won’t let up.

Thing is Labour have actually imposed some.good things and improved things since coming to power.

However starmer let that clown reeves loose on the treasury and her distain for the welfare state, and as starmer is a PR disaster even more grey that john major he majorly fucked up with the first big policy affecting pensioners.

He gave the right wing meadia and farage an in with winter fuel cuts and then never learnt and allowed the PIP fiasco to emerge.


Also the labour socials spend too much effort to tell everyone how bad reform are instead on focusimg on saying how better it is under labour leaving them open to bots and cranks, took too long to critiicise the genocide going on.

Finally though starmer himself, being emotionless and autocratic has left him despised by both the right and left in politics, no one knows what he stands for and who he represents


Himself, Reeves and lammy are a PR disaster, all 3 come across as dishonest and dickish

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Impossible, they are being completely drowned out by right wing media and social media , no one cares about their achievements and what good they have already done. It’s pure abuse and annihilation and it won’t let up.

If only they would stop alienating the people who voted for them.

Starmer and Reeves are a pair of fucking callous bastard's who have misjudged the mood of the country and their own party by attempting to raise money by targeting the poorest.

U-turn after U-turn, it would be comical if it wasn't so serious for those affected by the cuts, and worried about their future finances.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

However starmer let that clown reeves loose on the treasury and her distain for the welfare state, and as starmer is a PR disaster even more grey that john major he majorly fucked up with the first big policy affecting pensioners.

Couldn't agree more, they haven't a clue why they were voted in. Attempting to take money from the poorest won't be forgotten, fucking idiots.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Whatever your politics Rayner just doesn't have the persona to be a world leader, she's not stupid but she's just not credible.

You know that, I know that and every man, woman, cat and dog in the street can see it. But do the paid up Labour Party members? They selected Jeremy Corbyn, remember! Took years and 2 failed GE campaigns for the PLP to get rid of him. Hopefully they will remember that and not propose Rayner in the first place or they could repeat the same mistake!

 

[urban genie]

She lived not too far from me in Ashton, big house that had a tennis court in it when I was a kid. Not too sure if she still owns it but at the last GE it was the only gaff in the area to have Labour promotional guff openly displayed.

Used to see her on the odd occasion walking her dog but not for a while, obviously too important now but god help us all if she ever becomes PM.

Whatever your politics Rayner just doesn't have the persona to be a world leader, she's not stupid but she's just not credible.

nonsense, thaat is an outdated mentality that only seems to have survied in this country

 

[mayo31]

Changing the tax on working people is one thing because they still have their working lives to adjust, work harder or longer or whatever.

Changing it for people who have already retired is different. They have worked all their lives and decided to retire, working out how much income they will need and a clear government commitment about how much they will get. You cannot change it afterwards when they have no ability to ccommodate the change. That's just not on.

You would get another job easy, if required.

 

[Chippy_boy]

You would get another job easy, if required.

What, at 80? Not that I am 80, but some people who were affected would be. Changing the tax treatment of old and retired people too old to adapt would be another callous and Ill-thought through calamity resulting in another U-turn.

 

[hilts]

You know that, I know that and every man, woman, cat and dog in the street can see it. But do the paid up Labour Party members? They selected Jeremy Corbyn, remember! Took years and 2 failed GE campaigns for the PLP to get rid of him. Hopefully they will remember that and not propose Rayner in the first place or they could repeat the same mistake!

The guy who got more votes than Starmer?

 

[Kompany Car]

Changing the tax on working people is one thing because they still have their working lives to adjust, work harder or longer or whatever.

Changing it for people who have already retired is different. They have worked all their lives and decided to retire, working out how much income they will need and a clear government commitment about how much they will get. You cannot change it afterwards when they have no ability to ccommodate the change. That's just not on.

At the moment there are people saying we will have to increase the state pension age to 70 plus in the near future for younger workers. The minimum wage is seen as "enough" to pay swathes of the population who are not only supporting themselves, but bringing up children and are much more likely to not own a house.

But you're saying its unfair to change tax on people who have had a lifetime to save and make provision, many of whom benefited from final salary pensions. There is always a risk of inflation, changes to VAT etc and thats the risk you take if you dont make provision in your retirement planning. (See it works both ways).

Where are the people who are currently working going to "earn more" ? Wages have stagnated for years, employers for the vast majority of roles are in a race to the bottom. There is starting to be compression in the salary between those who are on minimum wage and those who are higher skilled, who traditionally would have earned significantly more.

If you're saying well they could all go out and get a second job, great we will have people with young families working 70hr weeks and what impact will that have on society? Alternatively and maybe much more sensible would be for those who are retired and say under the age of 75 who cannot support their post retirement lifestyle, to pay NI on pension withdrawals above the yearly minimum wage threshold I proposed in my earlier post i.e. £22,893, they could do a few hours a week to offset it. Note that according to the government guidance per couple for a moderate retirement (not basic) the joint income should be more than £43900 per year. The threshold I proposed would actually mean you would exceed this figure as a couple before NI would be payable.

If you cant tax the rich because they will go abroad, cant tax businesses because they will downsize, cant tax the poor because they are already have nothing, cant reduce benefits, the tax burden on working families is already the highest its ever been. Who is gonna pick up some of the bill for all the required spending ?

What we have is a situation where everyone wants things to be better but nobody wants to pay for it or have any impact on their personal wealth.

 

[Vic]

Thing is Labour have actually imposed some.good things and improved things since coming to power.

Well done for getting so many likes from the noisiest Labour critics for that post.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The guy who got more votes than Starmer?

Sure what of it? Has nothing to do with my point that the PLP, if nominating Rayner, could end up with her as PM even if they think her unsuitable.

 

[shemnel]

Corbyn's new party will take away voters mostly from Labour, i'm guessing, further hamstringing their attempts to keep Reform out. Prepare for Farage.

 

[Vic]

If only they would stop alienating the people who voted for them.

Starmer and Reeves are a pair of fucking callous bastard's who have misjudged the mood of the country and their own party by attempting to raise money by targeting the poorest.

More likes from people who insist you can't target the rich or they will show their loyalty to Britain by bogging off abroad

 

[hampshireblue]

At the moment there are people saying we will have to increase the state pension age to 70 plus in the near future for younger workers. The minimum wage is seen as "enough" to pay swathes of the population who are not only supporting themselves, but bringing up children and are much more likely to not own a house.

But you're saying its unfair to change tax on people who have had a lifetime to save and make provision, many of whom benefited from final salary pensions. There is always a risk of inflation, changes to VAT etc and thats the risk you take if you dont make provision in your retirement planning. (See it works both ways).

Where are the people who are currently working going to "earn more" ? Wages have stagnated for years, employers for the vast majority of roles are in a race to the bottom. There is starting to be compression in the salary between those who are on minimum wage and those who are higher skilled, who traditionally would have earned significantly more.

If you're saying well they could all go out and get a second job, great we will have people with young families working 70hr weeks and what impact will that have on society? Alternatively and maybe much more sensible would be for those who are retired and say under the age of 75 who cannot support their post retirement lifestyle, to pay NI on pension withdrawals above the yearly minimum wage threshold I proposed in my earlier post i.e. £22,893, they could do a few hours a week to offset it. Note that according to the government guidance per couple for a moderate retirement (not basic) the joint income should be more than £43900 per year. The threshold I proposed would actually mean you would exceed this figure as a couple before NI would be payable.

If you cant tax the rich because they will go abroad, cant tax businesses because they will downsize, cant tax the poor because they are already have nothing, cant reduce benefits, the tax burden on working families is already the highest its ever been. Who is gonna pick up some of the bill for all the required spending ?

What we have is a situation where everyone wants things to be better but nobody wants to pay for it or have any impact on their personal wealth.

I agree and posted this a few days ago on the groups where taxes couldn't be raised:

"Not the poor, nor the very rich, nor middle earners, not business, not VAT, employees NI or income tax, not rich pensioners, not rich farmers et al?"

I think there was a single response to where additional taxes may come from but nothing on what services people are prepared to reduce or lose.

 

[Chippy_boy]

What we have is a situation where everyone wants things to be better but nobody wants to pay for it or have any impact on their personal wealth.

I think we'll just have to agree to differ here mate. All tax increase are unpopular with some faction or other, but I just think that going after pensioners is arguably more unfair than on any other group, except possibly the disabled. There's plenty of other possible tax rises that you could impose before having to stoop that low. Your view may vary and fine with me. No point in debating this point further - it's all hypothetical anyway: No politicians have suggested NI changes to pension income.

 

[mancityvstoke]

Labour had the chance to sort the country out after the devastation by Tories.

What did they do? Bash pensioners and the disabled.

Idiotic.

 

[Chippy_boy]

More likes from people who insist you can't target the rich or they will show their loyalty to Britain by bogging off abroad

Vic mate, seems you're just in denial here. It's not like we've never tried to tax the rich more and are discussing some theory with different views as to the possible outcome. We've done it before. We raised the top rate to 50% expecting a significant increase in income tax, and in reality, received only a fraction of it. That's what actually happens and we've seen it happen.

So you can scoff all you like about and allude to it being preposterous that people bugger off or rearrange their affairs to pay less tax, but demonstrably, they do.

 

[Vic]

I met a 91-year-old yesterday whose main complaint was having to pay for a TV licence. A Tory cut that didn't get half the attention of the WFA (I didn't ask what she thought about that).

 

[Chippy_boy]

Labour had the chance to sort the country out after the devastation by Tories.

What did they do? Bash pensioners and the disabled.

Idiotic.

I agree to an extent, but what I find odd is that whilst Labour supporters generally seem to agree that Labour face a difficult task with the economy in such a mess, there's zero recognition that the Tories did also.

The country was in a dire straight when Cameron took over with huge national debt and a £150bn deficit meaning the debt was rocketing upwards. Then we've had the enormous disruption - and distraction - of Brexit, the VAST unbudgeting sums that had to be paid in COVID support, and also the war in Ukraine causing rampant inflation. None of these were the Tories fault and yet the narrative is "after the devastation by Tories".

Of course they made mistakes over 14 years. Labour have made plenty over 1 year. Labour are really struggling to balance the books and hence the daft decisions on pensioners and the disabled. Well guess what, the Tories struggled to balance the same books. They presided over record high levels of taxation and borrowing, and yet still had to cut public services.

 

[Kompany Car]

Vic mate, seems you're just in denial here. It's not like we've never tried to tax the rich more and are discussing some theory with different views as to the possible outcome. We've done it before. We raised the top rate to 50% expecting a significant increase in income tax, and in reality, received only a fraction of it. That's what actually happens and we've seen it happen.

So you can scoff all you like about and allude to it being preposterous that people bugger off or rearrange their affairs to pay less tax, but demonstrably, they do.

The government missed a trick by giving the non doms a stay of execution before changing the tax rules, allowing them time to get their affairs in order. The were going to leave anyway, so you might as well have just took a massive bite of their wealth as they left the country.

As has been said multiple times, the only easy way to tax the very wealthy is to tax their immovable assets (i.e. land and housing) and close the loop holes around holding them in trusts/businesses etc.