The Labour Government

I fear in the wider scheme of things the budget will be irrelevant. Starmer and Reeves have always sought to position themselves as pragmatic grown ups, almost technocratic in their approach. Whether you think they are doing a decent job of that or are completely incompetent is imo totally irrelevant because to position our current issues as fixable through technical or economic policy means I think is to misunderstand where we are at this point in history.

The root of our problems are not mismanagement of the economy by an individual Chancellor be that a red one or a blue for that matter. Our problem is that from the perspective of ordinary people our system is completely and utterly fucked and the world is sliding into a variety of different flavours of authoritarianism. This is not an issue fixable by trying to wrangle economic policy within an economic system that in itself has increasingly become a fundamental part of the problem. Though you can't fully decouple them, the capture of the nation state is a political not an economic problem. The current labour government doesn't at this time have anywhere near the political juice to address this, if anything their refusal to do anything other than tactical politics has surrendered the narrative to a party who only want power so they can finish the job and impoverish virtually everyone. I'd like to think someone could mobilise a mass movement before the only option for change becomes something more chaotic as and when the next stage of the latest industrial revolution bites. But who?
 
Last edited:
NPBlue said:
Honestly, you just can't see whats happening.

The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. Neoliberalism has facilitated that.

At some pont in the future, their increasing wealth will be enough to impact your life in a negative way.

You are, literally, spouting the nonsense they want you to believe, with all the propoganda they sponsor in the media they own and echoed by the politicians they own.

I'll tell you what theft is. Deca millionaires and billionairs taking money for goods and services from people that can barely afford them, making huge profits from those barely affordable payments, and paying themselves huge salaries and bonuses to enrich themselves to such a degree they have absolutely no use for all the money they have amassed. Back street money lenders operate like that. It's like collecting stamps to them, money for money's sake, and for the life of me I can't understand why you want to protect that position when it will come and bite you in the arse at some point in the future.

What is immoral is the way they have conditioned the ordinary person into accepting taxing them is wrong. It isn't.

In the years wealth was taxed, we had social programmes that worked, food banks didn't exist, ordinary people enjoyed having an increasing standard of living, and the wealthy weren't penalised to the extent you may imagine.

If you don't believe they should be taxed in a fair way, then say hello to increasing struggles in your life.

They really don't care about you, but appreciate your support.
Click to expand...
You sound like they aren't taxed at all. The top 1% pay 29% of all our taxes already. People need to stop being so bitter and needy and blaming anyone but themselves. The welfare state should be there to support those genuinely in need not those for whom it's a lifestyle choice. I cannot fucking bare this "I want more money spent on x, y or z, and I want someone other than me to pay for it". Drives me nuts. What happened to personal responsibility? I wish we had 50 Elon Musks in this country. It would be a massively better place if we had. We have none, and the richest one we did have - Mittal - has now fucked off because of what Labour has done and is doing. Fucking disaster.

I can see are never going to agree on this but that's my perspective. End of.
 
Ric said:
If this is true, then it's a disgrace.

Click to expand...


I think that's made up?

Edit: Looks like it's true that it's a briefing but unsure if would be made into government policy.

I think the idea is crimes that would lead to imprisonment of 5 years or less would be heard by a new tier of court.

So Magistrates, this new tier and then the Crown court.

I think if you're on the edge of what sentence you could face, you can choose either this new tier or the crown. Just like you can now between Magistrates and the Crown.
 
Last edited:
metalblue said:
Would you expect tax payers to give your pot money if it was down 12% this year?

Her initial ideas about these funds needing to invest in UK was better idea for growth. Whatever happened to that?
Click to expand...
I assume you're not being serious? If you are, no, of course not. I would just pay a lesser amount of tax depending on the day the fund was valued.
 
hampshireblue said:
I assume you're not being serious? If you are, no, of course not. I would just pay a lesser amount of tax depending on the day the fund was valued.
Click to expand...

So your view is whether your investment make or lose money the government should take 1% per year because it’s unearned income, even when it’s actually a loss?

That logic makes zero sense to me and not how our tax system works at all.
 
Ric said:
If this is true, then it's a disgrace.

Click to expand...

I think it's pragmatism. The current system is leading to the ludicrous situation where trials are taking several years to be heard. On top of that, there are probably arguments that jury trials don't really "work" in large classes of cases, especially where the evidence is complex.
 
Chippy_boy said:
You sound like they aren't taxed at all. The top 1% pay 29% of all our taxes already. People need to stop being so bitter and needy and blaming anyone but themselves. The welfare state should be there to support those genuinely in need not those for whom it's a lifestyle choice. I cannot fucking bare this "I want more money spent on x, y or z, and I want someone other than me to pay for it". Drives me nuts. What happened to personal responsibility? I wish we had 50 Elon Musks in this country. It would be a massively better place if we had. We have none, and the richest one we did have - Mittal - has now fucked off because of what Labour has done and is doing. Fucking disaster.

I can see are never going to agree on this but that's my perspective. End of.
Click to expand...

If you can’t bear people saying “I want more money spent on x and want someone other than me to pay for it”, why on earth would you want 50 Elon Musks?! That would make that 29% far higher than it already is.
 
stonerblue said:
I'd say very few. Hardly a stick to beat a government with.
Click to expand...

Neither of those things (childcare costs and rail costs) is the current government’s fault, I made that clear in an earlier post so certainly wasn’t beating Starmer & Co up for it, hopefully they can get some sense in to rail fare costs in time.
 
metalblue said:
So your view is whether your investment make or lose money the government should take 1% per year because it’s unearned income, even when it’s actually a loss?

That logic makes zero sense to me and not how our tax system works at all.
Click to expand...
No. Let's take my mate. His pension is worth £2m( lucky git). If it rises to £2.2m he would pay, say, 1% on a proportion of that. Let's say anything over £2m, so in this case 1% of £200k = 2k. If he does very well then say, 1% of £500k = £5k. If his pension drops below £2m on the date it is assessed he pays nothing extra. The point is, he has done nothing in the first 2 examples to improve his wealth by £200-£500k and pays nothing extra tax wise.

You can substitute figures as you wish, but someone in the top 1% with a very large pension pot would be paying, literally, a bit more and probably less than such a fund may lose in a single day due to market variations.
 
meltonblue said:
If you can’t bear people saying “I want more money spent on x and want someone other than me to pay for it”, why on earth would you want 50 Elon Musks?! That would make that 29% far higher than it already is.
Click to expand...
Because he likes people who uses Nazi salutes at political rallies. He's so far down the rabbit hole it's not true. Apparently he canvassed against Brexit but now loves "anything other than Labour" including Truss, Farage and now Musk.
 
hampshireblue said:
No. Let's take my mate. His pension is worth £2m( lucky git). If it rises to £2.2m he would pay, say, 1% on a proportion of that. Let's say anything over £2m, so in this case 1% of £200k = 2k. If he does very well then say, 1% of £500k = £5k. If his pension drops below £2m on the date it is assessed he pays nothing extra. The point is, he has done nothing in the first 2 examples to improve his wealth by £200-£500k and pays nothing extra tax wise.

You can substitute figures as you wish, but someone in the top 1% with a very large pension pot would be paying, literally, a bit more and probably less than such a fund may lose in a single day due to market variations.
Click to expand...
But what happens in 2027 when the pension is subject to inheritance tax and if he dies aged over 75 income tax is deducted too
 
Living Wage going up by 50p an hour next April.

50.....pence. Thanks Labour...

images


Supposed to be £14.80, instead it'll be £12.71. Come on defenders, explain this.
 
Last edited:
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