The Labour Government

BobKowalski said:
Defence funding for what though? What is our defence strategy going forward? How much impact is the war in Ukraine having on defence strategies and our thinking? Are we moving to a European based alliance with shared responsibilities and a division of specific skills and capabilities?

Currently, we may be unprepared for an all out war, but it’s not as if we are defenceless so, firstly, we need to decide in which direction we are going, who our (reliable) allies are, what we can do together as well as by ourselves. Personally, I have long favoured a European defensive capability separate from the US and with European based defence procurement. This will cost money along with a recognition that reliance on the US is dead and I’m not sure as a country we are ready to accept that.
Click to expand...
The savings from EU / European / NATO / EU + others procurement of defense equipment is huge
 
Rachel from Accounts is coming for the pensions now. Anything they can get their hands on. Anything that people have worked for they want, so they can give away in the guise of fair sharing. Forever the same. What a divided nation we have now.
 
hilts said:
Suppose that would depend who favours Russia this year for example, your view of a collective Europe doesn't really exist.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. It exists via the EU and via NATO. Both organisations require European nations to act and work together for the collective good. Ukraine is fighting a war for the opportunity to join both organisations. You may dismiss them or question their worth but you cannot deny the reality of their existance.
 
Blue Maverick said:

My mates missus says this is what happens all the time, government say they are going to prosecute these people, I’d say it’s time to fuck off these loopholes, sorry but it’s bullshit.
Click to expand...


Prosecute on what grounds? Lawyers, accountants et al work the system on behalf of their clients. That’s their job.
 
We've got Guardiola said:
I have noticed over the years that the energy has just been drained from the country, probably since COVID. It's because of the cost of living and that kind of thing. It's hard to consider working harder when you're not paid enough for a comfortable standard of living let alone luxuries such as buying a house.

Our little one has just started nursery and there is basically no point in my partner working 5 days a week because due to childcare costs she would only gain £50pm more. We're lucky that we have my salary but then if I work overtime on my salary then I would be taxed 40% on every £1 extra I earn so I don't bother. Work and effort just doesn't really pay and where it does it's quickly taken away from you.

If people aren't comfortable then they lose faith in the system and many even lash out at the system. The government doesn't act upon this because unfortunately it is cheaper to have a significant number of people claiming peanuts on benefits than it is to invest at great cost in infastructure, the economy etc to help them get them off benefits.

What's really happening is there is an underclass of people who are happy to accept living on peanuts handed to them by the state because the alternative is well living on peanuts earnt by themselves instead. Peanuts are still peanuts.
Click to expand...
I get your frustration. But on the bit about paying 40%. Everyone has a work/life balance and if you're prepared to actually not work overtime you're making a decision to not be as well off as you could be-albeit at a lesser rate tha if you were paying 20% tax. It may be worth you looking at doing the overtime and paying more into your pension and getting the higher rate of tax relief hence bringing you back below the threshold.
 
hampshireblue said:
I get your frustration. But on the bit about paying 40%. Everyone has a work/life balance and if you're prepared to actually not work overtime you're making a decision to not be as well off as you could be-albeit at a lesser rate tha if you were paying 20% tax. It may be worth you looking at doing the overtime and paying more into your pension and getting the higher rate of tax relief hence bringing you back below the threshold.
Click to expand...
I think this is something Im going to have to do, which is a bit of a pain since I already pay £650 a month into it
 
Jimmieblue said:
Rachel from Accounts is coming for the pensions now. Anything they can get their hands on. Anything that people have worked for they want, so they can give away in the guise of fair sharing. Forever the same. What a divided nation we have now.
Click to expand...
We all pay NI contributions to get a state pension. If any government wants to stop "the rich" getting a state pension then they would surely need to stop "the rich" paying NI in the first place? i.e tell the rich to use their previous NI contributions to fund their own retirement. "The rich" would snap the governments hand off!
 
Jimmieblue said:
Rachel from Accounts is coming for the pensions now. Anything they can get their hands on. Anything that people have worked for they want, so they can give away in the guise of fair sharing. Forever the same. What a divided nation we have now.
Click to expand...
What are the changes, I haven't seen?

I did see Jeremy Hunt and Michael Give are telling Starmer to axe the triple lock. Tories eh, you can't trust them.
 
Palerider said:
We all pay NI contributions to get a state pension. If any government wants to stop "the rich" getting a state pension then they would surely need to stop "the rich" paying NI in the first place? i.e tell the rich to use their previous NI contributions to fund their own retirement. "The rich" would snap the governments hand off!
Click to expand...
I’m talking about pension funds, private pension funds. Yes we do all pay NI and some also put into private pensions to fund their retirement if they’re working. Rachel wants to have more say in where the pension funds are directed. I don’t trust them at all.
 
Palerider said:
Any lawyer, accountant etc telling their clients to lie should be struck off. Isn't the Hillsborough Law in a similar vein?
Click to expand...
As I understand it the Hillsborough law covers public officials - police, civil servants etc. A new law would be needed to cover lawyers whose job is to take arguments right to the edge of truth. Having said that, the footage of lawyers coaching people to lie about their sexuality goes way beyond the edge of truth and I would hope beyond what’s required of them by their professional body leaving them open to censure.
 
Jimmieblue said:
I’m talking about pension funds, private pension funds. Yes we do all pay NI and some also put into private pensions to fund their retirement if they’re working. Rachel wants to have more say in where the pension funds are directed. I don’t trust them at all.
Click to expand...
Governments have always given tax breaks for certain types of investments. I’ve not seen anything that does more than just tweak the rules.
 
Palerider said:
Any lawyer, accountant etc telling their clients to lie should be struck off. Isn't the Hillsborough Law in a similar vein?
Click to expand...

You don’t tell them to lie. You outline the grounds for a successful appeal which includes being gay and then advise them how to present a case on the assumption they were gay. You could argue that your client seemed reluctant to admit they were gay due to the hostile environment he or she was raised in, hence you had to ‘push’ to ‘reveal the truth’ as you the lawyer saw ir.

There are a hundred and one ways to dress it up. I’m not arguing the rights and wrongs here, I’m arguing that if I have legal or financial experts representing my interests I would want them to prosecute those interests to the fullest extent and explore all options open to me.
 
Jimmieblue said:
I’m talking about pension funds, private pension funds. Yes we do all pay NI and some also put into private pensions to fund their retirement if they’re working. Rachel wants to have more say in where the pension funds are directed. I don’t trust them at all.
Click to expand...
Where has she said that? Can't see anything online. All I know is that some weeks back Tice was proposing having more say in where pension funds are invested. Perhaps you missed that? And if you didn't, surely you don't trust him either?
 
west didsblue said:
Governments have always given tax breaks for certain types of investments. I’ve not seen anything that does more than just tweak the rules.
Click to expand...
Labour want to force pension fund providers to invest in British assets. In other words do the job that Governments should have been doing all along with our taxes.
 
argyle said:
2% of welfare claimants were incorrectly paid to people. Just 2%. You are calling everyone out and say hardworking people are shafted etc, due to the 2%.

98% who are in recipient of welfare got it as they were rightly awarded it.

Again, the majority of the welfare bill is pensions and a third of UC claimants are people in work.

£24 billion set aside for benefits go unclaimed every year. So how is this a system being milked?

Whatever you're reading on facebook, stop as you're sprouting things that aren't actually true.
Click to expand...

It’s not the fraud that is the problem IMHO. I personally know someone who gets £4,600 a month in benefits. 3 kids, 2 with autism, works 16 hours a week. She isn’t claiming anything she isn’t entitled to or fiddling the system but she would need to be earning £80k a year putting her on the top 5% of earners in the UK to bring that home. Her life situation doesn’t strike me as being particularly unusual either.

Oh and she would be no worse off not working - maybe £200 a month (but wouldn’t have to pay for fuel to get to work or parking etc). With the lifting of the 2 child benefit cap she may start getting more, I would have to ask her.

The system is broken.
 
metalblue said:
It’s not the fraud that is the problem IMHO. I personally know someone who gets £4,600 a month in benefits. 3 kids, 2 with autism, works 16 hours a week. She isn’t claiming anything she isn’t entitled to or fiddling the system but she would need to be earning £80k a year putting her on the top 5% of earners in the UK to bring that home. Her life situation doesn’t strike me as being particularly unusual either.

Oh and she would be no worse off not working - maybe £200 a month.

The system is broken.
Click to expand...

Is she the sole parent?
 
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