The Labour Government

[Chippy_boy]

it’s actually difficult to imagine anyone serving for 50 days, with the clear intention to sabotage the UK from the outset, causing more damage than Truss.

Horseshit. There's nothing to suggest she was doing anything other than what she thought was best to jumpstart the failing economy.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Did I say that? No. Why pick on me and not the OP who stated his opinion as fact when it is not?

Oh wait, it's because you are both rampant lefties. Silly me.

Fucking hilarious you think I’m a leftie, never mind a rampant one.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Horseshit. There's nothing to suggest she was doing anything other than what she thought was best to jumpstart the failing economy.

Your English comprehension skills are not the best.

 

[BTH]

Horseshit. There's nothing to suggest she was doing anything other than what she thought was best to jumpstart the failing economy.

Except the cast iron, copper-bottomed fact that her "mini budget" was deliberately not tested by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Except the cast iron, copper-bottomed fact that her "mini budget" was deliberately not tested by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.

Hilarious that he thinks the fact she was doing her best is some form of mitigation to her performance in office. It’s an aggravating, not a mitigating feature, and simply serves to underline how completely unfit for office, any public office in fact, that she was.

There are crack heads In Piccadilly Gardens who would do a better job as PM than Liz Truss.

 

[Vic]

Horseshit. There's nothing to suggest she was doing anything other than what she thought was best to jumpstart the failing economy.

You missed the point there. The "opinion" was that someone deliberately trying to wreck the UK economy couldn't have done worse than Truss doing her best for the economy.

For the former possibility, we'd have to let Farage have a go.

 

[west didsblue]

Hilarious that he thinks the fact she was doing her best is some form of mitigation to her performance in office. It’s an aggravating, not a mitigating feature, and simply serves to underline how completely unfit for office, any public office in fact, that she was.

There are crack heads In Piccadilly Gardens who would do a better job as PM than Liz Truss.

In fact there are no crack heads in Piccadilly Gardens who would do a worse job.

 

[NPBlue]

I don't have a problem with anyone wanting to legally minimise their tax bill. It's very simple: if you penalise investment, risk and hard work with high taxes, less people are will to invest, take risks and work hard. And on the other hand if you have a welfare state that is too generous, then more people are inclined to rely on the welfare state. It's really not rocket science.

Right now the balance is wrong. Taxes are too high already, people are leaving and avoiding paying their taxes by whatever legal means they can. And far too many people are on benefits.

Take the 2 child cap situation: What happens when you say to 2 unemployed people with nothing to do all day but stay at home copulating, that they can have child benefits for as many children as they like. They will end up with 3, 4, 5 kids all on benefits, living in poverty. That's not good for anyone nor for the state.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if Reeves lifted the cap for existing families only, but not more than 2 kids for new mums going forward. But I doubt well see that, just another state incentive to not work.

The balance regarding taxation is wrong, I agree with you 100% on that point. The problem lies with neoloberalism that was introduced in the early 80's.

The promise from that was tax cuts for the weathly would result in more spending from the rich which would trickle down into the wage packets of the less well off.

That hasn't happened. What has happened is the wealthy have bought assets, and as their waelth has increased, they are able to outbid increasing numbers of people for those assets.

The maths isn't hard to understand. A person with a potfolio of £500m earning an untaxed passive gain of, say 8% a year, is going to grow their wealth at a much faster rate than the average person who, over the last decade or so, hasn't seen much of an increase in their earnings.

What you are repeating is the message the rich want you to think. They own the media, the think tanks that produce their twisted analysis of the available statistics, and the poiticians they support appear on TV regurgitating those same twisted points as facts.

You have quoted an example of that, with your statement that too many people are leaving the country to avoid paying tax. That is simply not true. The articles in the press that headlined that were based on a report from a bloke living in South Africa, who, when questioned about its veracity, admitted he didn't have a clue about its accuracy and made the figures up after reading a few posts on Linkedin.

Accurate analysis of millionaires leaving the country points to maybe a hundred or so leaving, and half of them will return after a year or so away.

I get your frustration with life at the moment, but there is an awful lot of bullshit paraded as facts the rich want you to believe on their behalf.

Between 1945 and the early 80's the ordinary person enjoyed an increase in living standards unprecedented in the history of mankind, and that was partly funded by wealth tax. It didn't strip them of their money, that wasn't the point, they continued to enjoy their prviliged lives, but it allowed the country to rebuild after the second world war and introduce social policies that benefitted the greater good for society.

The frustrations most people now experience isn't the result of dole scroungers or immigrants, it's the failure of neoliberlism to tax wealth in an equitable way, and as their wealth constantly increases, they are sucking money not only from individuals, but also governments, to the extent we are now hearing, in the 6th richest country on earth, we can no longer afford the NHS, pensions, and whatever else the rich consider a blight on their incomes, which they have always opposed.

The message from wealthy people, backed up with headline articles in the media they own, is we have to cut welfare payments even further than we have known over the last 15 years or so to balnce the books.

Tax wealth, not work. It worked well in the past for a short while, and stop listening to those that want to crush us all and take us back into the grinding poverty that was the norm for centuries.

The far right are not your friends, They despise you.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Daughter was quoted that (give or take a few quid I can’t remember the exact amount) the other week when she needed to get to London and back to monte darlo, I didn’t ask her for a screen shot but she sent me this when she was quoted it not long back.

View attachment 175712

I was quoted £355 for a two hour single train journey a few weeks back directly on the operators website, which was dearer than a weekly season ticket / taxi / paying someone to give me a piggy back.

Irrespective freezing fares is dog shit. Our train fares should have some correlation irrespective of when you buy (some folk only know their plans at the last minute). For the record this isn’t the current governments fault.

I can do two weeks in Malta ... All Inclusive 5* including flights and transfers...... cheaper than that

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Hilarious that he thinks the fact she was doing her best is some form of mitigation to her performance in office. It’s an aggravating, not a mitigating feature, and simply serves to underline how completely unfit for office, any public office in fact, that she was.

There are crack heads In Piccadilly Gardens who would do a better job as PM than Liz Truss.

If you follow her on X you'll see what an absolute fruit cake she is

The UK certainly dodged a bullet when we got rid of her early

 

[hampshireblue]

The balance regarding taxation is wrong, I agree with you 100% on that point. The problem lies with neoloberalism that was introduced in the early 80's.

The promise from that was tax cuts for the weathly would result in more spending from the rich which would trickle down into the wage packets of the less well off.

That hasn't happened. What has happened is the wealthy have bought assets, and as their waelth has increased, they are able to outbid increasing numbers of people for those assets.

The maths isn't hard to understand. A person with a potfolio of £500m earning an untaxed passive gain of, say 8% a year, is going to grow their wealth at a much faster rate than the average person who, over the last decade or so, hasn't seen much of an increase in their earnings.

What you are repeating is the message the rich want you to think. They own the media, the think tanks that produce their twisted analysis of the available statistics, and the poiticians they support appear on TV regurgitating those same twisted points as facts.

You have quoted an example of that, with your statement that too many people are leaving the country to avoid paying tax. That is simply not true. The articles in the press that headlined that were based on a report from a bloke living in South Africa, who, when questioned about its veracity, admitted he didn't have a clue about its accuracy and made the figures up after reading a few posts on Linkedin.

Accurate analysis of millionaires leaving the country points to maybe a hundred or so leaving, and half of them will return after a year or so away.

I get your frustration with life at the moment, but there is an awful lot of bullshit paraded as facts the rich want you to believe on their behalf.

Between 1945 and the early 80's the ordinary person enjoyed an increase in living standards unprecedented in the history of mankind, and that was partly funded by wealth tax. It didn't strip them of their money, that wasn't the point, they continued to enjoy their prviliged lives, but it allowed the country to rebuild after the second world war and introduce social policies that benefitted the greater good for society.

The frustrations most people now experience isn't the result of dole scroungers or immigrants, it's the failure of neoliberlism to tax wealth in an equitable way, and as their wealth constantly increases, they are sucking money not only from individuals, but also governments, to the extent we are now hearing, in the 6th richest country on earth, we can no longer afford the NHS, pensions, and whatever else the rich consider a blight on their incomes, which they have always opposed.

The message from wealthy people, backed up with headline articles in the media they own, is we have to cut welfare payments even further than we have known over the last 15 years or so to balnce the books.

Tax wealth, not work. It worked well in the past for a short while, and stop listening to those that want to crush us all and take us back into the grinding poverty that was the norm for centuries.

The far right are not your friends, They despise you.

Very good post.

I'm just an average man in the street, but even in my circle I know someone whose pension has grown by over £200k in the last 12 months. Apart from having the pension in the first place, he has done absolutely nothing in the last year to increase his "wealth" over that period. Yes, he pays tax as he is in drawdown but would a 1%. in his case, £2k have a massive impact on him? I bet his portfolio varies by several £1000 every week, so a one off 1% withdrawal straight from the fund once a year really wouldn't cause a major hardship. To put it into context, my friend wouldn't even be affected as the proposal is that would only apply on over £10m.

 

[hampshireblue]

Except the cast iron, copper-bottomed fact that her "mini budget" was deliberately not tested by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.

Or the cabinet as she admitted openly in an interview. It literally was her baby.

 

[Vic]

I can do two weeks in Malta ... All Inclusive 5* including flights and transfers...... cheaper than that

You can do Cambridge to York any time cheaper than that.

 

[Vic]

Daughter was quoted that (give or take a few quid I can’t remember the exact amount) the other week when she needed to get to London and back to monte darlo, I didn’t ask her for a screen shot but she sent me this when she was quoted it not long back.

View attachment 175712

I was quoted £355 for a two hour single train journey a few weeks back directly on the operators website, which was dearer than a weekly season ticket / taxi / paying someone to give me a piggy back.

Irrespective freezing fares is dog shit. Our train fares should have some correlation irrespective of when you buy (some folk only know their plans at the last minute). For the record this isn’t the current governments fault.

Before I delve further, was that just for one person?

 

[metalblue]

Before I delve further, was that just for one person?

Yes, just one person in all cases (and standard class).

For my own experience I was actually just checking train times on the night before using the “buy tickets” approach. I tried similar last night and the ticket prices were perfectly normal, a bargain in some cases but they do have a Black Friday sale on currently.

 

[M18CTID]

Fucking hilarious you think I’m a leftie, never mind a rampant one.

He's completely and utterly lost the plot mate. He used to be a largely sensible poster, even if his politics were a little too right wing for me, but those days appear to be long gone.

Like you say, it's hilarious seeing these far-right swivel-eyed loons claiming anyone to the left of them is a leftie

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

He's completely and utterly lost the plot mate. He used to be a largely sensible poster, even if his politics were a little too right wing for me, but those days appear to be long gone.

Like you say, it's hilarious seeing these far-right swivel-eyed loons claiming anyone to the left of them is a leftie

I’m about as tediously middle of the road as it’s possible to be! As are you!

 

[Manc in London]

Hilarious that he thinks the fact she was doing her best is some form of mitigation to her performance in office. It’s an aggravating, not a mitigating feature, and simply serves to underline how completely unfit for office, any public office in fact, that she was.

There are crack heads In Piccadilly Gardens who would do a better job as PM than Liz Truss.

To be fair, "she tried hard"

 

[We've got Guardiola]

Very good post.

I'm just an average man in the street, but even in my circle I know someone whose pension has grown by over £200k in the last 12 months. Apart from having the pension in the first place, he has done absolutely nothing in the last year to increase his "wealth" over that period. Yes, he pays tax as he is in drawdown but would a 1%. in his case, £2k have a massive impact on him? I bet his portfolio varies by several £1000 every week, so a one off 1% withdrawal straight from the fund once a year really wouldn't cause a major hardship. To put it into context, my friend wouldn't even be affected as the proposal is that would only apply on over £10m.

You are missing one thing with this, you are only considering who you perceive to be wealthy by what they hold but you're missing how pension funds work. If you have a private pension then your pension is not a fund within itself. Most invest their pensions within a much larger fund and these funds buy into assets worth tens of billions.

Most would have to pay this tax because of the assets held by the pension fund. How much do funds appreciate per year on average? 5-10%? Would you happily remove 1% from your pension value per year?

Most people won't accept this, they want to maximise their pension and part of that means being tax-efficient. I do it myself, I am a tax avoider because I earn over £50k and put more into my pension to pay less tax because every £1 I earn over £50k is taxed at 40%. I could just accept that 40% is taxed and keep 60% and forget about it but I don't accept giving my money away so why would the rich think differently?

1% may seem like nothing but we'd all rather pay nothing and the rich are far more capable of finding ways to pay less. The problem is we want great public services but the evidence is we're simply not willing to pay for it. We see it on here, everybody comes up with various tax solutions where the main factor is it isn't them paying.

 

[hilts]

You are missing one thing with this, you are only considering who you perceive to be wealthy by what they hold but you're missing how pension funds work. If you have a private pension then your pension is not a fund within itself. Most invest their pensions within a much larger fund and these funds buy into assets worth tens of billions.

Most would have to pay this tax because of the assets held by the pension fund. How much do funds appreciate per year on average? 5-10%? Would you happily remove 1% from your pension value per year?

Most people won't accept this, they want to maximise their pension and part of that means being tax-efficient. I do it myself, I am a tax avoider because I earn over £50k and put more into my pension to pay less tax because every £1 I earn over £50k is taxed at 40%. I could just accept that 40% is taxed and keep 60% and forget about it but I don't accept giving my money away so why would the rich think differently?

1% may seem like nothing but we'd all rather pay nothing and the rich are far more capable of finding ways to pay less. The problem is we want great public services but the evidence is we're simply not willing to pay for it. We see it on here, everybody comes up with various tax solutions but the main factor is generally they're great providing that they don't involve them.

I must disagree here, plenty have said they would pay more, also if we based our tax system on what people want to pay the coffers would be in serious trouble.

The fact you say you earn good money but dont want to give even a small amount away just proves what a.......... I aint even gonna say it, I hope you end up paying that 1% and it irks you. People like you are the problem.