The Labour Government

[Scottyboi]

Lbc is funny today.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Out of interest did you approve of the so called “bedroom tax” that was designed to make people give up social housing that was too large for their needs?

I agree with the stated rationale (although there were obviously some in the conservative who saw it as a method welfare claimants) not the methods.

It's not right that people in social housing occupy extra bedrooms they don't need when there's a shortage of appropriate social housing, but then some of the people penalised were disabled or elderly and needed the rooms. And there also needs to be sufficient numbers of appropriate properties for people to move out of under occupied social housing.

It was wrong to not do anything serious to enable councils to maintain and grow their social housing stock.

 

[BlueAnorak]

You don’t seem quite as energised about the cunts who lied about their own black hole and were dishonestly promising tax cuts.

The Tories - especially Hunt were useless.
Looks like Labour is going the same way.
The Common Factor?
Treasury Civil Servants by any chance?

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Wilson hasn’t been PM for nearly half a century.

Is he still available on a free transfer?

 

[BlueAnorak]

You don’t seem quite as energised about the cunts who lied about their own black hole and were dishonestly promising tax cuts.

Oh I was. Maybe not in the Socialist echo chamber that most Politics threads are.
But see last post for my actual opinions.
The problem is we need growth to pay for anything. We aren't getting it (and BTW many EU nations are in a worse state).
You can't increase the cake to divide amongst society needs via government expenditure without growth.
That has to be the KEY goal of any government.
If you just pay off the debt our society is doomed to stagnation.

 

[Scottyboi]

I agree with the stated rationale (although there were obviously some in the conservative who saw it as a method welfare claimants) not the methods.

It's not right that people in social housing occupy extra bedrooms they don't need when there's a shortage of appropriate social housing, but then some of the people penalised were disabled or elderly and needed the rooms. And there also needs to be sufficient numbers of appropriate properties for people to move out of under occupied social housing.

It was wrong to not do anything serious to enable councils to maintain and grow their social housing stock.

Mother in law lives in a 3 bed council house, they only need a 1 bed bungalow now really and would make life easier for them imo, there should be an incentive to make them want to downsize. They pay the rent so the tax has no effect on them, but I bet there is alot like that.

 

[BrianW]

Land value tax was tried by Wilson. It was a disaster.

The Poll Tax was tried by Richard II in the 14th Century. It was a disaster, but that didn't stop Thatcher from reviving it, or many Tories from applauding how 'fair' it was.

Times change. Methods become more sophisticated. Some kind of wealth tax is needed to remove some of the burden from people paying tax on income, which in this country is often wholly inadequate to sustain a reasonable life. As I have remarked before, modern governments don't run on air. It's no use complaining about disorder, for example, if police, courts and prisons are all underfunded.

 

[metalblue]

I agree with the stated rationale (although there were obviously some in the conservative who saw it as a method welfare claimants) not the methods.

It's not right that people in social housing occupy extra bedrooms they don't need when there's a shortage of appropriate social housing, but then some of the people penalised were disabled or elderly and needed the rooms. And there also needs to be sufficient numbers of appropriate properties for people to move out of under occupied social housing.

It was wrong to not do anything serious to enable councils to maintain and grow their social housing stock.

Fair enough mate, agree with everything you wrote there.

 

[KS55]

The Poll Tax was tried by Richard II in the 14th Century. It was a disaster, but that didn't stop Thatcher from reviving it, or many Tories from applauding how 'fair' it was.

Times change. Methods become more sophisticated. Some kind of wealth tax is needed to remove some of the burden from people paying tax on income, which in this country is often wholly inadequate to sustain a reasonable life. As I have remarked before, modern governments don't run on air. It's no use complaining about disorder, for example, if police, courts and prisons are all underfunded.

I think the only risk free wealth tax is inheritance tax. Taxing ‘live’ assets risks upsetting the market, which is what happened to Development land tax. Russian kleptomaniacs bought up half London by using offshore companies, an example of putting assets beyond the tax regime. There is also the phenomenon of divesting assets to complex trusts.
Inheritance tax, aimed at beneficial owners of all assets might get round some of these problems. Just a thought, I am no tax expert. Incidently, I think the beneficial owners of these schemes have to be identified within them now.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Oh I was. Maybe not in the Socialist echo chamber that most Politics threads are.
But see last post for my actual opinions.
The problem is we need growth to pay for anything. We aren't getting it (and BTW many EU nations are in a worse state).
You can't increase the cake to divide amongst society needs via government expenditure without growth.
That has to be the KEY goal of any government.
If you just pay off the debt our society is doomed to stagnation.

growth and investment is the only way out of this mess.
I thought Labour might see that but the speech yesterday was all about cuts again.