The Labour Government

Brewster's millions said:
What difference does that make? Absolutely none and it’s a pretty desperate argument you’re making here.

The tax burden was already rising, and Reeves is set to add to that increase, not reverse it. Quite important that bit, because she’s now Chancellor and could reverse it if she wanted. Meanwhile, significant, new spending cuts have already been announced. She did this after a few weeks in the job.

So I’ll ask the question again, given that you’ve refused to answer it. Why is Reeves saying that they’ll be no return to austerity, when that’s exactly what she’s delivering?
Click to expand...
I’m not looking for any argument just struggled to understand which taxes were baked in ( assuming you were referring to Labour)

Sure they said investment is/ will be forthcoming to pay for services
 
mosssideblue said:
For the tax rises I foresee Labour going for Fags, booze and fuel as the ones to hit most people
Click to expand...

The problem for Reeves with fuel duty is cars are more economical these days and we have electric cars. I suspect she’ll be more tempted to look at pay per mile. Given the unfair nature of fuel duty (you pay tax on tax) I’d like to see a much fairer system where we pay a fixed cost to register your car each year (around £500) with a pay per mile on main roads and remove fuel duty entirely. Obviously HGVs and the such would have some other fixed cost and potentially per mile rate to pay.

It’ll be far simpler to implement and far more transparent- I suspect it will make people question if they need to travel far more than the current model as it’s much clearer how much each mile costs.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I don’t agree at all. I’m 63 and have never had an employer contribution of more than 5 or 6%. Anything above that is generous. And yet we see 30%+ in the public sector, commonly.
Click to expand...
You must have had a shit employer.
Look how other pensions in the private sector compare…
EG work for BP employer puts in 20%, employee puts in nowt.

www.thetimes.com

How to get a £1.5m pension pot: the most generous places to work

Hoping to retire in luxury? Be careful where you apply. Analysis of FTSE 100 companies has revealed a big gap between the most and least generous schemes
www.thetimes.com www.thetimes.com
 
Chippy_boy said:
I've really never got my head around why anyone would think that, other than that they are just horrible bitter individuals, resentful of anyone doing better than them. I hope that is not you.

The vast majority of people sending their kids to private school are not multi-millionaires, they are normal people, often 2 working parents who are making big personal sacrifices for the good of their children. And now thousands upon thousands just won't be able to afford it.

Is that really something to be proud of? Every kid NOT in state education is 1 less person for the state to fund educating. 1 less person in a crowded classroom. Sometimes 1 less kid with special needs that needs to be accommodated. More money per pupil for those in state schools, so they can have smaller classes and better education.

Other than bitter resentment, I can think of no reason why anyone would want to discourage this, with the aim of raising a few quid. Labour's own figures suggest that 65% of the VAT revenue will be lost on increased state education costs. The Treasury's own figures suggest it will actually COST more money than it saves.

BTW, I went to a state school, just for the record.

John O’Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said:

“VAT on private schools is a clear cut case of a policy gimmick that will do grievous harm to families with potentially pathetic results for revenues.

“Politicians may talk of a level-playing field, but taxpayers won’t be fooled by proposals that simply punish ambition without even achieving its own objectives.

“Labour should abandon this disastrous policy.”
Click to expand...

These hard-working mums and dads can simply drink less high street coffee and get rid of their Netflix subscription. Maybe not have a wide screen telly and/or sky tv and all will be fine for them.
That’s what the genuine poor have been told for the last 14 years. Sauce for the goose etc.
 
metalblue said:
The problem for Reeves with fuel duty is cars are more economical these days and we have electric cars. I suspect she’ll be more tempted to look at pay per mile. Given the unfair nature of fuel duty (you pay tax on tax) I’d like to see a much fairer system where we pay a fixed cost to register your car each year (around £500) with a pay per mile on main roads and remove fuel duty entirely. Obviously HGVs and the such would have some other fixed cost and potentially per mile rate to pay.

It’ll be far simpler to implement and far more transparent- I suspect it will make people question if they need to travel far more than the current model as it’s much clearer how much each mile costs.
Click to expand...
Should find a way of binning car tax too and add that to fuel somehow
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.