The Labour Government

[bluenova]

It’s not difficult to understand though, is it? Not if you stopped being a stooge for five minutes.

The tax burden was already set to rise, and rather than reverse that trend - which Reeves could do now that Labour are in power (important point that) - she’s actually going to add to the increase. So the rising tax burden we’ll see in the Budget will be Labour policy.

At the same time she’s already announced some big announced spending cuts. So why is Reeves saying no return to austerity, when that’s exactly what it is?

Didn't she announce yesterday that there won't be real cuts in overall spending?

They've also floated changes to the borrowing rules, with potentially some quite large increases in investment (Reports yesterday of £30bn+, although it wouldn't surprise me if they floated something big, and then went lower).

It does look like we're looking at tax increases, but again, those floated in advance appear to be wealth taxes, aimed at a smallish, well off part of society.

What gets announced may be totally different, but if spending is increased, and taxes are only increased for the wealthy, is that really austerity?

 

[stonerblue]

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.”

UK private schools rush to expand overseas as profits soar

Forty schools took in record £29m in 2020-21 from satellites, including in developing countries

www.theguardian.com

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

It’s not difficult to understand though, is it? Not if you stopped being a stooge for five minutes.

The tax burden was already set to rise, and rather than reverse that trend - which Reeves could do now that Labour are in power (important point that) - she’s actually going to add to the increase. So the rising tax burden we’ll see in the Budget will be Labour policy.

At the same time she’s already announced some big announced spending cuts. So why is Reeves saying no return to austerity, when that’s exactly what it is?

One party it's austerity, t'other party prudence. All depends whether or not yer in government.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

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.”

Have the tax payers alliance ever be in favour of any tax policy?

Was the CEO privately educated?

Does he send his children to a private school?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

On top of repaying the loans?

Should have been clearer. I meant for the ones who never had a loan..

 

[hilts]

Didn't she announce yesterday that there won't be real cuts in overall spending?

They've also floated changes to the borrowing rules, with potentially some quite large increases in investment (Reports yesterday of £30bn+, although it wouldn't surprise me if they floated something big, and then went lower).

It does look like we're looking at tax increases, but again, those floated in advance appear to be wealth taxes, aimed at a smallish, well off part of society.

What gets announced may be totally different, but if spending is increased, and taxes are only increased for the wealthy, is that really austerity?

Never accept what they say, discuss what they do because often they aren't the same thing

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Should have been clearer. I meant for the ones who never had a loan..

Daft policy then. Why is the fact that someone went to university a relevant fact?

Just tax people on their income regardless of whether they did.

I'd put the what is the top rate tax back up to 50%.

And then put an enhanced rate of at least 55 on people earning over £250,000.

 

[bluenova]

Never accept what they say, discuss what they do because often they aren't the same thing

They've not had a budget yet.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Daft policy then. Why is the fact that someone went to university a relevant fact?

Just tax people on their income regardless of whether they did.

I'd put the what is the top rate tax back up to 50%.

And then put an enhanced rate of at least 55 on people earning over £250,000.

Because, if they went after 2012, they’re effectively paying an extra 9% in tax.
If they cancelled all student debt and put free education back on the table, I’d happily go along with your suggestion.

There’s very little acknowledgement, especially from the low tax brigade on here, of this ridiculous additional burden and all I was trying to say was, if you graduated before 2012, let’s tax you at the same rate and see what attitude changes there would be then…..

 

[inbetween]

The air pollution argument for electric cars isn’t as strong as we’d immediately think due to particles that come off the tyres given the weight of EVs. It certainly needs a bit more scrutiny by experts to say how dangerous they are and in what quantities do EVs produce them. On the flip side we are at the start of this energy transformation so things will improve from here in terms of tech.

I’m also not entirely sure it’s such as far away problem for the treasury. They’re already going to charging EVs road tax from next year for the first time - this will raise over £1bn which the treasury has “lost”. Although due to the extra cost of EVs the treasury has benefited from higher VAT from non company purchases (where it’s being used solely for business use).

This argument on tyres is a bit silly. A Range Rover weighs 50% more than a Tesla Model 3 so why hasn't this argument been made for combustion cars? Why does it only apply to EV's? If it's a problem then why don't we just ban any car above 2 tons which includes most Jaguars, Range Rovers and the stupidly sized SUV's that people drive nowadays?

The air pollution problem comes down unfortunately to maths and not tyres. Combustion engines are much more efficient than they were even 10 years ago but the cumulative effect is that more cars are on the road than ever before. 75 years ago there was no car related air pollution but that's because there were no cars on the road.

The only way around this is to wholesale replace combustion engines with EV's or stop people driving altogether and move them onto public transport. The latter isn't going to happen because public transport is shite and expensive so there is only one choice until somebody figures out an alternative. On tyres alone Tesla are developing a replacement for tyres anyway, that can easily be fixed.

Hydrogen is an alternative but it isn't going to work because the fuel itself is too expensive to produce versus sustainable electricity. A hydrogen fill up today would cost around £30 for 300 miles, my Tesla costs me £2 and electricity eventually will be almost free to produce because it won't require fossil fuels. With hydrogen I'd expect the same arguments against EV's to be made whilst people bizarrely still argue in favour of choking on carbon monoxide or Co2.