You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Labour Government
- Thread starter SkyBlueFlux
- Start date
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Agree with you entirely again.The system puts you off applying and it takes a hell of a lot to put your pride aside, i suspect a lot of older people just cant do it . This makes this plan so unfair , going after poor people and sick people is a cunts trick
It is right rich pensioners dont get wfa but the cut off needs to be looked at first , to do it this winter makes me hate the fucking sight of labour , they do not know or are ignoring the points i have made and just gone there it is easy pickings
Reeves et all are being entirely disingenuous when saying the lowest paid will be protected since they can claim pension credit and then get the WFA. They know full well that probably 90% of people eligible who currently are not in receipt of pension credit, will remain not in receipt of it, for a variety of reasons.
The supreme irony being that if as a result of a push, everyone eligible were miraculously to claim PC, then removing WFA would have COST money, not saved it.
Someone wrote (sorry I cannot remember who), you CANNOT justify penalizing the lowest paid pensioners out of some ideologically driven hatred of the fact that "rich" pensioners get the allowance.
kaz7
Well-Known Member
I am hiding nothing , the state want to know how many times i piss myself a day , you have no idea how dehumanising it is being on benefits , you have swallowed the ring wing press bollocks instead of taking an interest of hearing what it is actually likeLets hope they are. But the people complaining about checking your savings accounts if you are on benefits, must have something to hide. Otherwise, whats the issue?
There by the grace of god , it takes a second to become disabled, think on.
Kompany Car
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 3,614
Id vote for that. Why anyone needs to drive around in a tank to drop thier kids off at school is beyond me. They are all tested to the same crash protection standards as passenger cars and can actually be less safe. When it comes to pedestrian protection they are much worse.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?
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/oct/07/a-deadly-problem-should-we-ban-suvs-from-our-cities
Reeves already has room to boost investment in the near-term, without any changes to the fiscal rules, because she can determine the extent to which headline borrowing- which has to roughly halve over the next five years in order to hit the overriding debt rule - is split between the current budget deficit and net investment.
In the last fiscal year, about 40% of headline borrowing related to the current budget, and the rest was investment. Therefore if she can reduce the current budget deficit faster than currently envisaged, then she can open up room for more investment. So Reeves talking about tough choices, rising investment and no real terms cuts in overall spending is all possible if she has a very strict, austere in fact, control over the current budget. Which obviously fits in with cutting the WFA and tough talk on benefits etc, as well as the spending cuts already announced.
This discussion around tweaking the fiscal rules in order to better capture the benefits of investment, and possibly place these against the rise in debt and allow for more investment, is interesting but fanciful in my view. The big issue here is how to measure these benefits, and markets will rightly be concerned by very favourable methodologies being employed which funnily enough help ensure the fiscal rules aren’t broken.
There may be some movement on this in the budget but it will be very tentative, and any big increases in investment will come from tax rises and very tight controls over other areas of expenditure, and ultimately headline borrowing will still decline. So still fiscal constraint.
Finally, you need to be very careful around this narrative around only the wealthy facing additional taxes, chiefly because it’s nonsense. No doubt some additional tax hikes will be announced and these will hit the wealthiest, but the vast majority of the increased tax revenue over the next few years will come from fiscal drag around income tax allowances, and everyone working will be paying for that.
Agree on the final point. I guess we'll see what happens - but I'd hope that they're able to row back on the tax allowance freeze later in the parliament.
Not sure that the markets would be too shocked by a little, or even quite strong relaxation of the rules. To a great extent, they're political rules, to reassure voters, and cut down Tory attack lines. You're more likely to see economists and finance experts arguing that they're overly strict.
I think we've discussed before what people mean by austerity, and I do think it bears repeating, that people associate it with turbo charged version that George Osborne introduced. Clearly deep cuts in the public sector, freezing wages, and cutting back on investment, didn't lead to the boom in private sector growth that would make everything ok.
We don't know how and where Reeves will keep costs down, but her promotion of growth is a lot more orthodox, and I'd expect it to feel very different to the Osborne years. Ultimately the proof will be in the pudding. If public sector workers are getting pay rises, houses are being built, clean energy lowers bills, and people see things changing for the better, then technical conversations about fiscal rules are likely to be forgotten.
P
P
PPT
Guest
Fairness.Privacy.
Kompany Car
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 3,614
Maybe we should tax people even more on the basis that they were bright enough to be educated at Oxbridge, because on average they earn more than people from other universities...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.
As you say the only sensible way is by a tax increase on the top rate. Income tax should be based on the ability to pay, thats the only measure that makes sense.
Everyone should have a level of disposable income but when that disposable income gets excessive it causes divisions in society. Not everyone is going to earn the same, or be able to have the same lifestyle, but the gap has grown too far in recent years between the top few percent and the rest and it needs correcting. I say that as someone who probably sits within that group.
Kompany Car
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 3,614
Be surprised if they were daft enough to have the money in a bank account, would be better looking at their physical assets or under their bed.I suspect they will only be looking at the bank accounts of those suspected of working as well as claiming benefits.
P
P
PPT
Guest
Or checking their passports for foreign holidays.Be surprised if they were daft enough to have the money in a bank account, would be better looking at their physical assets or under their bed.