The Labour Government

[TinFoilHat]

A mate of mine, a devour labour voter, who I always take the piss out of for being tight has spent his working life understanding how to use money to increase his small lot. He's not a greedy ****. Just enough so that he has a worry free retirement by investing his money wisely has just been told by the leader of his party that's he's not working class and may be further taxed on those investments.

Sounds a bit fucked up to me. Once again going for the average Joe over the tax evaders/domiciles.

A government should be encouraging financial advice and budgeting as part of a national curriculum so the people have a basic knowledge of protecting their own wealth and together increasing it so no one is left behind.

I suppose that would mean the banks credit slavery system would be fucked over so there's no chance it will happen.

 

[metalblue]

The first sign of sense breaking out.

Taken with a determination not to borrow for everyday spending it adds up to fiscal sanity.

Not that Tories will admit that. And so many people imagine governments can easily find savings, forgetting that they've been doing that for 40 years, with a particular impetus in the last 14.
Of course, the ones who want benefits cuts do not mean the ones they receive! They want other people's benefits cut.

It’s certainly a good thing in my book. It’s bold and right. It might cost a little more in terms of our borrowing - and that includes on mortgages - but it’s a shared “pain” for a greater good.

From the various rumours going around about the budget she has a few bear traps she needs to avoid, specifically on creating divisions (eg between public and private sector pensions). We’re divided enough as a country. They may not have entered government with the same hope Blair did but Reeves does have a chance to change that narrative. I’m looking forward to it and actually a bit optimistic.

 

[metalblue]

A mate of mine, a devour labour voter, who I always take the piss out of for being tight has spent his working life understanding how to use money to increase his small lot. He's not a greedy ****. Just enough so that he has a worry free retirement by investing his money wisely has just been told by the leader of his party that's he's not working class and may be further taxed on those investments.

Sounds a bit fucked up to me. Once again going for the average Joe over the tax evaders/domiciles.

A government should be encouraging financial advice and budgeting as part of a national curriculum so the people have a basic knowledge of protecting their own wealth and together increasing it so no one is left behind.

I suppose that would mean the banks credit slavery system would be fucked over so there's no chance it will happen.

Starmer is a weak link at the moment. He ends up spreading more confusion whenever he speaks.

His basically defined himself as someone who is not a working person. Weird ****.

 

[BrianW]

How do you define 'working person'?

The MD of a FTSE 100 company is a 'working person' in that they are employed, get a salary, and work for a living. (Very hard work, I should imagine, with a lot of responsibility.) However, they are lavishly paid and it's hard to see how they are hard-up in any real sense. They almost certainly do not spend all they earn and it's a good bet they have a fair bit of wealth tucked away.

This government is probably thinking more of people who live from payday to payday and have little or nothing in savings. There are more in this precarious position than we care to admit and in my view it's not unreasonable that they should be the first priority.

Ideal? No. Ideally, this country would be in a stable financial position, with a good trading arrangement with its nearest neighbours (cough, cough) and excellent public services would be the norm.

We are nowhere near that, and the debate is really about how you get there.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I retired 3 years ago and have 2 pensions as income. They have risen annually in line with scheme rules. I own my own house which has increased in value since I bought it and since I retired 3 years ago. So I have rising incomes but am doing fuck all to earn them so don't consider myself to be a working person any more

 

[TinFoilHat]

How do you define 'working person'?

The MD of a FTSE 100 company is a 'working person' in that they are employed, get a salary, and work for a living. (Very hard work, I should imagine, with a lot of responsibility.) However, they are lavishly paid and it's hard to see how they are hard-up in any real sense. They almost certainly do not spend all they earn and it's a good bet they have a fair bit of wealth tucked away.

This government is probably thinking more of people who live from payday to payday and have little or nothing in savings. There are more in this precarious position than we care to admit and in my view it's not unreasonable that they should be the first priority.

Ideal? No. Ideally, this country would be in a stable financial position, with a good trading arrangement with its nearest neighbours (cough, cough) and excellent public services would be the norm.

We are nowhere near that, and the debate is really about how you get there.

He came across as clumsily saying what you've just said more articulately.

I see it at work there's millions of people that are either living on credit card or nothing to survive paying their bills and having next to nothing left over.

It really is a generational shift required to try and create equity after 14 years of take from the previous government.

Labour will be lucky to get 10 years without a major world crisis or two to try and tip the balance back.

 

[hampshireblue]

A mate of mine, a devour labour voter, who I always take the piss out of for being tight has spent his working life understanding how to use money to increase his small lot. He's not a greedy ****. Just enough so that he has a worry free retirement by investing his money wisely has just been told by the leader of his party that's he's not working class and may be further taxed on those investments.

Sounds a bit fucked up to me. Once again going for the average Joe over the tax evaders/domiciles.

A government should be encouraging financial advice and budgeting as part of a national curriculum so the people have a basic knowledge of protecting their own wealth and together increasing it so no one is left behind.

I suppose that would mean the banks credit slavery system would be fucked over so there's no chance it will happen.

I would hope that there is certainly some allowance for the likes of your mate. This whole debate shows what a mess the tax system is in. A few anomalies: The "minimum wage" is taxed, there is no consistency between taxing individuals and taxing a household eg child benefit, Marginal tax rate from £100k-£125k is 60% then drops after that.

The starting point should be that the lowest tax rates should be for those people who actually earn or in the case of pensioners drawdown an income to live on. After that, and in no particular order, should be un-earned income be dividends, inheritance tax, rental income etc. etc. The tax rates and thresholds are up for debate but the underpin should be that the lowest rate of tax are for income for actually working. Only with that underpin can you have a truly progressive tax system that makes the whole system fairer. Where to start is another matter....??

 

[metalblue]

How do you define 'working person'?

The MD of a FTSE 100 company is a 'working person' in that they are employed, get a salary, and work for a living. (Very hard work, I should imagine, with a lot of responsibility.) However, they are lavishly paid and it's hard to see how they are hard-up in any real sense. They almost certainly do not spend all they earn and it's a good bet they have a fair bit of wealth tucked away.

This government is probably thinking more of people who live from payday to payday and have little or nothing in savings. There are more in this precarious position than we care to admit and in my view it's not unreasonable that they should be the first priority.

Ideal? No. Ideally, this country would be in a stable financial position, with a good trading arrangement with its nearest neighbours (cough, cough) and excellent public services would be the norm.

We are nowhere near that, and the debate is really about how you get there.

A working person is someone whose main source of income is salary or pension. Any other definition is divisive - that CEO or MD is being paid, not for the work they do today, but for the 30-40 years of experience they have built to be able to deal with the shit that happens in those roles.

Of course, as you point out, there are plenty who are living pay day to pay day - the long term answer isn’t wealth redistribution through taxation but proper pay - although I’m sure some will say they should budget better given that was their answer for pensioners who would struggle without the WFA.

 

[metalblue]

I retired 3 years ago and have 2 pensions as income. They have risen annually in line with scheme rules. I own my own house which has increased in value since I bought it and since I retired 3 years ago. So I have rising incomes but am doing fuck all to earn them so don't consider myself to be a working person any more

Interesting point, the obvious answer is “You’re not. You’ve retired. You don’t work” but you have to be treated as someone who is a “worker” given your main source of income Is pension and this should be treated as wages - as it is today. So to precise my previous response the definition should include salary and/or pension as main source of income.

 

[inbetween]

A mate of mine, a devour labour voter, who I always take the piss out of for being tight has spent his working life understanding how to use money to increase his small lot. He's not a greedy ****. Just enough so that he has a worry free retirement by investing his money wisely has just been told by the leader of his party that's he's not working class and may be further taxed on those investments.

Sounds a bit fucked up to me. Once again going for the average Joe over the tax evaders/domiciles.

A government should be encouraging financial advice and budgeting as part of a national curriculum so the people have a basic knowledge of protecting their own wealth and together increasing it so no one is left behind.

I suppose that would mean the banks credit slavery system would be fucked over so there's no chance it will happen.

What certain Labour voters want is a system where they save and keep all of their income but somebody else pays for everything else. And this is where the argument on socialism falls apart.

It goes completely against our human instincts which are tribal and not species collective.