The Labour Government

[meltonblue]

Maybe, but that's long term stuff and she needs it quicker than that.
FWIW I would pay an extra 2-3% on VAT on items over, say £200. It's discretionary spending and if the limit was set right, may not impact on the very lowest paid. I would also be happy with a higher rate of income tax, but it would have to be part of a progressive change of the tax system eg getting rid of the 60% rate at £100k ( and no I don't pay that rate). If 60% is good enough at £100k, a change could be made to surely make it right over £150-£200k.

Agree with this completely.

 

[hilts]

Being really blunt, finance wise we probably need a war, that’s always been the main re-setter when too much gets in the hands of too few. Peace comes at a price eventually too, at least in our prevailing system.

Can we have it with the Welsh this time? I liked the singing in Zulu very much. Deadpool is not invited though.

 

[Don Karleone]

There are people in this country who can afford to take the hit more than people on benefits. That's where my head is. I'm listening to disability charities and other carers that I know.

I'm "lucky" enough not to lose my £80 a week carers allowance from these cuts, others won't be.

 

[meltonblue]

Can we have it with the Welsh this time? I liked the singing in Zulu very much. Deadpool is not invited though.

Nah, not enough redistribution needed for that, particularly if you’re not paying for Deadpool.

 

[BigJoe#1]

Yeah, that's the important thing from tonight's vote. It's the Labour party that is screwing people over, the ones you voted for.

Each and every single one of his posts is always uninformed bullshit. He is so brainwashed it is unbelievable. As I previously posted - if Starmer said today was Christmas day he'd be there championing the announcement.

 

[meltonblue]

Yeah, that's the important thing from tonight's vote. It's the Labour party that is screwing people over, the ones you voted for.

He’s not wrong about the sentiment though to be fair.

 

[Don Karleone]

He’s not wrong about the sentiment though to be fair.

I disagree with @BlueHammer85 when it comes to football and politics, he's alright music-wise. I agree with @BigJoe#1 on this one.

I think I need to go to bed, no offence Joe. I don't usually agree with you either.

 

[bluethrunthru]

There are people in this country who can afford to take the hit more than people on benefits. That's where my head is. I'm listening to disability charities and other carers that I know.

I'm "lucky" enough not to lose my £80 a week carers allowance from these cuts, others won't be.

Thing that gets me is I am fine - retired at 60 on a works pension - never had any benefits ever but in the last 4 years I have had a few health issues that come with age (and some lifestyle choices if I am honest) so events like this make me think and explore more into the consequences ahead for me. I am a Labour supporter but some of the politics in the last year have been blind to my values - there are other targets that can produce the revenue the Govt wants. My concern is that if something happened tonight and as a result I qualified for PiP etc I should be ok. If the same thing happens in 5 or 10 years time not so - and thats just down to dates not needs which has to be wrong. The last 15 years have seen the money trickle UP not down - to paraphrase 30p Lee - " I want our money back"

 

[meltonblue]

I disagree with @BlueHammer85 when it comes to football and politics, he's alright music-wise. I agree with @BigJoe#1 on this one.

I think I need to go to bed, no offence Joe. I don't usually agree with you either.

No idea what his opinions are on any of it :) Just that the sentiment that there’s a few reform voters that seem contradictory in their opinions after what’s happened is a valid stance.

Doesn’t detract from the rightful criticism labour deserve, it’s just another example of some being overly partisan when it comes to politics, which I’ve never understood.

 

[Kirkstall Blue]

Cheers. Well, that’s what democracy’s for.

Personally, I’d like to see massive reform of all areas of welfare/benefits and give those that need it a decent standard of living, including supply of social housing and social infrastructure.

I suppose this is part of what they are trying to, save money to invest elsewhere. How they thought Labour MPs would go along with this, I’m not sure.

As the state pension age has increased it’s hardly surprising to the government that the amount of incapacity claims will rise in accordance with the rises in pension age. It should be no surprise to the government that starting from the age of fifty people become more disabled/incapacitated we all get old and that’s why the rise in pension age is not bringing about the savings they once thought it would.

The government want to help get working age people back into work, they are all about the working person it’s their catch phrase but with advancing age there is disease and disability.

Starmer and Reeves will have to come up with a better way of saving money I wonder what’s next ?

 

[city2]

You only get the full pip if your in work still, if retired you can apply for a lower allowance

 

[Chippy_boy]

The 37k is not a realistic figure as it's distorted too much by high earners, I'm not sure I buy the argument the rich are happy to pay some but will.rearrange to avoid it if it goes too high. People will generally legally pay the absolute minimum.

The minimum is zero and lots of people are choosing to pay that now. By leaving the UK. Raise the higher rate to 6o% and watch even more of them leave and receipts plummet.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

As the state pension age has increased it’s hardly surprising to the government that the amount of incapacity claims will rise in accordance with the rises in pension age. It should be no surprise to the government that starting from the age of fifty people become more disabled/incapacitated we all get old and that’s why the rise in pension age is not bringing about the savings they once thought it would.

The government want to help get working age people back into work, they are all about the working person it’s their catch phrase but with advancing age there is disease and disability.

Starmer and Reeves will have to come up with a better way of saving money I wonder what’s next ?

On the other side of the coin, there are many who still want to work past 67, and that’s what all sides will be encouraging. We know what the pension requirement is, but with the rate of younger people claiming incapacity, the funding can only come from a very small pool.

It has to happen and one of these governments have to be strong and decide on a way forward, because it’s going to be unsustainable in the future.

Could it be the triple lock next?

 

[BlueHammer85]

I reckon it is going to be very tight, very very tight. In the last hour there has been only one speaker that has said they will support it and the majority of speakers have been Labour members.

75 majority, hardly very very tight. Clueless once again and you’re getting all giddy about this knowing full well you’d love nothing more than Farage in power to go much further than this against people out of work and those claiming disability payments.

 

[meltonblue]

The minimum is zero and lots of people are choosing to pay that now. By leaving the UK. Raise the higher rate to 6o% and watch even more of them leave and receipts plummet.

So just let them. Others will take their place who will be far better for society overall, there’s plenty willing.

How much someone gets paid, and more importantly how much they earn overall, is no longer equal to the value they give society, and hasn’t been for a long time. That’s either in contributions in tax or any other measure.

 

[Vic]

The minimum is zero and lots of people are choosing to pay that now. By leaving the UK. Raise the higher rate to 6o% and watch even more of them leave and receipts plummet.

We know their sort.

Citizens of Nowhere.

 

[Chippy_boy]

So just let them. Others will take their place who will be far better for society overall, there’s plenty willing.

How much someone gets paid, and more importantly how much they earn overall, is no longer equal to the value they give society, and hasn’t been for a long time. That’s either in contributions in tax or any other measure.

Just not true mate I'm afraid. The top 1% of tax earners contribute a hugely disproportionate amount to the overall tax receipts and when even 1 of them clears off, it leaves an enormous hole.

It's late and I don't have the article to hand but I read somewhere about the number of extra normal jobs that have to be created to make up for just 1 of these people leaving and it was a shockingly large number. An unrealistic number.

Wishing - or even accepting - that the very rich may clear off is a terrible strategy.

 

[Chippy_boy]

We know their sort.

Citizens of Nowhere.

Dubai, Monaco, Cayman Islands... All sorts of places. Let alone those who own companies and just move their profits offshore office so they can pay less corporation tax.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Q: is there any likelihood that increasing the rate to 50% would raise significant amounts of additional tax?

A: "The evidence suggests that raising the top rate of income tax from 45% to 50% would likely raise only a small amount of additional tax revenue, and possibly less than expected.

When the 50% rate was previously in place (2010–2013), tax receipts were lower than forecast because high earners responded by reducing their taxable income—through tax planning, shifting income, or other means.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) and HMRC found that, after accounting for these behavioral responses, the 50% rate raised only about £0.6 billion per year more than the 45% rate, far less than the theoretical maximum if people did not change their behavior.

The IFS and other researchers conclude that the revenue-maximizing rate is close to 48%, so moving from 45% to 50% would raise some extra revenue, but the amount would be modest and highly uncertain.

If people did not change their behavior at all, the increase could be as much as £3.3 billion per year, but in reality, the actual increase is likely to be much smaller due to income shifting and other responses.

In summary, there is some likelihood that increasing the top rate to 50% would raise additional tax, but the amount would be limited and far lower than a simple calculation suggests. Most official and independent estimates put the extra revenue at well under £1 billion per year, with significant uncertainty."

 

[BTH]

The minimum is zero and lots of people are choosing to pay that now. By leaving the UK. Raise the higher rate to 6o% and watch even more of them leave and receipts plummet.

Can you provide your source as well as figures for the people you claim are leaving the UK, given that it's a lot harder to stay anywhere in Europe for long now thanks to Brexit?