The Labour Government

Chippy_boy said:
Sure what of it? Has nothing to do with my point that the PLP, if nominating Rayner, could end up with her as PM even if they think her unsuitable.
Click to expand...

I would say the PLP, labour members and voters really need someone closer to Corbyn politically than to Starmer, they could however do without the historical baggage that came with Corbyn and his way of expressing himself. I would suggest Raynor is close to that without discarding others.
If Starmer ever went I'm not sure a Streeting, Reeves or Kendall would be a good idea.
Starmer has benefitted from A) conning the members into believing he is something he isn't and B) having an unusual set of circumstances where a small number of votes got him a large number of seats.
He has coalition numbers at best but in his head he thinks he's earnt some sort of mandate to run the country. Its no wonder he isn't very popular, he never was in reality.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I agree to an extent, but what I find odd is that whilst Labour supporters generally seem to agree that Labour face a difficult task with the economy in such a mess, there's zero recognition that the Tories did also.

The country was in a dire straight when Cameron took over with huge national debt and a £150bn deficit meaning the debt was rocketing upwards. Then we've had the enormous disruption - and distraction - of Brexit, the VAST unbudgeting sums that had to be paid in COVID support, and also the war in Ukraine causing rampant inflation. None of these were the Tories fault and yet the narrative is "after the devastation by Tories".

Of course they made mistakes over 14 years. Labour have made plenty over 1 year. Labour are really struggling to balance the books and hence the daft decisions on pensioners and the disabled. Well guess what, the Tories struggled to balance the same books.
Click to expand...
The mistake wasnt bailing out the banks in 2008, it was not making them repay the bail out over the longer term.
 
The Stockport Iniesta said:
Couldn't agree more, they haven't a clue why they were voted in. Attempting to take money from the poorest won't be forgotten, fucking idiots.
Click to expand...
In hindsight the fiasco around the freebies at the very start of their term was a good guide of what was to come.

They genuinely couldn’t see or appreciate why the public was annoyed by the issue. Nor could they see any problem in having what in some cases was an additional, significant source of tax free income, even when they were doing things like removing the WFA.

It then took them an age to get on top of the issue and Starmer failed to show any real leadership on an issue which really should have been nipped in the bud. It showed a lack of common sense and political judgment and that’s continued to today.
 
Kompany Car said:
The government missed a trick by giving the non doms a stay of execution before changing the tax rules, allowing them time to get their affairs in order. The were going to leave anyway, so you might as well have just took a massive bite of their wealth as they left the country.

As has been said multiple times, the only easy way to tax the very wealthy is to tax their immovable assets (i.e. land and housing) and close the loop holes around holding them in trusts/businesses etc.
Click to expand...
The biggest reason many non-doms are buggering off is what Reeves has done regards foreign owned assets and IHT. She's taken a position which is both unfair and also doomed as an idiotic idea.

I.e. She's introduced IHT (at 40%) on non-doms' foreign assets. This is bonkers on any level, moral or practical.

Example: You have a Greek millionaire living in London whose made all his millions in Greece and has a income he pays his UK tax on, fair and square. He owns a £10m yacht in Greece that he's bought and paid for during his working life in Greece.

Now, if he dies whilst in the UK, his family have to give Reeves £4m tax on the value of his yacht. Or he can fuck off back to Greece and they don't have to pay it.

This is just an example. But consider how unworkable it is in a more obvious way. Suppose Elon Musk decided he wanted to live in London as a non-dom. Do you really think he would countenance his family having to give Reeves $120bn tax on all his foreign assets when he dies? It's utterly ludicrous.

Seeking to take tax off someone's money that has nothing to do with the UK is totally unjustifiable and unfair. I cannot imagine many Brits staying if the same was done to them.
 
Last edited:
Chippy_boy said:
The biggest reason many non-doms are buggering off is what Reeves has done regards foreign owned assets and IHT. She's taken a position which is both unfair and also doomed as an idiotic idea.

I.e. She's introduced IHT (at 40%) on non-doms' foreign assets. This is bonkers on any level, moral or practical.

Example: You have a Greek millionaire living in London whose made all his millions in Greece and has a income he pays his UK tax on, fair and square. He owns a £10m yacht in Greece that he's bought and paid for during his working life in Greece.

Now, if he dies whilst in the UK, his family have to give Reeves £4m tax on the value of his yacht. Or he can fuck off back to Greece and they don't have to pay it.

This is just an example. But consider how unworkable it is in a more obvious way. Suppose Elon Musk decided he wanted to live in London as a non-dom. Do you really think he would countenance his family having to give Reeves £120bn tax on all his foreign assets when he dies? It's utterly ludicrous.

Seeking to take tax off someone's money that has nothing to do with the UK is totally unjustifiable and unfair. I cannot imagine many Brits staying if the same was done to them.
Click to expand...
So is it just the non-doms buggering off now and not all the millionaires?
 
stonerblue said:
So is it just the non-doms buggering off now and not all the millionaires?
Click to expand...
No child, I didn't raise the point about non-doms, I was replying. And FWIW I never claimed that all of the tax avoidance that goes on when taxes are too high is down to people leaving the UK. Anyone not on PAYE has quite a lot of scope to legally minimise their tax bill, given enough incentive to do so. Leaving the UK is just one option.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Vic mate, seems you're just in denial here. It's not like we've never tried to tax the rich more and are discussing some theory with different views as to the possible outcome. We've done it before. We raised the top rate to 50% expecting a significant increase in income tax, and in reality, received only a fraction of it. That's what actually happens and we've seen it happen.

So you can scoff all you like about and allude to it being preposterous that people bugger off or rearrange their affairs to pay less tax, but demonstrably, they do.
Click to expand...
So long as we all agree that the rich are selfish, there's no need for denial.
 
Chippy_boy said:
The biggest reason many non-doms are buggering off is what Reeves has done regards foreign owned assets and IHT. She's taken a position which is both unfair and also doomed as an idiotic idea.

I.e. She's introduced IHT (at 40%) on non-doms' foreign assets. This is bonkers on any level, moral or practical.

Example: You have a Greek millionaire living in London whose made all his millions in Greece and has a income he pays his UK tax on, fair and square. He owns a £10m yacht in Greece that he's bought and paid for during his working life in Greece.

Now, if he dies whilst in the UK, his family have to give Reeves £4m tax on the value of his yacht. Or he can fuck off back to Greece and they don't have to pay it.

This is just an example. But consider how unworkable it is in a more obvious way. Suppose Elon Musk decided he wanted to live in London as a non-dom. Do you really think he would countenance his family having to give Reeves $120bn tax on all his foreign assets when he dies? It's utterly ludicrous.

Seeking to take tax off someone's money that has nothing to do with the UK is totally unjustifiable and unfair. I cannot imagine many Brits staying if the same was done to them.
Click to expand...
I thought we had IHT double taxation agreements with the USA? I certainly benefited from that although double taxation would be immoral as is IHT in my opinion. Grave robbing cunts.
 
Vic said:
So long as we all agree that the rich are selfish, there's no need for denial.
Click to expand...
We don't agree on that at all. Some might be, most are not. Some poor people are selfish as well.

There's nothing selfish about giving the state 47% of everything you earn in income tax, and another 20% on everything you buy.
 
Vic said:
So long as we all agree that the rich are selfish, there's no need for denial.
Click to expand...

Define rich, is the plumber who lives in wilmslow and definitely does employ his wife and she puts in the hours honest. Both their cars and spare room are absolutely used for the business etc....

Are they selfish? What about the sparky, the mechanic, the barber, the chip shop owner..

I would love to know how much we lose, it would probably make us all cry. Even this morning on breakfast shops all over the fucking place flogging cheap fags illegal vapes, 10s of thousands of pounds in dodgy gear per shop.

Will we ever know if there actually is enough money but too many don't want to chip in their fair share.
 
Chippy_boy said:
We don't agree on that at all. Some might be, most are not. Some poor people are selfish as well.

There's nothing selfish about giving the state 47% of everything you earn in income tax, and another 20% on everything you buy.
Click to expand...
How does anyone give the state 47% of earnings in income tax?
 
Kompany Car said:
And therein lies most of the problem.
Click to expand...
And opportunity. Instead of the constant whack-a-mole of new taxes and new loopholes, it makes far more sense to simplify the ever more complicated tax system, and crucially, set non-penal rates that minimise incentives to try to avoid it. The Laffer Curve is real. There are optimal rates that maximise revenue and just hiking the rates ever higher does not work. Let alone the damage it does to the economy with money flowing out of the country.
 
Vic said:
How does anyone give the state 47% of earnings in income tax?
Click to expand...
The top rate is 45% and the residual rate on NI (having paid the maximum already) is 2%. So 47% is the top marginal rate

Top earners get no personal allowance as well. They do pay 20% on the first part of their income and 40% on the next, but that becomes increasingly insignificant the more you earn and the 47% rate takes a larger and larger proportion of the total. Anyone on £1m per year pays 46% overall, for example. This catches a surprisingly large number of people. A senior partner in a consulting firm for example may well be on that sort of salary.

Another example, someone fortunate to get some share options might easily find themselves wanting to cash in say £100k of profit and they have to pay 47% on all of it (if they are top rate tax payers). Arguably this is worse. The consultant on £1m a year, every year, probably has a fabulous house and drives a Porsche. They can easily afford it, even if 47% is a heck of a lot of tax in pound note terms.

But it catches relatively normal people who maybe get a 1 time "blow-in", thinking great I can pay my mortgage off, only to find the taxman takes half of it. Regards this latter point, I speak from personal experience!
 
Last edited:
BlueHammer85 said:
Impossible, they are being completely drowned out by right wing media and social media , no one cares about their achievements and what good they have already done. It’s pure abuse and annihilation and it won’t let up.
Click to expand...

Their achievements pale in to insignificance compared to their fuck ups.

The only one in the room not seeing it is you.
 
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