The Labour Government

[Chippy_boy]

I genuinely think you are worrying about the wrong things Chippy. I think it was you who said that probably the biggest challenge we face is AI and I think that's true in that we have no grip on the technology and no meaningful policy/governance frameworks or competency for it. To me that's a clear and present danger we should be focusing on. We're going to need a fundamentally different way of thinking if AI is not to cause chaos and that's nothing to do with immigrants. The birthrate is a demographic timebomb that could potentially cause us huge problems around the number of working age people v retirees. That's likely to happen at least a 100 years earlier than any majority Muslim population even if you use parameters/maths that artificially accelerate the growth rate of Muslim people in the UK. The reduction in birthrate below the sustainable level is the result of a number of complex cultural, economic and policy factors which really do need to be discussed as we are sleepwalking into a bad situation but immigration isn't really a key influencer there, if anything it'll need to be a mitigator the way things are going.

So I'm really not sure there is a slippy slope to be worried about; but even if there is there are so many more material issues that are more pressing. Focusing on immigration and Islamist threats feels like chasing perceived shadows when there's threats stood straight in front of us staring us in the face. I just don't understand why that's a thing we should be anxious about in the face of all the other stuff.

All fair points. We've got the threat of mass - and I mean mass - like 30%, 40%, 50% or higher unemployment to deal with in the shorter term. Unless some radical change is made to employment legislation, then that is a nailed on certainty.

And it really isn't as simple as introducing new laws to stop it, because unless the entire world does the same, the UK would be hugely uncompetitive and would ultimately go bust.

 

[Chippy_boy]

In my view, Covid expenditure should be treated like a World War and paid off over 100-200 years. Like the Napoleonic Wars, WW1, WW2 and comp for slave owners. If this means we can't afford WW3, so much the better.

It's not being paid off at all, ever.

That's the problem. Our debt burden has just been going up and up and up.

 

[hilts]

I wish I was in a position where I had over £10 million and the government were going to put my taxes up ;)

It makes you want to start a gofundme page for them really :-)

 

[hilts]

Not the point. I am opposed to any taxes imposed after the event. If a chancellor wants to make a tax change going forward then fine. People can plan and adjust and do whatever they want to in the light of what's coming. You cannot change what's already happened, so it is unfair to tax someone on what happened previously, like accumulating your wealth.

Suppose family A and family B earn the same and have the same number of kids, houses, costs etc. Family A decides to save as hard as they can, spend little and after 20 years have amassed a modest pot of savings. Family B does the opposite - spends everything they earn, goes on posh holidays, eat out all the time etc and after 20 years have nothing.

Would you say it is fair to then take 2% of what family A has off them, and give it family B? I would hope you would not.

So having agreed the principle, the financial cut off becomes irrelevant. It may be financially and practically expedient for the chancellor, but it is morally wrong.

What if family A decided to risk everything on a business venture and as a result of their entrepreneurship, working all hours and countless sacrifices, they are now worth £10m? Had they been told 20 years earlier, "Beware, if you are successful, the state will take x% off you", they may have decided to not risk everything.

Apart from anything else, we already have a high rate of wealth tax, called IHT which takes 40% of rich peoples' estate off them every 30 years or so.

You said life choices not me, consider your wording better next time:-)

 

[Craig]

And stashed away to keep their capital growing. Must be even richer than I thought.

Exactly, that’s the point. The super rich like our lovely ex PM would struggle to spend what they’re earning in interest apart from by hoovering up more property and shares. Hence things like the stock market and gold reaching all time highs whilst most of the country don’t have a pot to piss in.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

If indeed they exist then those sort of courts should be controlled or even banned as well, I have no problem with that.

I mention it because my niece is a Muslim and she married a Muslim at 20 purely because they weren't allowed to see each other otherwise. They couldn't share a hotel room and they couldn't do much really without an escort until they were married.

I attended their Nikah and my niece barely attended because she was 'given away' by her father in the day ceremony although obviously she consented. It's a bizarre one to watch, the men attend the ceremony and women attend in a different room. She basically just turned up for the night do and that was it which we found quite sad for her.

They've since broken up and she needs to get a divorce but she can't do it so easily because he has to grant it and then I can only presume that they'll have to petition it to the Sharia court and who knows what that involves.

They didn't legally marry so she also has no marriage rights in UK law and alongside the breakup the whole thing is causing her massive amounts of stress and embarassment. She's basically treated like a pariah within that element of the community who knows his family.

This is the reality for Muslim women. It's obviously their choice but sometimes I'm not so sure because as with all religions it's enforced and indoctrinated upon young people, especially socially. Again I get it's their choice but it's just very alien to everything I believe in.

London Beth Din | Court of the Chief Rabbi | United Kingdom

The London Beth Din is one of Europe’s premier halachic authorities and is the Court of the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth

www.bethdin.org.uk

Ecclesiastical Courts

Courts, ECCLESIASTICAL.—I. JUDICIAL POWER IN THE CHURCH.—In instituting the Church as a perfect society, distinct from the civil power and entirely independent...

www.catholic.com

They've existed for a long time ....

 

[hilts]

Or that he believes people spending money in a free market capitalist country is the best way to ensure growth.

Money not being taxed is only a problem for the government if it’s not spent.

I like the last bit, although being pedantic it depends on how much tax they would have paid on it.

Bear in mind though I only give it a few seconds thought for when you come back with something that debunks that:-)

 

[hilts]

Same old, same old.

 

[blueinsa]

Same old, same old.

Since the day this forum started it’s been the exact same, it’s never changing.

That’s politics and opinion for you.

 

[Chippy_boy]

You said life choices not me, consider your wording better next time:-)

Sorry boss. I'll try harder next time ;-)

 

[hilts]

I genuinely think you are worrying about the wrong things Chippy. I think it was you who said that probably the biggest challenge we face is AI and I think that's true in that we have no grip on the technology and no meaningful policy/governance frameworks or competency for it. To me that's a clear and present danger we should be focusing on. We're going to need a fundamentally different way of thinking if AI is not to cause chaos and that's nothing to do with immigrants. The birthrate is a demographic timebomb that could potentially cause us huge problems around the number of working age people v retirees. That's likely to happen at least a 100 years earlier than any majority Muslim population even if you use parameters/maths that artificially accelerate the growth rate of Muslim people in the UK. The reduction in birthrate below the sustainable level is the result of a number of complex cultural, economic and policy factors which really do need to be discussed as we are sleepwalking into a bad situation but immigration isn't really a key influencer there, if anything it'll need to be a mitigator the way things are going.

So I'm really not sure there is a slippy slope to be worried about; but even if there is there are so many more material issues that are more pressing. Focusing on immigration and Islamist threats feels like chasing perceived shadows when there's threats stood straight in front of us staring us in the face. I just don't understand why that's a thing we should be anxious about in the face of all the other stuff.

Every govt should consider long and short term problems, they usually only bother either the latter and create much more problems for future generations than were necessary.

 

[hampshireblue]

Thank you for recognising the fact that I am "un-partisan", not so sure how you can be alarmed that you are recognised for being a leftie... a badge of honour isn't it?

You may be reading a little bit too much into his comment-or missing his irony/sarcasm.

I would hazard a guess there are actually very few "lefties" contributing on here. The vast majority of people want what is good for the country and want the country to be a success no matter what their politics. It's interesting that being a "leftie" is seen as a derogatory term but apparently being to the right is fine. It's also a point to note that many of those sniping at Labour seem to be totally bereft of ideas as to what they actually should be doing.

 

[metalblue]

I don't work cash in hand so I'm not sure what your point is. The fact is that every single person who has millions of pounds will have access to tax avoidance schemes. Not every single person who is on a lower wage will have access to avenues where they can work cash in hand.

I never said you worked cash in hand, strange opening gambit.

Cash in hand workers, usually lower paid / manual work, costs £35bn a year in lost treasury revenue - and everyone has access to a bit of cash in hand work.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Most of the FTSE100 dont pay UK corporation tax.

Where did you read that, Socialist Worker?

The vast majority of FTSE100 companies do pay corporation tax. There are some notable dodgers - like Starbucks - but that is the exception, not the norm.

PwC Total Tax Contribution (2023/24):

• Collected data from the "100 Group" (largest 100 UK-listed companies), showing almost all paid some corporation tax. The fact that corp tax accounted for ~33% of total taxes borne (with nearly £10 bn of CT out of £31.8 bn total) suggests very few—likely under 5–10%—paid zero.

 

[metalblue]

I like the last bit, although being pedantic it depends on how much tax they would have paid on it.

Bear in mind though I only give it a few seconds thought for when you come back with something that debunks that:-)

Haha. Once it re-enters the economy you’ll likely pay VAT, that’ll go towards someone’s salary, tax paid, which they spend on something that has VAT on it etc. It only takes 4 round transactions of paying income tax and buying something with VAT from said wages for the government to receive 90% of the initial sum.

If it’s sitting in a bank they only get to charge you income tax on the interest earned. Plus you’re creating growth and jobs spending it.

 

[metalblue]

And stashed away to keep their capital growing. Must be even richer than I thought.

You’d be bonkers to put your money in a savings account and think your capital is growing. The sleight of hand of all governments is that inflation outstrips interest thus eroding government debt relative to GDP. That trickles down to savings.

 

[metalblue]

Exactly, that’s the point. The super rich like our lovely ex PM would struggle to spend what they’re earning in interest apart from by hoovering up more property and shares. Hence things like the stock market and gold reaching all time highs whilst most of the country don’t have a pot to piss in.

Now this is a fair observation. Perhaps there is a fair argument to be made for limiting the amount of wealth a single individual can acquire. Once you get past £x million it all becomes a meaningless number.

 

[M18CTID]

I never said you worked cash in hand, strange opening gambit.

Cash in hand workers, usually lower paid / manual work, costs £35bn a year in lost treasury revenue - and everyone has access to a bit of cash in hand work.

There literally isn't enough cash in hand work out there for every single person so that's a falsehood.

By the way, it's more like £5bn a year, not £35bn

 

[metalblue]

There literally isn't enough cash in hand work out there for every single person so that's a falsehood.

By the way, it's more like £5bn a year, not £35bn

Apologies you are correct I was quoting the rough overall tax gap and attributing it all to cash in hand, it’s much higher than you think though at about £17bn. The rest is made up from fraud (eg offshore accounts) and genuine “cough cough” errors

That £35bn has nothing to do with using legal tax avoidance schemes either, and I’m not saying that tightening well meaning tax relief schemes that are then abused as loopholes is not a good exercise either.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Since the day this forum started it’s been the exact same, it’s never changing.

That’s politics and opinion for you.

It’s neither. It’s just shouting insults and narratives at each other constantly.