The Labour Government

[hampshireblue]

I'm surprised at you saying that. Flawed Labour ideology thinks increasing taxes just raises money with no adverse consequences. Of course that's not true.

For ever 100 people buying e.g. a yacht there will be 1 who doesn't care what it costs - and who you could tax as you suggest. But 99 who absolutely do. Putting taxes up stops them buying things, and guess what, depresses growth. Typical Labour flawed ideology in action.

Such a shit example. If 99% can't afford another 2%, say, on a luxury yacht, they can't afford it in the first place. Have you seen the price of a decent yacht berth nowadays?

 

[ganganvince]

A billion off grannies and a few more from the disabled wouldn't have cut it. At the end of the day they have a job to do and are well paid, wtf do they do all day.

School hols at the moment

 

[Vic]

I don’t believe those in the market for real luxury items are put off buying at all mate as they clearly have the wealth to do so.

I wanted an Omega and bought one. It could well have been more expensive due to a higher tax sales rate but I would still have bought it.

Correct. "If you have to ask how much the sales tax is on a yacht, are you sure you can afford it, sir?"

 

[Vic]

I believe some of the very wealthy will watch TV through Curry's window rather than pay an extra couple of hundred quid for the 60 inch TV in the games room.

In my day, we had to make do with a subterranean cinema room.

 

[Vic]

Such a shit example. If 99% can't afford another 2%, say, on a luxury yacht, they can't afford it in the first place. Have you seen the price of a decent yacht berth nowadays?

Or a full tank of fuel - five figure sum.

I'd exempt the inland waterways from not being allowed red diesel - or use the tax to boost funding for the Canal and River Trust (global warming putting reservoirs and embankments at risk).

 

[Kompany Car]

I believe some of the very wealthy will watch TV through Curry's window rather than pay an extra couple of hundred quid for the 60 inch TV in the games room.

One doesn't put something as uncouth as a 60 inch TV in the games room, what a horrible nouveau riche idea

 

[metalblue]

Or a full tank of fuel - five figure sum.

I'd exempt the inland waterways from not being allowed red diesel - or use the tax to boost funding for the Canal and River Trust (global warming putting reservoirs and embankments at risk).

Fuel is insane for a boat. It would cost best part of £20k in something like a 60ft cruiser running twin engines to get to the med and back.

 

[Hertzblue]

Or just your warped opinion. It took 14 years to get into the mess and you blame 12 months for everything. They have made mistakes but it is going to take time. If it's still as bad in 4 years, come back and have a go. In the meantime try coming up with something constructive as many on here have tried to do.

This mess cannot be solely attributed to the last 14 years, the rot began in 1997 ......

The budget deficit with Ken Clarke as chancellor was heading towards balance, Gordon Brown made an election pledge in 1997 to stick to Clarke's spending plans for the first two years if elected. As we know he was elected and duly stuck to Clarke's spending plans for two years , that and the legacy of the growing economy he inherited enabled him to deliver a balanced budget in 2001. You can read a graph and you can therefore see what happened next once Brown started to behave like a Labour chancellor / PM . As can clearly be seen on the graph, by the time he left office he was able to hand over a sack of shit to the incoming Cameron government, the moment encapsulated for ever by Liam Byrne's note to his successor in the treasury " I am sorry, there is no money left" - He wasn't wrong.
The austerity you blame for everything was a consequence of what went before -Brown was a disaster.

 

[west didsblue]

This mess cannot be solely attributed to the last 14 years, the rot began in 1997 ......
View attachment 165188
The budget deficit with Ken Clarke as chancellor was heading towards balance, Gordon Brown made an election pledge in 1997 to stick to Clarke's spending plans for the first two years if elected. As we know he was elected and duly stuck to Clarke's spending plans for two years , that and the legacy of the growing economy he inherited enabled him to deliver a balanced budget in 2001. You can read a graph and you can therefore see what happened next once Brown started to behave like a Labour chancellor / PM . As can clearly be seen on the graph, by the time he left office he was able to hand over a sack of shit to the incoming Cameron government, the moment encapsulated for ever by Liam Byrne's note to his successor in the treasury " I am sorry, there is no money left" - He wasn't wrong.
The austerity you blame for everything was a consequence of what went before -Brown was a disaster.

The deficit was at 3% until the GFC. If you’re going to blame Brown for the deficit ramping up hugely as a result of the GFC, you can also blame Sunak (or was it one of the other half dozen chancellors) for the deficit ramping up because of Covid.

 

[Hertzblue]

The deficit was at 3% until the GFC. If you’re going to blame Brown for the deficit ramping up hugely as a result of the GFC, you can also blame Sunak (or was it one of the other half dozen chancellors) for the deficit ramping up because of Covid.

You can read a graph, you can see the direction of travel before that.

 

[west didsblue]

You can read a graph, you can see the direction of travel before that.

Heading down from 2005 to 2007.

It also headed down during Labour’s government in the 1970s.

It’s quite easy to just choose the bits of the graph you want to look at.

 

[Hertzblue]

Heading down from 2005 to 2007.

It also headed down during Labour’s government in the 1970s.

It’s quite easy to just choose the bits of the graph you want to look at.

FFS..

It also headed down during Labour’s government in the 1970s.

I think you will find that was due to the intervention of the IMF . lol

You also need to know a bot of context and history.

 

[Chippy_boy]

As Ive stated above, in my opinion it doesn’t on many items.

A £15 jacket from Tesco F&F is not a Louis Vuitton jacket costing £3000 and if you are in that market, is £3100 putting you off it?

Not in my opinion it is.

How much would you propose increasing the VAT rate by? £3100 is 24% VAT. Not sure that would fix much, especially if only applied it to "luxury" items. Estimates are it could raise £5bn* if it didn't depress sales, which I argue it would. Or do you want a higher rate still, and depress sales even more?

*Perplexity AI calcs. "Keep in mind that this is a rough estimate. Actual revenue could be lower if higher prices reduce demand, if more purchases shift online or abroad, or if definitions of "luxury items" are narrower than the headline luxury sector. Nonetheless, it gives a sense of the order of magnitude for such a policy."

It's a typical "tax the rich" - in fact tax anyone apart from me - idea, which I am surprised you'd support.

 

[hcblue95]

You can read a graph, you can see the direction of travel before that.

Thatcher sold everything off. What do you suggest to do when there is nothing more to sell?

 

[west didsblue]

FFS..

I think you will find that was due to the intervention of the IMF . lol

You also need to know a bot of context and history.

And there’s a reason for every rise and every fall, and it’s often due to external factors, although the 1989 to 1992 rise was largely self inflicted and was only resolved when the government was forced to leave the ERM. It’s a pointless exercise trying to make out it’s only Labour that fucks things up. Each party has had its moments but it’s mostly down to world affairs.

 

[blueinsa]

How much would you propose increasing the VAT rate by? £3100 is 24% VAT. Not sure that would fix much, especially if only applied it to "luxury" items. Estimates are it could raise £5bn* if it didn't depress sales, which I argue it would. Or do you want a higher rate still, and depress sales even more?

*Perplexity AI calcs. "Keep in mind that this is a rough estimate. Actual revenue could be lower if higher prices reduce demand, if more purchases shift online or abroad, or if definitions of "luxury items" are narrower than the headline luxury sector. Nonetheless, it gives a sense of the order of magnitude for such a policy."

It's a typical "tax the rich" - in fact tax anyone apart from me - idea, which I am surprised you'd support.

It’s one example of raising taxes that I feel lies fair on everyone.

I’ve stated before that income tax simply has to rise and the sooner we all gave up to that fact the better.

 

[gouldybob]

This mess cannot be solely attributed to the last 14 years, the rot began in 1997 ......
View attachment 165188
The budget deficit with Ken Clarke as chancellor was heading towards balance, Gordon Brown made an election pledge in 1997 to stick to Clarke's spending plans for the first two years if elected. As we know he was elected and duly stuck to Clarke's spending plans for two years , that and the legacy of the growing economy he inherited enabled him to deliver a balanced budget in 2001. You can read a graph and you can therefore see what happened next once Brown started to behave like a Labour chancellor / PM . As can clearly be seen on the graph, by the time he left office he was able to hand over a sack of shit to the incoming Cameron government, the moment encapsulated for ever by Liam Byrne's note to his successor in the treasury " I am sorry, there is no money left" - He wasn't wrong.
The austerity you blame for everything was a consequence of what went before -Brown was a disaster.

His sale of UK gold at $275 per ounce by 2002 because he thought gold was a declining asset was ridiculous. He even drove the price down because he couldn't keep his mouth shut. We got £3.5B into the coffers, it'd be worth more than £38B today, Reeves "Black Hole".

He should have been put in a cell until Gold hit $275 again

 

[hampshireblue]

This mess cannot be solely attributed to the last 14 years, the rot began in 1997 ......
View attachment 165188
The budget deficit with Ken Clarke as chancellor was heading towards balance, Gordon Brown made an election pledge in 1997 to stick to Clarke's spending plans for the first two years if elected. As we know he was elected and duly stuck to Clarke's spending plans for two years , that and the legacy of the growing economy he inherited enabled him to deliver a balanced budget in 2001. You can read a graph and you can therefore see what happened next once Brown started to behave like a Labour chancellor / PM . As can clearly be seen on the graph, by the time he left office he was able to hand over a sack of shit to the incoming Cameron government, the moment encapsulated for ever by Liam Byrne's note to his successor in the treasury " I am sorry, there is no money left" - He wasn't wrong.
The austerity you blame for everything was a consequence of what went before -Brown was a disaster.

I haven't the time to challenge all of it, but if it was on the fall and looking good in the period 1991-1997, it's looking similarly rosy now as the chart shows a near-identical downward trend.

 

[Stiff Little Wingers]

Must admit election night was somewhat bitter sweet for me, the Tories got a much deserved kicking, Reform got a foothold in Parliament, but the British people in their infinite wisdom elected a lefty government at a time when our debt to gdp ratio is 100%.

So now we get to watch them govern the country with no money to spend and a bunch of people with political training but no apparent expertise or experience in charge. If you can remove yourself from the tragedy of it, it's strangely humorous in a dark kind of way.

Summed up quite nicely by the sight of the Chancellor blubbing away in the commons, regardless of whether you believe the story of the personal issues being the main cause, it's hard not to assume that the fact she's making a total pigs ear of the country's finances isn't giving her sleepless nights.

It's a constant puzzle to me that the progressive type can't get their heads round the fact that raising taxes reduces the tax take, due to the second order effects of higher taxes, but here we go again as a Labour chancellor responds to a growing deficit (est £51 billion shortfall) caused by a flagging economy, out of control government spending and inefficient public services, with drumroll, wait for it, higher taxes. Wonder how that will play out? Spoiler alert, badly.

How did we get here? Politicians refusing to address the underlying problems in the economy, because that's quite difficult and unpopular, and instead continuing to increase public spending beyond the levels that can be sustained and sticking the excess on the country's credit card.

Oh but the government can't go bankrupt said the experts, we can just print the money. Well yes, kind of, but what happens when that debt accumulates to the point when servicing the debt becomes an additional drag on government finances and the debt is the same size as your national income? Good question that eh? I'm no expert, but I reckon the answer is that we're screwed.

So sit back, watch our useless politicians attempt to keep the ponzi scheme going for as long as possible, and argue with strangers on the internet to pass the time, you never know Starmer, Reeves and Raynor might just prove me wrong. Lol

It's also a constant puzzle to me how the rich and wealthy individuals and companies either avoid tax or just go to illegal means not to pay what they owe.
I've read figures of anywhere up to £120 billion being evaded or siphoned off in this way.
Added is the corruption in plain sight - £37billion for a flawed test and trace system when we already had a functioning system. The immoral privitisations of housing stock, the NHS through PPI and of course water. The HS 2 fiasco and guess what? Brexit has caused huge economic problems for this country .......with notable cheerleaders getting their useful idiots to really believe it's all the fault of inefficient public services (sorry Hgblue 2, am only gently teasing you) but the point remains ...ll.why should the poor anc middle income families have to continually pay for the greed, corruption and politically motivated shit decisions of others.
There has always been enough money but we have been gaslit into believing our downward spiral is due to other factors.
And that's why this Labour Govt is so appalling - they have the opportunity to make the case for a complete mindset change in the country with a huge majority to push it through but they haven't done it.
There's so much else to say but I'll leave it there as my next cider is ready.

 

[mosssideblue]

Homelessness minister Rushanara Ali faces calls to resign over rent hike 'hypocrisy' - BBC News https://share.google/6IUgq5dA9EDSUGJkr

A bespoke thread was started earlier