The Labour Government

We've got Guardiola said:
This makes no sense because the current UK debt is around £3tn or around £100,000 per household. A realistic target to put us on par with the rest of Europe and certainly the fiscal leader in Germany is to reduce it by around half or so.

Who else could possibly pay for this except for the rich? Is Earling Haaland for example on £500k per week really going to struggle by earning £50k per year less? Would he for example move to Madrid because of that? He would earn £25,950,000 per year instead of £26,000,000.

The average household meanwhile hasn't got £1k to burn let £50k so recovery through general taxation is pretty much impossible. Every single penny that Reeves recovers in her budget will be to balance spending, that's it, it won't make a single difference to the debt. If not on the rich then where are we going to find £1.5tn worth of cuts....?
Click to expand...
Growth. If we get the economy growing, debt falls as a percentage of GDP. Markets feel more confident that the economy is on the right track and bond rates and government borrowing costs fall, releasing more money to spend on services. And in time, inflation devalues our debt even further. EVERYTHING the government does should be looked at from the perspective of how can we increase growth (and productivity, which drives growth).

And why can we not just "tax the rich"? Because theres not enough of them and they are mobile and flexible enough in their tax affairs to avoid paying it. It's not as simple as suggesting Haaland wouldn't leave. Maybe the next Haaland wouldn't sign if the income tax rate was higher? The very rich have houses all over the world and perhaps stay in London for only 6 months per year. So they decide to only stay 179 days instead, to avoid UK income tax altogether perhaps? Or they move their businesses' HQ to the Netherlands and make their profits there whilst continuing operations in the UK? There's all sorts of ways rich people will avoid paying tax and the higher the rates, the more they avoid it.

Look at the converse. Lower tax rates and look at how many global companies like to put an HQ in Ireland. Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Intel etc etc. Why are these businesses in Ireland, generating billions for the Irish economy, and not in the UK? Because of a favourable tax regime. High tax rates drive tax revenues away. Low rates attract them.

This is not rocket science. It's human nature and plain common sense. People don't like being stung and will try to avoid it. If we want maximum tax receipts we cannot just try to sting people.
 
Tinkerbelle putting the Farage frighteners on in her speech - good tale at the end though of the Kosovo fans waving the St George flag and singing our anthem when the England footie team played at Pristina in 2019 - pity Jezzer his braindead commie pals (and a few of our players) can't bring themselves to do the same.

 
Vic said:
That was the "Tory technique" of previous Tory budgets where everything had been leaked or actually announced beforehand. Rather, Labour has spent weeks trying not to respond to every tax-raising idea that gets aired - so the headline can be (as above) "Labour refuses to rule out ...".
Click to expand...
If that’s the case, Victor, then why has Reeves chosen to leak the press the news that the OBR will be downgrading its productivity assumptions in the November Budget?

This is the key judgement from the OBR, given that it will determine both potential GDP and the tax earned from each hour worked within their projections, and therefore the degree to which the fiscal rules are breached. But very regrettably the leaks started a couple of weeks and she was at it again in her interview on the Today programme this morning.

As I’m sure you’re aware, the dialogue and exchange of forecasts between the Treasury and OBR is still in its early stages ahead of the Budget. So I would think that such a disclosure is a significant breach of confidentiality and indeed professional work standards. Really very low rent from a Chancellor well out of her depth.

Of course, Reeves has leaked the news in a desperate attempt to build a less damaging narrative around the productivity downgrade, even trying, somewhat laughably, to blame the previous government for it. So I would only expect the leaks to become more frequent - and, dare I say it, increasingly desperate - as the Budget approaches.
 
The past has nowt to do with us says Sam Wright, Starmer's former adviser. He claims the 'Original Sin' committed by Labour is taking ownership of the disastrous state of the nation in every respect - economic, military and political - after Brexit and 14 years of Tory pillage. (Brown's deregulation leading to the banking meltdown not included though.)
 
hampshireblue said:
I'm interested in your calculation ( I know it won't be for everyone)
Click to expand...
£26000 leads to £2686 (£258.27 weekly) tax and £1073.28 (£20.64 weekly) NI. Take home is £22240.72 or £427.71 a week.

£13,000 leads to £86 (£1.65 weekly) tax and £33.28 (£0.64 weekly) NI. Take home is £12880.72 or £247.71 a week. For 2 people, all values double giving a take home of £25,761.44 or £495.42 a week.

£495.42 - £427.71 =£67.71
 
Chippy_boy said:
Growth. If we get the economy growing, debt falls as a percentage of GDP. Markets feel more confident that the economy is on the right track and bond rates and government borrowing costs fall, releasing more money to spend on services. And in time, inflation devalues our debt even further. EVERYTHING the government does should be looked at from the perspective of how can we increase growth (and productivity, which drives growth).

And why can we not just "tax the rich"? Because theres not enough of them and they are mobile and flexible enough in their tax affairs to avoid paying it. It's not as simple as suggesting Haaland wouldn't leave. Maybe the next Haaland wouldn't sign if the income tax rate was higher? The very rich have houses all over the world and perhaps stay in London for only 6 months per year. So they decide to only stay 179 days instead, to avoid UK income tax altogether perhaps? Or they move their businesses' HQ to the Netherlands and make their profits there whilst continuing operations in the UK? There's all sorts of ways rich people will avoid paying tax and the higher the rates, the more they avoid it.

Look at the converse. Lower tax rates and look at how many global companies like to put an HQ in Ireland. Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Intel etc etc. Why are these businesses in Ireland, generating billions for the Irish economy, and not in the UK? Because of a favourable tax regime. High tax rates drive tax revenues away. Low rates attract them.

This is not rocket science. It's human nature and plain common sense. People don't like being stung and will try to avoid it. If we want maximum tax receipts we cannot just try to sting people.
Click to expand...
These companies don't just prioritise tax benefits, they also have to prioritise a workforce that is educated and isn't off long term sick but unless we increase spending then these kind of things are going to get worse. Surely spending cuts to fund tax cuts will make this even worse?

Productivity is on its arse, the lowest in a generation and that isn't because there are too many immigrants or because taxes are too high.

There is a second reason why those companies base themselves in Ireland and I think that's also pretty obvious because the UK may be 30 miles away but legally and logistically we may as well be in New Zealand. When Reform get in what's left of our relationship with the EU will be torn apart and no company will ever choose to base here.

Elon Musk had a choice of where to build Tesla's in Europe and he could have chosen the UK but instead he chose Germany? Why is that? It isn't because of taxation.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
What’s wrong with the headline, LBC used it this morning and there was no pushback, just an equivocal understanding that Starmer said that those who are worried are racist.

Is it not true?
Click to expand...
Starmer's not said that those with concerns about immigration are racist. What he said was that that particular Reform policy is racist. Obviously, the Daily Mail being the Daily Mail have exaggerated what he said with their headline.
 
mosssideblue said:
Of course the headline isn’t true and was simply put out there by the DM to cause trouble
Click to expand...
Not had time to catch up with these debates but if that’s clearly untrue, surely they must put out an apology.

State of our current media, do people read this and actually believe that they are there for their well-being?

Disgraceful.
 
M18CTID said:
Starmer's not said that those with concerns about immigration are racist. What he said was that that particular Reform policy is racist. Obviously, the Daily Mail being the Daily Mail have exaggerated what he said with their headline.
Click to expand...
That’s not exaggeration, that’s plain and simple ‘lying/misinformation’.

I shake my head when thinking that one of the biggest publications in the UK has turned to such means to influence and divide people.
 
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