The Labour Government

metalblue said:
Would you expect tax payers to give your pot money if it was down 12% this year?

Her initial ideas about these funds needing to invest in UK was better idea for growth. Whatever happened to that?
Click to expand...
I assume you're not being serious? If you are, no, of course not. I would just pay a lesser amount of tax depending on the day the fund was valued.
 
hampshireblue said:
I assume you're not being serious? If you are, no, of course not. I would just pay a lesser amount of tax depending on the day the fund was valued.
Click to expand...

So your view is whether your investment make or lose money the government should take 1% per year because it’s unearned income, even when it’s actually a loss?

That logic makes zero sense to me and not how our tax system works at all.
 
Ric said:
If this is true, then it's a disgrace.

Click to expand...

I think it's pragmatism. The current system is leading to the ludicrous situation where trials are taking several years to be heard. On top of that, there are probably arguments that jury trials don't really "work" in large classes of cases, especially where the evidence is complex.
 
Chippy_boy said:
You sound like they aren't taxed at all. The top 1% pay 29% of all our taxes already. People need to stop being so bitter and needy and blaming anyone but themselves. The welfare state should be there to support those genuinely in need not those for whom it's a lifestyle choice. I cannot fucking bare this "I want more money spent on x, y or z, and I want someone other than me to pay for it". Drives me nuts. What happened to personal responsibility? I wish we had 50 Elon Musks in this country. It would be a massively better place if we had. We have none, and the richest one we did have - Mittal - has now fucked off because of what Labour has done and is doing. Fucking disaster.

I can see are never going to agree on this but that's my perspective. End of.
Click to expand...

If you can’t bear people saying “I want more money spent on x and want someone other than me to pay for it”, why on earth would you want 50 Elon Musks?! That would make that 29% far higher than it already is.
 
stonerblue said:
I'd say very few. Hardly a stick to beat a government with.
Click to expand...

Neither of those things (childcare costs and rail costs) is the current government’s fault, I made that clear in an earlier post so certainly wasn’t beating Starmer & Co up for it, hopefully they can get some sense in to rail fare costs in time.
 
metalblue said:
So your view is whether your investment make or lose money the government should take 1% per year because it’s unearned income, even when it’s actually a loss?

That logic makes zero sense to me and not how our tax system works at all.
Click to expand...
No. Let's take my mate. His pension is worth £2m( lucky git). If it rises to £2.2m he would pay, say, 1% on a proportion of that. Let's say anything over £2m, so in this case 1% of £200k = 2k. If he does very well then say, 1% of £500k = £5k. If his pension drops below £2m on the date it is assessed he pays nothing extra. The point is, he has done nothing in the first 2 examples to improve his wealth by £200-£500k and pays nothing extra tax wise.

You can substitute figures as you wish, but someone in the top 1% with a very large pension pot would be paying, literally, a bit more and probably less than such a fund may lose in a single day due to market variations.
 
meltonblue said:
If you can’t bear people saying “I want more money spent on x and want someone other than me to pay for it”, why on earth would you want 50 Elon Musks?! That would make that 29% far higher than it already is.
Click to expand...
Because he likes people who uses Nazi salutes at political rallies. He's so far down the rabbit hole it's not true. Apparently he canvassed against Brexit but now loves "anything other than Labour" including Truss, Farage and now Musk.
 
hampshireblue said:
No. Let's take my mate. His pension is worth £2m( lucky git). If it rises to £2.2m he would pay, say, 1% on a proportion of that. Let's say anything over £2m, so in this case 1% of £200k = 2k. If he does very well then say, 1% of £500k = £5k. If his pension drops below £2m on the date it is assessed he pays nothing extra. The point is, he has done nothing in the first 2 examples to improve his wealth by £200-£500k and pays nothing extra tax wise.

You can substitute figures as you wish, but someone in the top 1% with a very large pension pot would be paying, literally, a bit more and probably less than such a fund may lose in a single day due to market variations.
Click to expand...
But what happens in 2027 when the pension is subject to inheritance tax and if he dies aged over 75 income tax is deducted too
 
Living Wage going up by 50p an hour next April.

50.....pence. Thanks Labour...

images


Supposed to be £14.80, instead it'll be £12.71. Come on defenders, explain this.
 
Last edited:
There are too many students and too many foreigners.
We need to train up our own not let them get into unrepayable debt. Learn a trade and get a well paying good job.
Gets an Apprenticeship.
Labour announces 50p increase in minimum wage for Apprentices in England
Noooooo - this is socialism business can't afford it
Back to the top to repeat incoherent doom loop from people who want others to work on low wages
 
Metal Biker said:
Living Wage going up by 30p an hour next April.

30.....pence. Thanks Labour...

images


Supposed to be £14.80, instead it'll be £12.51. Come on defenders, explain this.
Click to expand...
Why does the government even have any say in the Living Wage? I thought it was some campaign group who based it on the actual cost of living. Or have they managed to bring it under government control as a way of conveniently shutting them up?
 
alan__mcfc said:
But what happens in 2027 when the pension is subject to inheritance tax and if he dies aged over 75 income tax is deducted too
Click to expand...
Bloody hell, it's a thought about how it COULD be done not a detailed policy. The main point is that wealthy people are making large gains in their wealth and are not subject to any tax repurcussions on those gains. Meanwhile those that are actually going out to work are at the same time subject to taxes on anything above £12550 and at the same time paying towatds the state pension of the likes of my mate. It's a one way process.

As an aside, take the state pension of £12000 and work out how much someone still working has to pay in taxes to pay for that pension.
 
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