The Labour Government

[metalblue]

Now Starmer has admitted they were going to put up income taxes I think that puts to bed the “no u turn here it’s all the media” argument.

 

[johnny crossan]

The facts are very clear, as is your stupidity.

Have a good one.

Good to see you sticking to as many monosyllables as you can in your familiar empty abuse.

 

[johnny crossan]

Now Starmer has admitted they were going to put up income taxes I think that puts to bed the “no u turn here it’s all the media” argument.

The point is that in the end they didn't break the manifesto commitment not to increase the rates of tax.

 

[metalblue]

If you are going to use words you don't understand I suppose it's inevitable they'll be incorrectly applied. There was no mention of you being misled in my peroration. You have provided proof of nothing at all btw except your own gullibility. Starmer is entirely correct to question the motives behind the OBR timing of its PR publication at such a sensitive event for the national economy. It was intended to damage the chancellor's credibility and provided the Tories with propaganda to feed and mislead their supporters like yourself.

How do you know it was intended to do that?

 

[metalblue]

The point is that in the end they didn't break the manifesto commitment not to increase the rates of tax.

Absolutely they didn’t. Obviously they were and are prepared to do that should circumstances dictate - which can be seen as a sign of strong leadership so I’m not saying it as a necessarily as a negative. I was more alluding to those who spent some time on here telling us it was all a made up story by the RW media and how that should be put to bed now.

 

[johnny crossan]

How do you know it was intended to do that?

What other purpose than damaging the chancellor would realistically be served by publishing immediately after the budget?

 

[stonerblue]

Not heard that one mate

Had a quick look and it seems you can give as much as you want. If you croak within 7 years then it counts towards iht.

 

[hilts]

Had a quick look and it seems you can give as much as you want. If you croak within 7 years then it counts towards iht.

Yep, the 3k per year there are no.negatives, its a bit stingy.though.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Chris Mason on Radio 4 was trying to make sense of it - journalists (usual suspects) seem miffed about being misled but it didn't sound like he could pin down a lie. And if I heard right the Treasury had said there was a surplus.

I think people may have been hearing what they wanted to hear.

"All the news that's fit to print" - or all the news fitted to print?

Mason confirmed that there was no ‘lie’ but with absence of talk regarding the deficit, it may have been a bit misleading:

Chris Mason on Reeves

 

[Kompany Car]

If I buy a house for £100k and it is worth £400k when I die then was I wealthy? I'd say no because I haven't benefited, it is just numbers on a page. My children arguably benefit but they will likely lock that away in another asset so it's just dead money, it isn't wealth unless it gives you some improved standard of living.

Of course it does, not having to pay rent or a mortgage allows you to spend the money you have on other things, it fixes your cost base so you dont run the risk of the landlord putting up your rent or the bank increasing your mortgage repayment.

The value of an asset is really down to how much enjoyment the owner gets out of it. If you like your home, you feel at ease, feel secure then surely that is money well spent. If you were just buying the property as an asset to make money then its a different argument.

As for the benefit to the economy and dead money, well if we go down that route, we might as well all just get paid an allowance and all the money go in a central pot. Nobody have any saving, etc. How does that work out in the long run, looking at the nearest equivalents to that approach you end up with an even smaller concentration of wealthy individuals holding all the power. No middle class, no upward progression etc, just a wealthy elite and everyone else.

This isnt a question of not paying tax, tax is what funds our public services, the more people working and paying tax the better. Everyone paying more income tax in exchange for better public services is something I have been an advocate of and posted about on this thread multiple times.

We all go on about tax in Scandinavian and how good their services are, workers on the basic rate of income tax in Sweden pay 32.4% (including the municipal tax), higher rate they pay 52%, VAT is charged at 25%, yet they have no wealth or inheritance tax. You pay more tax if you live near a major city, and less if you live out in the countryside, because quite sensibly, you benefit more from the services on offer living near a city. The tax free allowance is also much smaller being a minimum of around £1400 for higher earners to around £3600 for those earning around £25k with it tapering on both sides of this figure. If you're over 66 a bigger allowance of around £13k tax free.

For comparison the basic marginal tax rate is 28% (Income tax plus NI) and the higher rate is 42%, with the additional rate being as much as 60% due to the removal of the tax free allowance, with VAT at 20%. What that says to me is that if we want Swedish levels of healthcare, both basic and higher rate earners need to pay more and we need to up VAT (which I know is a regressive tax if you dont do it selectively).

Personally if tax has been paid on it already and its been subject to IHT as well, then 2 bites of the cherry is sufficient to say that someone has paid their fair share on anything left to their kids. If tax loop holes are allowed to exist then they should be closed for everyone, but for some reason they are allowed to continue to exist, but increasingly only for a smaller and wealthier echelon of society.

 

[Kompany Car]

To me, that sounds hypocritical. If you have absolutely nothing to pass on to your children or grandchildren then someone leaving £300,000 plus to their offspring is a life changing sum. Basically, what we are saying (I'm going to do the exact same thing) is that it is ok for me to pass on £300,000 plus but anyone richer than me is a greedy bastard and needs their arses taxed. i.e my morals cost me fuck all!

Nope what Im saying is that there should be one set of rules that everyone plays by. The problem is, there isnt one set of rules or should I say not one set of rules that is accessible to all.

Whilstever there is a way to circumvent tax and structure your affairs such that you avoid tax when passing on wealth avoiding IHT and the like then that is wrong. Particularly when the means to access such work arounds is only possible if you are exceptionally wealthy.

 

[Nightmare Walking]

Well we could stop giving low skilled goons huge pay rises in the form of raising the minimum wage so far and so often which will create more jobs.

Getting all these lazy fuckers off benefits frees up billions of pounds for capital investment in sectors like AI which”ll promote growth and create jobs

58% of the benefits go to pensioners. Are you suggesting everyone works till they drop?
Tax relief for corporate entities is tripple the UK welfare bill. Yet, here you are picking on those who have the least.

 

[Kirkstall Blue]

The spring statement was online early as well Murray said the OBR findings on budget leak are very serious, The speaker “accusations of lying will not be allowed in the house”

 

[stan bowles]

Starmer argues with some justification it should have been done at the end of the Tories term in office - bit of AI follows

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said he was "bemused" by the timing of the Office for Budget Responsibility's (OBR) productivity update, suggesting it should have been published earlier, specifically at the end of the last Conservative government.

Starmer's key points regarding the timing are:

• Before the current government started: He argues that conducting the review at the end of the previous administration would have provided a clear understanding of the economic situation the new government was inheriting.
• Picking up the tab: By having the productivity forecast downgraded (which reduced the estimated fiscal headroom) 15 or 16 months into his government's term, Starmer claimed his administration was forced to "pick up the tab" for the previous government's failures.
• Impact on the Budget: The OBR's decision to lower its medium-term productivity growth forecast by 0.3 percentage points meant the government had £16 billion less in projected tax receipts than it would have otherwise expected, a factor Starmer cited as a difficult "starting point" for the recent Budget and a reason for the resulting tax rises.

Starmer stressed that he is supportive of the OBR as an institution, which he considers "vital for stability," but criticised the timing of that specific report, calling the late release of the full budget analysis a "serious error" and a "massive discourtesy to parliament".

Yes but that (his) argument only works if you assume productivity and growth forecasts are in the sole domain of the OBR and the Treasury is in the dark about what's in the OBR's figures. That's stretching things an awful lot.

 

[Palerider]

Nope what Im saying is that there should be one set of rules that everyone plays by. The problem is, there isnt one set of rules or should I say not one set of rules that is accessible to all.

Whilstever there is a way to circumvent tax and structure your affairs such that you avoid tax when passing on wealth avoiding IHT and the like then that is wrong. Particularly when the means to access such work arounds is only possible if you are exceptionally wealthy.

Ah got you. You are talking about what happens in reality and the fact that the rich can 'buy' better accountants etc and therefore make use of loopholes (possibly designed to only be accessed by the wealthy themselves). I'd agree, all rules, laws, etc regulations should be the same for everyone. (However, would that mean there should only be one rate of income tax?)

I'm actually talking about how most of us are capitalists at heart and that when it becomes our turn to pay extra to the state, either legally or voluntary, we all suddenly start looking at ways to save our money from the taxman, either legally or possibly dishonestly. So I think I am more interested in human nature and our great capacity to be bullshitters, all of us, when it is ourselves affected.

 

[Axel Freed]

58% of the benefits go to pensioners. Are you suggesting everyone works till they drop?
Tax relief for corporate entities is tripple the UK welfare bill. Yet, here you are picking on those who have the least.

I’d get rid of triple lock for sure.

Pensioners are a vast untapped source of potential growth. There are maybe quite literally millions of them who have a lot to contribute if the opportunity for quality retraining was provided. We can fund this by pretty much scrapping sickness benefit and not funding feckless fuckers who keep having kids and expecting everyone else to pay for them.

Without tax relief, businesses fold, unemployment rises and the welfare bill increases.

 

[mosssideblue]

I’d get rid of triple lock for sure.

Pensioners are a vast untapped source of potential growth. There are maybe quite literally millions of them who have a lot to contribute if the opportunity for quality retraining was provided. We can fund this by pretty much scrapping sickness benefit and not funding feckless fuckers who keep having kids and expecting everyone else to pay for them.

Without tax relief, businesses fold, unemployment rises and the welfare bill increases.

What if pensioners don’t want to go back to work?

 

[johnny crossan]

Yes but that (his) argument only works if you assume productivity and growth forecasts are in the sole domain of the OBR and the Treasury is in the dark about what's in the OBR's figures. That's stretching things an awful lot.

You're right, but the OBR sorts the wheat from the chaff from all the data and provides its stamp of approval on a final set of economic forecasts which the politicians are officially obliged to accept and work to.

 

[metalblue]

What other purpose than damaging the chancellor would realistically be served by publishing immediately after the budget?

Doesn’t appear this was anything other than an error, serious enough for the big cheese to quit but an error nonetheless rather than some fifth column

 

[Axel Freed]

What if pensioners don’t want to go back to work?

They don’t have to.