|
Post by Gods on Jul 25, 2024 14:05:25 GMT
Actually agree with Nigel here having watched all of PMQs He's not wrong. You couldn't put a sliver of paper between Sunak and Starmer.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 25, 2024 14:09:33 GMT
Have they given a timescale for this just out of interest? Not specifically because they want to fully assess the state of the finances. Everything in the Manifesto is cost neutral i.e. We'll raise taxes here and spend it there In any event no actual Fiscal Changes can happen without a Fiscal Event so I'd expect some indication of direction of travel in the Autumn Statement. As people have rightly said these are Political Choices and it's premature to judge before those choices have been made. Edit: just to add Reeves made no mention of her intentions on CGT which is paid by about 3% of Taxpayers and raises about £15Bn. If CGT rates were aligned to Income Tax Bands it would raise somewhere north of £5,Bn extra which would certainly pay for removal of 2 Child Benefit Cap
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jul 25, 2024 14:34:35 GMT
Have they given a timescale for this just out of interest? Not specifically because they want to fully assess the state of the finances. Everything in the Manifesto is cost neutral i.e. We'll raise taxes here and spend it there In any event no actual Fiscal Changes can happen without a Fiscal Event so I'd expect some indication of direction of travel in the Autumn Statement. As people have rightly said these are Political Choices and it's premature to judge before those choices have been made. Edit: just to add Reeves made no mention of her intentions on CGT which is paid by about 3% of Taxpayers and raises about £15Bn. If CGT rates were aligned to Income Tax Bands it would raise somewhere north of £5,Bn extra which would certainly pay for removal of 2 Child Benefit Cap No worries cheers mate. For those kids struggling below the poverty line the medium to long term effects of trickle down economics don't feed their stomachs that's all........
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Jul 25, 2024 15:01:40 GMT
Have they given a timescale for this just out of interest? Not specifically because they want to fully assess the state of the finances. Everything in the Manifesto is cost neutral i.e. We'll raise taxes here and spend it there In any event no actual Fiscal Changes can happen without a Fiscal Event so I'd expect some indication of direction of travel in the Autumn Statement. As people have rightly said these are Political Choices and it's premature to judge before those choices have been made. Edit: just to add Reeves made no mention of her intentions on CGT which is paid by about 3% of Taxpayers and raises about £15Bn. If CGT rates were aligned to Income Tax Bands it would raise somewhere north of £5,Bn extra which would certainly pay for removal of 2 Child Benefit Cap The CGT option is one that needs taking purely in terms of fairness, the extra cash it will bring in would be a welcome bonus.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 25, 2024 16:18:46 GMT
I'm liking the link up to use Crown Estates land to install more renewable electricity generation, wind turbines etc offshore.
Another thing that would never have happened under the Tories and proving, if more was needed, the daftness of repeating that they're 'all the same'.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 25, 2024 16:41:10 GMT
Agree with this.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jul 25, 2024 16:41:27 GMT
Actually agree with Nigel here having watched all of PMQs He's not wrong. You couldn't put a sliver of paper between Sunak and Starmer. Sunak was incapable of pulling together a dysfunctional, incompetent, infighting party that was unfit to govern. Starmer is clearly in control, assessing the job at hand and looking to actually do stuff rather than lurch from one disaster to the next. They couldn't be more different - and that's from someone who doesn't particularly like him or his politics.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 25, 2024 17:12:00 GMT
He's not wrong. You couldn't put a sliver of paper between Sunak and Starmer. Sunak was incapable of pulling together a dysfunctional, incompetent, infighting party that was unfit to govern. Starmer is clearly in control, assessing the job at hand and looking to actually do stuff rather than lurch from one disaster to the next. They couldn't be more different - and that's from someone who doesn't particularly like him or his politics. Politically I mean.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jul 25, 2024 17:22:04 GMT
Sunak was incapable of pulling together a dysfunctional, incompetent, infighting party that was unfit to govern. Starmer is clearly in control, assessing the job at hand and looking to actually do stuff rather than lurch from one disaster to the next. They couldn't be more different - and that's from someone who doesn't particularly like him or his politics. Politically I mean. Immigration, energy, health, civil service, planning, relationship with the EU - there are 6 major areas of difference so far, and they have only been in power a couple of weeks!
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 25, 2024 18:09:48 GMT
I'm liking the link up to use Crown Estates land to install more renewable electricity generation, wind turbines etc offshore. Another thing that would never have happened under the Tories and proving, if more was needed, the daftness of repeating that they're 'all the same'. I like it as well but I think some of the credit may be due to Charles. He us truly passionate about the environment and other things like greater public access to palaces, use of bio fuels, organic farming, selling off some assets, etc. He is very modernist and his main opposition are the traditionalists around him. He is meeting opposition to his family slimming down plans. He has been criticised already for making staff redundant. I think he will be aiming to make royalty self funding and carbon neutral. The royals learnt a lot from opening palaces to visitors to pay for the repair of Windsor Castle fire and are going to give much greater access to Buckingham Palace when its restoration is complete, but I expect he will never satisfy those against the concept of a constitutional monarchy.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 25, 2024 18:22:10 GMT
I'm liking the link up to use Crown Estates land to install more renewable electricity generation, wind turbines etc offshore. Another thing that would never have happened under the Tories and proving, if more was needed, the daftness of repeating that they're 'all the same'. I like it as well but I think some of the credit may be due to Charles. He us truly passionate about the environment and other things like greater public access to palaces, use of bio fuels, organic farming, selling off some assets, etc. He is very modernist and his main opposition are the traditionalists around him. He is meeting opposition to his family slimming down plans. He has been criticised already for making staff redundant. I think he will be aiming to make royalty self funding and carbon neutral. The royals learnt a lot from opening palaces to visitors to pay for the repair of Windsor Castle fire and are going to give much greater access to Buckingham Palace when its restoration is complete, but I expect he will never satisfy those against the concept of a constitutional monarchy. Can’t wait for the response to this. I agree with you
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 25, 2024 18:32:26 GMT
I'm liking the link up to use Crown Estates land to install more renewable electricity generation, wind turbines etc offshore. Another thing that would never have happened under the Tories and proving, if more was needed, the daftness of repeating that they're 'all the same'. I like it as well but I think some of the credit may be due to Charles. He us truly passionate about the environment and other things like greater public access to palaces, use of bio fuels, organic farming, selling off some assets, etc. He is very modernist and his main opposition are the traditionalists around him. He is meeting opposition to his family slimming down plans. He has been criticised already for making staff redundant. I think he will be aiming to make royalty self funding and carbon neutral. The royals learnt a lot from opening palaces to visitors to pay for the repair of Windsor Castle fire and are going to give much greater access to Buckingham Palace when its restoration is complete, but I expect he will never satisfy those against the concept of a constitutional monarchy. I wouldn't go as far as calling him 'modernist', he's very much a product of his upbringing after all, but I agree that his heart has always been very much in the right place re the environment and I hope he succeeds with his plans to create a carbon neutral monarchy and a slimmed down one too.
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Jul 25, 2024 20:08:50 GMT
I approve of the speed that Starmer is cracking on with things at least. Now is the time to get stuff done before the government gets bogged down with the inevitable crisis/scandal and splits start to occur
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 25, 2024 22:19:57 GMT
Chancellor to reveal a £20 billion shortfall in public finances.
A carefully choreographed preparing of the ground for tax rises in the autumn which they promised they would not make.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 26, 2024 8:04:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jul 26, 2024 8:18:43 GMT
Chancellor to reveal a £20 billion shortfall in public finances. A carefully choreographed preparing of the ground for tax rises in the autumn which they promised they would not make. They surely won’t be raising income tax, VAT or national insurance. It will be capital gains tax, inheritance tax and tax on unearned income they raise.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 26, 2024 9:02:54 GMT
Chancellor to reveal a £20 billion shortfall in public finances. A carefully choreographed preparing of the ground for tax rises in the autumn which they promised they would not make. They surely won’t be raising income tax, VAT or national insurance. It will be capital gains tax, inheritance tax and tax on unearned income they raise. Yep. Income, NI and VAT contribute 60% of all revenues so the sources of the remaining 40% are up for grabs I guess. So much on the shopping list...inflation busting public sector pay rises, triple lock on pensions, 7.5 million in the NHS queue, strikes to settle with junior doctors and rail workers, one off compensation payments for postal workers, blood scandal compensation is an absolute frickin whoppa, maybe waspi women, social care, support for Ukraine, fund the military properly so we can actually defend ourselves if Putin's top boys come calling, and much, much more. Meantime interest on our national debt is over 100 billion or nearly 5% of GDP. I think we're knackered, going to hell on a high cart.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jul 26, 2024 9:22:30 GMT
They surely won’t be raising income tax, VAT or national insurance. It will be capital gains tax, inheritance tax and tax on unearned income they raise. Yep. Income, NI and VAT contribute 60% of all revenues so the sources of the remaining 40% are up for grabs I guess. So much on the shopping list...inflation busting public sector pay rises, triple lock on pensions, 7.5 million in the NHS queue, strikes with junior doctors and rail worker, one off settlements with postal workers, blood scandal is an absolute whoppa, maybe waspi women, social care, fund the military properly and much more. Meantime interest on our national debt is over 100 billion or nearly 5% of GDP. I think we're knackered. And since the pandemic UK billionaires have seen their wealth rise by over 20% equivalent to the total GDP of New Zealand..............
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jul 26, 2024 10:08:07 GMT
The extra money the government needs to find to meet self-imposed targets around debt in the future has been labelled the "black hole".
im not saying there is no money there but they make it look like its £20bn missing
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 26, 2024 10:23:21 GMT
Chancellor to reveal a £20 billion shortfall in public finances. A carefully choreographed preparing of the ground for tax rises in the autumn which they promised they would not make. This is weird because everytime Sunak mentioned a shortfall in their budget and likely tax rises in the election debates we were told he was lying and desperate. But it seems that the lies actually were from labour if this is true.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 26, 2024 10:27:24 GMT
And now I read that Starmer is ruling out Leveson 2, which after last night's documentary on ITV I find disgraceful.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 26, 2024 10:41:49 GMT
Yep. Income, NI and VAT contribute 60% of all revenues so the sources of the remaining 40% are up for grabs I guess. So much on the shopping list...inflation busting public sector pay rises, triple lock on pensions, 7.5 million in the NHS queue, strikes with junior doctors and rail worker, one off settlements with postal workers, blood scandal is an absolute whoppa, maybe waspi women, social care, fund the military properly and much more. Meantime interest on our national debt is over 100 billion or nearly 5% of GDP. I think we're knackered. And since the pandemic UK billionaires have seen their wealth rise by over 20% equivalent to the total GDP of New Zealand.............. You may be interested in this: www.rfi.fr/en/international/20240726-world-s-richest-one-percent-made-over-40-trillion-in-a-decade-says-oxfamThe problem with taxing the rich highly is they simply move themselves or their money out of the country and revenue actually declines. I knew Alf White, otherwise known as James Herriot. He paid over 80% tax on his income. His accountants kept on to him about moving out to America where he was hugely popular or Jersey. They said " Alf, you have written 5 best selling books, 4 for the government and one for yourself". He declined to move as he wanted to keep practicing as a vet and loved living in North Yorkshire like me. Enquiries were made as to what other successful authors were doing like Jilly Cooper and Dick Francis, all of whom had moved out of the country or put their book earnings into trust and paid themselves a salary. Healey said he would tax and tax till the pips squeak but it didn't work and he had to go cap in hand to the Gnomes of Zurich. Reagan demonstrated that reducing taxes actually boosts the economy and increases revenue. But he succeeded because he had the confidence of the markets, whereas Truss didn't and fell flat on her face. Don't be surprised if the Chancellor has a dip into pension funds and savings which are flush.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2024 11:00:47 GMT
And since the pandemic UK billionaires have seen their wealth rise by over 20% equivalent to the total GDP of New Zealand.............. You may be interested in this: www.rfi.fr/en/international/20240726-world-s-richest-one-percent-made-over-40-trillion-in-a-decade-says-oxfamThe problem with taxing the rich highly is they simply move themselves or their money out of the country and revenue actually declines. I knew Alf White, otherwise known as James Herriot. He paid over 80% tax on his income. His accountants kept on to him about moving out to America where he was hugely popular or Jersey. They said " Alf, you have written 5 best selling books, 4 for the government and one for yourself". He declined to move as he wanted to keep practicing as a vet and loved living in North Yorkshire like me. Enquiries were made as to what other successful authors were doing like Jilly Cooper and Dick Francis, all of whom had moved out of the country or put their book earnings into trust and paid themselves a salary. Healey said he would tax and tax till the pips squeak but it didn't work and he had to go cap in hand to the Gnomes of Zurich. Reagan demonstrated that reducing taxes actually boosts the economy and increases revenue. But he succeeded because he had the confidence of the markets, whereas Truss didn't and fell flat on her face. Don't be surprised if the Chancellor has a dip into pension funds and savings which are flush. The rate of poverty was the same before as after Reagan. Yet, during his terms he tripled national debt despite cutting major government investments in the public life.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 26, 2024 11:07:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 26, 2024 11:09:11 GMT
And since the pandemic UK billionaires have seen their wealth rise by over 20% equivalent to the total GDP of New Zealand.............. You may be interested in this: www.rfi.fr/en/international/20240726-world-s-richest-one-percent-made-over-40-trillion-in-a-decade-says-oxfamThe problem with taxing the rich highly is they simply move themselves or their money out of the country and revenue actually declines. I knew Alf White, otherwise known as James Herriot. He paid over 80% tax on his income. His accountants kept on to him about moving out to America where he was hugely popular or Jersey. They said " Alf, you have written 5 best selling books, 4 for the government and one for yourself". He declined to move as he wanted to keep practicing as a vet and loved living in North Yorkshire like me. Enquiries were made as to what other successful authors were doing like Jilly Cooper and Dick Francis, all of whom had moved out of the country or put their book earnings into trust and paid themselves a salary. Healey said he would tax and tax till the pips squeak but it didn't work and he had to go cap in hand to the Gnomes of Zurich. Reagan demonstrated that reducing taxes actually boosts the economy and increases revenue. But he succeeded because he had the confidence of the markets, whereas Truss didn't and fell flat on her face. Don't be surprised if the Chancellor has a dip into pension funds and savings which are flush. Why do we not see rich europeans moving to the UK given our tax is generally lower than many of our neighbours? Why did James Dyson move so much production out of the uk? Why is JRM avoiding millions of taxes in the Cayman Islands so easily? Why are wealthy people such as Jim Ratcliffe already paying their taxes in Monaco to avoid tax? Whether we raise taxes or not, the wealthiest in society aren't patriotic in the slightest and don't give a shit about the people in this country as displayed above. They'll do whatever they can to increase their greed. And just like James Dyson and Jim Ratcliffe have already done with some of their manufacturing plants in the uk. If they can make more money for themsleves with factories in Asia or Africa or whatever else. They'll be the first to move production to these countries so that they get wealthier. I don't think these are the type of people we should be caving into. No patriotism, no loyalty, no care for the British people. If anything it just amplifies the need to bring more stuff into public ownership because the wealthiest in the private sector will always put their bank balance before the people of this country. And if they can use loopholes to dodge tax, they will and already have.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Jul 26, 2024 11:48:34 GMT
I always look at the argument that wealthy people avoid tax by moving their income abroad. It's not just the traditionally wealthy though is it. Those freelancers at the BBC were doing it and I'm pretty sure that their are many others who do it. Their is a number you can call at HMRC that anyone can call and voluntarily arrange to pay more tax. I can only imagine that the person sitting at the other end must have the cushiest job in the UK. Anyone who pays taxes has the right to expect that money to be used to benefit first and foremost the people on this Island but it doesn't and these wealthy people know it and so they do what they do. Even a standard taxpayer would do it if they could. If someone offered you a million which would normally attract tax but it came with the option to avoid it, anyone would take that option. They may say they wouldn't but they would.
Our financial situation is not the fault of the wealthy or the benefit claimant, it's the reckless use of that money by successive governments. Signing things that we used to do ourselves over to international organisations for them to make the decisions is part of the problem. Energy being one of them, especially gas.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 26, 2024 11:59:49 GMT
I always look at the argument that wealthy people avoid tax by moving their income abroad. It's not just the traditionally wealthy though is it. Those freelancers at the BBC were doing it and I'm pretty sure that their are many others who do it. Their is a number you can call at HMRC that anyone can call and voluntarily arrange to pay more tax. I can only imagine that the person sitting at the other end must have the cushiest job in the UK. Anyone who pays taxes has the right to expect that money to be used to benefit first and foremost the people on this Island but it doesn't and these wealthy people know it and so they do what they do. Even a standard taxpayer would do it if they could. If someone offered you a million which would normally attract tax but it came with the option to avoid it, anyone would take that option. They may say they wouldn't but they would. Our financial situation is not the fault of the wealthy or the benefit claimant, it's the reckless use of that money by successive governments. Signing things that we used to do ourselves over to international organisations for them to make the decisions is part of the problem. Energy being one of them, especially gas. That's a fair point mate but like you said people are already actively using loopholes in the uk to avoid tax. So I don't buy the argument that raising taxes is going to make people leave and we will suffer for it because those who don't wish to pay their share are already exploiting the system not to pay it. And they've already for many years been hiring immigrants on lower wages and bringing them into the UK to make more profits, or moving production out of the UK to pay people less and make more profits. They do not serve anyone's interests aside from their own and the fearmongering shouldn't be an excuse to not raise taxes on the wealthiest. Let them leave and see how they get on. The same fearmongering happened in Scotland when they recently raised taxes on the wealthier. But months later and there has been no exodus from Scotland. It's fearmongering in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 26, 2024 12:07:43 GMT
While not quite the same. Russia as we all know has faced huge sanctions from the West since the conflict with Ukraine intensified. These sanctions were introduced for breaking international law but also to exert economic pressure.
Russia as a country is now thriving economically and less dependant on the west than they've ever been.
We shouldn't ever fear "the wealthy" leaving if anything we should be doing our upmost to be less dependant on them. If our economy relies on these people who put their personal financial interests before the country when everything's falling apart. Then we should not be pandering to them.
Just like Russias economy has been reorientation to be less dependant on the West. We can reorientate our own to be less dependant on corporations.
I'd gladly see the back of amazon, tesco, Asda etc.. and go back to a time where local businesses thrived. Rather than what we have now where our politicians pander to the very people who put profits before people.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2024 12:13:56 GMT
While not quite the same. Russia as we all know has faced huge sanctions from the West since the conflict with Ukraine intensified. These sanctions were introduced for breaking international law but also to exert economic pressure. Russia as a country is now thriving economically and less dependant on the west than they've ever been. We shouldn't ever fear "the wealthy" leaving if anything we should be doing our upmost to be less dependant on them. If our economy relies on these people who put their personal financial interests before the country when everything's falling apart. Then we should not be pandering to them. Just like Russias economy has been reorientation to be less dependant on the West. We can reorientate our own to be less dependant on corporations. I'd gladly see the back of amazon, tesco, Asda etc.. and go back to a time where local businesses thrived. Rather than what we have now where our politicians pander to the very people who put profits before people. Isn’t a good chunk of that wage increase offset by the tremendously inflated wages they are giving to soldiers? Latest figures indicate that Russian residents can earn 5x the average wage by joining the war effort.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 26, 2024 12:25:28 GMT
While not quite the same. Russia as we all know has faced huge sanctions from the West since the conflict with Ukraine intensified. These sanctions were introduced for breaking international law but also to exert economic pressure. Russia as a country is now thriving economically and less dependant on the west than they've ever been. We shouldn't ever fear "the wealthy" leaving if anything we should be doing our upmost to be less dependant on them. If our economy relies on these people who put their personal financial interests before the country when everything's falling apart. Then we should not be pandering to them. Just like Russias economy has been reorientation to be less dependant on the West. We can reorientate our own to be less dependant on corporations. I'd gladly see the back of amazon, tesco, Asda etc.. and go back to a time where local businesses thrived. Rather than what we have now where our politicians pander to the very people who put profits before people. Isn’t a good chunk of that wage increase offset by the tremendously inflated wages they are giving to soldiers? Latest figures indicate that Russian residents can earn 5x the average wage by joining the war effort. You can read about it here. Wages are up across the board - archive.is/JlAyTAuthor has a bit of pessimism in terms if how long it can last and seem to be various factors contributing to it. But no doubt the exodus of companies like McDonalds, KFC, Adidas, apple and whatever else has seen them replaced with Russian alternatives where the profits aren't being siphoned out of the country has also contributed. With BRICS growing too I imagine trade with Brazil, UAE, India, China etc.. Will continue to grow too. And I foresee more countries in the middle east and Africa potentially joining BRICS in the future where they may not get exploited in the same way as they do by western corporations.
|
|