|
|
Post by wannabee on Oct 25, 2024 18:53:52 GMT
Who gives a shit mate. It shouldn't be tax free and the only reason we are hearing so much about it is because those wealthy people get given a louder voice than the rest of us. The only children I have sympathy for and feel there should be a change of policy for are those with special education needs and I have no issue with a tax break there. If you can pay 10k a year then you can pay 12k a year or whatever it becomes when the tax is passed down. Just like an increase in air levy tax will be passed down to people who go on holidays too. You don't see any rich people on TV telling us how the travel industry is going to crash when everyone's paying an extra 50 quid for return flights. And how the tax won't bring in much because less people will go on holiday as a result. Or whatever way it cam be swung. Those parents sending their kids to private school, the majority of them, do not give a single shit about you or I. I imagine most are probably supportive of the winter fuel allowance changes too. The fact that this is getting the same attention as loads of pensioners losing wfa, who's income is lower than these families spend on sending one child to school, is a fucking joke and shows who the media prioritise in this country. The trouble is that many thousands of children with special educational needs are caught up in this as they attend private schools Saving the state sector millions The trouble is as a money generating exercise it’s limited as once your vat registered You can strat claim a awful lot of vat back Local Authorities will spend more than £2Bn this year to fund SEN Children to go to Private Schools This is more than the £1.5Bn Labour expect to raise by abolishing VAT exemption on Private Schools for the 7% of people who choose to pay and try to approach a leveling up to the 93% who can't www.ft.com/content/ffed4e97-91ab-462f-9da3-f3907649a4d3 |
|
|
|
Post by questionable on Oct 25, 2024 19:06:40 GMT
Why do I get the feeling the contents of next weeks budget is going to be as much a surprise to Starmer as the rest of us? If you watched Keir Starmer’s interview this morning, and didn’t think that a means-tested state pension isn’t firmly on Labour’s agenda, we’re all not paying attention. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 25, 2024 19:25:39 GMT
Why do I get the feeling the contents of next weeks budget is going to be as much a surprise to Starmer as the rest of us? If you watched Keir Starmer’s interview this morning, and didn’t think that a means-tested state pension isn’t firmly on Labour’s agenda, we’re all not paying attention. Whatever the discussions and concerns about the possibility of means-testing the state pension, there is nonetheless no official policy from the Labour Party to implement it. Some advisors and commentators have suggested it as a potential measure, but Labour has not adopted it as part of their policy platform. Some argue it could help manage public finances, while others believe it would be unfair to those who have contributed to the system over their working lives. It won't work for a variety of reasons: Potential Impact: Introducing means testing could lead to significant changes. Those with higher incomes or substantial savings might see their state pension reduced or even eliminated, which could be seen as unfair by those who have contributed for many years. Administrative Challenges: Implementing means testing would require a robust administrative system to assess individuals' incomes and assets. This could be costly and complex. Public Opinion: There is likely to be strong public opinion on both sides. Some may see it as a way to ensure that state pensions are targeted at those most in need, while others may view it as a breach of the social contract where people have paid into the system with the expectation of receiving benefits in return. Political Viability: Given the potential backlash and the complexity of implementation, it is very unlikely that means testing will be proposed let alone introduced in the near future. |
|
|
|
Post by ravey123 on Oct 25, 2024 19:59:15 GMT
Why should they though if they’ve saved and made sacrifices in the past. What message does that give to others to save money. They've saved and made sacrifices to live in the house they own outright and not pay rent in their old age. Let's say they're £300 light a year, over 20 years that's 6 grand, just over 1% of a half million pound house. If it's a choice between other pensioners freezing or them losing one or two percent of money they're never going to see anyway I can't see a problem. In an ideal world there'd be no need to penny pinch obviously, but we've had 14 years of mismanagement. I’ll correct that for you Ely. It’s not 14 years of mismanagement its many many decades |
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Oct 25, 2024 20:02:20 GMT
There will be a few moaning if Hs2A doesn't happen and Stoke loses its Inter-City services as a result of no capacity through the Trent Valley. Remote working is being dropped by many companies. I travel from Stafford to Euston almost weekly for work at different times and on different weekdays and I’ve not seen a full train this year - this capacity issue seems to be a red herring to me. I know HS2 has its own thread, but the Trent Valley capacity issue is explained here from 33 mins in. www.greensignals.org/podcast/hs2-should-we-just-cancel-it-now/ |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Oct 25, 2024 20:54:05 GMT
They've saved and made sacrifices to live in the house they own outright and not pay rent in their old age. Let's say they're £300 light a year, over 20 years that's 6 grand, just over 1% of a half million pound house. If it's a choice between other pensioners freezing or them losing one or two percent of money they're never going to see anyway I can't see a problem. In an ideal world there'd be no need to penny pinch obviously, but we've had 14 years of mismanagement. I’ll correct that for you Ely. It’s not 14 years of mismanagement its many many decades Very true, it just seems to have accelerated somewhat lately, perhaps it's just me getting old 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 25, 2024 21:45:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Oct 26, 2024 7:36:29 GMT
Starmer’s Labour are struggling to identify what a worker is
I suppose it’s not surprising
As they’ve struggled to identify a women
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 26, 2024 9:03:08 GMT
Starmer’s Labour are struggling to identify what a worker is I suppose it’s not surprising As they’ve struggled to identify a women Not true. Labour has said it considers "working people" to be those who earn their living through regular employment/self-employment, typically receiving a monthly salary or income, excluding those who primarily earn income from assets like shares or property. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Oct 26, 2024 9:07:37 GMT
Starmer’s Labour are struggling to identify what a worker is I suppose it’s not surprising As they’ve struggled to identify a women Not true. Labour has said it considers "working people" to be those who earn their living through regular employment/self-employment, typically receiving a monthly salary or income, excluding those who primarily earn income from assets like shares or property. Which is kind of like saying the guy who runs a business and rocks up to work everyday managing the place and making everything tick over isn't a working person. They're dumb as rocks with their silly definitions 🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 26, 2024 9:09:57 GMT
Not true. Labour has said it considers "working people" to be those who earn their living through regular employment/self-employment, typically receiving a monthly salary or income, excluding those who primarily earn income from assets like shares or property. Which is kind of like saying the guy who runs a business and rocks up to work everyday managing the place and making everything tick over isn't a working person. They're dumb as rocks with their silly definitions 🙄 No, it isn't. "The guy who runs a business and rocks up to work everyday managing the place and making everything tick over" will pick up an income from his self-employment rather than primarily earning it from assets like shares or property. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Oct 26, 2024 9:15:19 GMT
Which is kind of like saying the guy who runs a business and rocks up to work everyday managing the place and making everything tick over isn't a working person. They're dumb as rocks with their silly definitions 🙄 No, it isn't. "The guy who runs a business and rocks up to work everyday managing the place and making everything tick over" will pick up an income from his self-employment rather than primarily earning it from assets like shares or property. Yes it is. He gets up and goes to work. He's working 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 26, 2024 9:16:16 GMT
No, it isn't. "The guy who runs a business and rocks up to work everyday managing the place and making everything tick over" will pick up an income from his self-employment rather than primarily earning it from assets like shares or property. Yes it is. He gets up and goes to work. He's working 👍 Then he qualifies as a working person under Labour's definition as he primarily receives an income from his self-employment rather than from any assets he may have like shares or property. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 26, 2024 9:16:44 GMT
Which is kind of like saying the guy who runs a business and rocks up to work everyday managing the place and making everything tick over isn't a working person. They're dumb as rocks with their silly definitions 🙄 No, it isn't. "The guy who runs a business and rocks up to work everyday managing the place and making everything tick over" will pick up an income from his self-employment rather than primarily earning it from assets like shares or property. I am glad it is not just me that finds the Labour position on this entirely clear and sensible. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 26, 2024 9:17:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Oct 26, 2024 9:18:04 GMT
Yes it is. He gets up and goes to work. He's working 👍 Then he qualifies as a working man under Labour's definition. And he provides jobs so other people can also qualify as working people. Very divisive with their definitions if you ask me... |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 26, 2024 9:18:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 26, 2024 9:21:37 GMT
Then he qualifies as a working man under Labour's definition. And he provides jobs so other people can also qualify as working people. Very divisive with their definitions if you ask me... How is it divisive? Under Labour's definition, everyone who receives an income primarily from their employment or self-employment is a working person. That includes business owners (who will draw a salary from their business and pay income tax on it) and their employees (who get paid an income from it and thus pay income tax). Everyone who earns an income primarily from assets like shares or property does not qualify as a working person. |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Oct 26, 2024 9:25:06 GMT
So basically it’s not anymore money there just taking less money back over a longer term for money they shouldn’t of had in the first place |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 26, 2024 9:27:26 GMT
So basically it’s not anymore money there just taking less money back over a longer term for money they shouldn’t of had in the first place Presumably, you don't pay off your debts, then? |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Oct 26, 2024 9:30:08 GMT
And he provides jobs so other people can also qualify as working people. Very divisive with their definitions if you ask me... How is it divisive? Under Labour's definition, everyone who receives an income primarily from their employment or self-employment is a working person. That includes business owners (who will draw a salary from their business and pay income tax on it) and their employees (who get paid an income from it and thus pay income tax). Everyone who earns an income primarily from assets like shares or property does not qualify as a working person. Ah so he is a working person. So he won't be getting any extra tax burden then? That's what Mr Starmer said if I'm not mistaken... |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 26, 2024 9:30:08 GMT
So basically it’s not anymore money there just taking less money back over a longer term for money they shouldn’t of had in the first place What do you mean “shouldn’t have had”? You want millionaire pensioners to get their benefits but are unhappy about poor being on UC who are in debt due to water bill arrears or council tax arrears being given more time to pay it back? You have your priorities completely wrong! Or you just hate everything by this government because it is a labour government. |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Oct 26, 2024 9:31:06 GMT
So my second sons
uncle in law who works hard in the oil industry pays his income tax and never married or had kids
So spent his income on around a dozen to let property’s
Is he a worker ?
|
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 26, 2024 9:31:28 GMT
How is it divisive? Under Labour's definition, everyone who receives an income primarily from their employment or self-employment is a working person. That includes business owners (who will draw a salary from their business and pay income tax on it) and their employees (who get paid an income from it and thus pay income tax). Everyone who earns an income primarily from assets like shares or property does not qualify as a working person. Ah so he is a working person. So he won't be getting any extra tax burden then? That's what Mr Starmer said if I'm not mistaken... Not from his earned income. It is finally clicking! Unearned income can be taxed more as you don’t work for it. Earned income cannot. Capital or wealth taxes are separate. It is really basic stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 26, 2024 9:33:14 GMT
So my second sons uncle in law who works hard in the oil industry pays his income tax and never married or had kids So spent his income on around a dozen to let property’s Is he a worker ? Is he an employee? If so, that income is protected. Unearned income is not protected. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Oct 26, 2024 9:34:00 GMT
Ah so he is a working person. So he won't be getting any extra tax burden then? That's what Mr Starmer said if I'm not mistaken... Not from his earned income. It is finally clicking! Unearned income can be taxed more as you don’t work for it. Earned income cannot. Capital or wealth taxes are separate. It is really basic stuff. But you do work for it. How do you think they got the assets in the first place? They worked for it 👍 its a stupid definition. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 26, 2024 9:37:02 GMT
How is it divisive? Under Labour's definition, everyone who receives an income primarily from their employment or self-employment is a working person. That includes business owners (who will draw a salary from their business and pay income tax on it) and their employees (who get paid an income from it and thus pay income tax). Everyone who earns an income primarily from assets like shares or property does not qualify as a working person. Ah so he is a working person. So he won't be getting any extra tax burden then? That's what Mr Starmer said if I'm not mistaken... Yes, he's a working person under Labour's definition. I can't comment on his personal tax burden as I know nothing about his personal circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Oct 26, 2024 9:37:10 GMT
So basically it’s not anymore money there just taking less money back over a longer term for money they shouldn’t of had in the first place Presumably, you don't pay off your debts, then? Thought you were at least moderately intelligent You know as well as I do they will repay it all just taking longer Costing the country more You do yourself a disservice by attempting cheap shots |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 26, 2024 9:37:13 GMT
Not from his earned income. It is finally clicking! Unearned income can be taxed more as you don’t work for it. Earned income cannot. Capital or wealth taxes are separate. It is really basic stuff. But you do work for it. How do you think they got the assets in the first place? They worked for it 👍 its a stupid definition. Most wealth is inherited. Passive or unearned income is not protected. Earned income, what the vast majority live off, is protected. Only the wealthy with savings, investments or extra properties wil pay more on their passive income. |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Oct 26, 2024 9:39:53 GMT
So my second sons uncle in law who works hard in the oil industry pays his income tax and never married or had kids So spent his income on around a dozen to let property’s Is he a worker ? Is he an employee? If so, that income is protected. Unearned income is not protected. Yes he’s employed But he’s still going to be taxed more correct He’s a working man who will be paying more tax fact |
|
