|
|
Post by Gawa on Oct 26, 2024 11:42:18 GMT
Just going to drop my favourite John Steinback quote in again.
"John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
|
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Oct 26, 2024 11:58:44 GMT
Who can buy in such an area if 2 London lawyers can’t afford a family home? Those with inherited wealth can. You are being very specific about your own circumstances which I obviously know nothing about. But if 2 London lawyers can't afford to buy a house then I agree we are indeed fooked. But 2 London lawyers can afford to buy a house. I bought a flat in 1999 on my own with no handouts or inherited wealth. Although an unexpected redundancy ironically helped me boost my deposit savings. I did it up a bit and I sold it. And with the few quid I made I bought another one, then sold that and I did that a few times and got a nice house with a garden. Then I lost my job, again 🤦♂️ and sold my house to set my own business up. And now I rent a flat. And with a bit of luck I'll be buying my own house again real soon. So long as Reeves doesn't fuck me over. And most wealth is not inherited. Some people are lucky and inherit a lot of wealth others might get a few quid when their parents pass but a lot don't. Not sure what this mass inherited wealth is you talk about. Problem is its not 1999 anymore. If the uk was still how it was in 1999 we wouldn't be having this conversation. In England the average house cost £75,000 in 1999. Today the average house is £306,000. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Oct 26, 2024 12:12:00 GMT
You are being very specific about your own circumstances which I obviously know nothing about. But if 2 London lawyers can't afford to buy a house then I agree we are indeed fooked. But 2 London lawyers can afford to buy a house. I bought a flat in 1999 on my own with no handouts or inherited wealth. Although an unexpected redundancy ironically helped me boost my deposit savings. I did it up a bit and I sold it. And with the few quid I made I bought another one, then sold that and I did that a few times and got a nice house with a garden. Then I lost my job, again 🤦♂️ and sold my house to set my own business up. And now I rent a flat. And with a bit of luck I'll be buying my own house again real soon. So long as Reeves doesn't fuck me over. And most wealth is not inherited. Some people are lucky and inherit a lot of wealth others might get a few quid when their parents pass but a lot don't. Not sure what this mass inherited wealth is you talk about. Problem is its not 1999 anymore. If the uk was still how it was in 1999 we wouldn't be having this conversation. In England the average house cost £75,000 in 1999. Today the average house is £306,000. I understand that arguement. And I remember it being used back in 2000 about the jammy beggars who bought 2 decades earlier. But I'll agree house price inflation has become ridiculous. And that's a whole other arguement as to why that's happened. But its also a bit of an over used myth to say there's no affordable houses about for young people to buy. 2 mins on rightmove proves that. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 26, 2024 13:55:32 GMT
Who can buy in such an area if 2 London lawyers can’t afford a family home? Those with inherited wealth can. You're not a worker then either are you according to Kier's definition 🤷 Why? I get paid like any employee. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 26, 2024 14:00:21 GMT
Who can buy in such an area if 2 London lawyers can’t afford a family home? Those with inherited wealth can. You are being very specific about your own circumstances which I obviously know nothing about. But if 2 London lawyers can't afford to buy a house then I agree we are indeed fooked. But 2 London lawyers can afford to buy a house. I bought a flat in 1999 on my own with no handouts or inherited wealth. Although an unexpected redundancy ironically helped me boost my deposit savings. I did it up a bit and I sold it. And with the few quid I made I bought another one, then sold that and I did that a few times and got a nice house with a garden. Then I lost my job, again 🤦♂️ and sold my house to set my own business up. And now I rent a flat. And with a bit of luck I'll be buying my own house again real soon. So long as Reeves doesn't fuck me over. And most wealth is not inherited. Some people are lucky and inherit a lot of wealth others might get a few quid when their parents pass but a lot don't. Not sure what this mass inherited wealth is you talk about. Have faith. I don’t think Reeves and Starmer will screw up your plan at all. We have to disagree about inherited wealth. Most people I know who have more than average do so because of capital gains from a property bought back when property was affordable, or inheritance. The exceptions are bankers or a tiny select few other careers that pay big money, or one or two business owners. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Oct 26, 2024 14:31:00 GMT
You are being very specific about your own circumstances which I obviously know nothing about. But if 2 London lawyers can't afford to buy a house then I agree we are indeed fooked. But 2 London lawyers can afford to buy a house. I bought a flat in 1999 on my own with no handouts or inherited wealth. Although an unexpected redundancy ironically helped me boost my deposit savings. I did it up a bit and I sold it. And with the few quid I made I bought another one, then sold that and I did that a few times and got a nice house with a garden. Then I lost my job, again 🤦♂️ and sold my house to set my own business up. And now I rent a flat. And with a bit of luck I'll be buying my own house again real soon. So long as Reeves doesn't fuck me over. And most wealth is not inherited. Some people are lucky and inherit a lot of wealth others might get a few quid when their parents pass but a lot don't. Not sure what this mass inherited wealth is you talk about. Have faith. I don’t think Reeves and Starmer will screw up your plan at all. We have to disagree about inherited wealth. Most people I know who have more than average do so because of capital gains from a property bought back when property was affordable, or inheritance. The exceptions are bankers or a tiny select few other careers that pay big money, or one or two business owners. We'll find out on the 30th I guess 😬👍 |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Oct 26, 2024 15:11:53 GMT
You're not a worker then either are you according to Kier's definition 🤷 Why? I get paid like any employee. So do I, and because I've got savings and shares, own a property, and could write that cheque out if the shit hits the fan I apparently don't count as a worker. Kier's only bothered about taking from those that bother to give to those that don't. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 26, 2024 15:18:24 GMT
Why? I get paid like any employee. So do I, and because I've got savings and shares, own a property, and could write that cheque out if the shit hits the fan I apparently don't count as a worker. Kier's only bothered about taking from those that bother to give to those that don't. So he isn’t going to increase tax on your earned income. He probably will on any dividends you receive for your shares (which is right in my opinion). I don’t understand why unearned income that people do nothing for gets taxed less than earned income which most people work hard to get. Logic says it should be the other way around. If you are lucky enough to have spare capital that you can use to earn extra income just by it existing, it should be taxed at least as high as the money you earn from working. It will help create a fairer society because it means the richer people don’t just accelerate away in wealth compared to poorer people who can’t afford excess capital to earn extra income. But that’s all my opinion of course. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Oct 26, 2024 15:27:02 GMT
So do I, and because I've got savings and shares, own a property, and could write that cheque out if the shit hits the fan I apparently don't count as a worker. Kier's only bothered about taking from those that bother to give to those that don't. So he isn’t going to increase tax on your earned income. He probably will on any dividends you receive for your shares (which is right in my opinion). I don’t understand why unearned income that people do nothing for gets taxed less than earned income which most people work hard to get. Logic says it should be the other way around. If you are lucky enough to have spare capital that you can use to earn extra income just by it existing, it should be taxed at least as high as the money you earn from working. It will help create a fairer society because it means the richer people don’t just accelerate away in wealth compared to poorer people who can’t afford excess capital to earn extra income. But that’s all my opinion of course. Why am I lucky to have spare capital, why is that considered excess? Penalised for making a frugal choice? I'm not even keeping up with the people whose wealth is accelerating away. I've earned it all, haven't lived beyond my means, own a home that serves it's purpose and decided to overpay the mortgage to get it gone early and put some cash away to hopefully make my life easier should I need to, for example pay for an operation because the NHS is wank. I'm being penalised for the effort I've made then effectively, so why bother in future 🤷 I'd be better off buying a bigger house that I don't actually need, and clearly be better thought of. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 26, 2024 15:38:15 GMT
So he isn’t going to increase tax on your earned income. He probably will on any dividends you receive for your shares (which is right in my opinion). I don’t understand why unearned income that people do nothing for gets taxed less than earned income which most people work hard to get. Logic says it should be the other way around. If you are lucky enough to have spare capital that you can use to earn extra income just by it existing, it should be taxed at least as high as the money you earn from working. It will help create a fairer society because it means the richer people don’t just accelerate away in wealth compared to poorer people who can’t afford excess capital to earn extra income. But that’s all my opinion of course. Why am I lucky to have spare capital, why is that considered excess? Penalised for making a frugal choice? I'm not even keeping up with the people whose wealth is accelerating away. I've earned it all, haven't lived beyond my means, own a home that serves it's purpose and decided to overpay the mortgage to get it gone early and put some cash away to hopefully make my life easier should I need to, for example pay for an operation because the NHS is wank. I'm being penalised for the effort I've made then effectively, so why bother in future 🤷 I'd be better off buying a bigger house that I don't actually need, and clearly be better thought of. So you think it is right that Rishi Sunak on average pays a lower rate of tax than someone like me? Just because he is a multimillionaire and I am only taxed on my income? I don’t know how old you are. But anyone who has earned capital gains in their property is very lucky. Anyone who doesn’t need to buy their family home still as they already own it is very lucky as you need to be ever richer to buy nowadays compared with the past as house prices continue increasing far faster than incomes. You are not being penalised. The people who aren’t rich enough to have excess properties and shares are currently being penalised. Starmer will (hopefully) make it even. People without excess capital are taxed at a higher rate on their overall income and so it is much harder for them to be in the very privileged position you are in so they can earn extra income passively and pay lower rates of tax on it than the slog of their day job. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Oct 26, 2024 15:48:12 GMT
So he isn’t going to increase tax on your earned income. He probably will on any dividends you receive for your shares (which is right in my opinion). I don’t understand why unearned income that people do nothing for gets taxed less than earned income which most people work hard to get. Logic says it should be the other way around. If you are lucky enough to have spare capital that you can use to earn extra income just by it existing, it should be taxed at least as high as the money you earn from working. It will help create a fairer society because it means the richer people don’t just accelerate away in wealth compared to poorer people who can’t afford excess capital to earn extra income. But that’s all my opinion of course. Why am I lucky to have spare capital, why is that considered excess? Penalised for making a frugal choice? I'm not even keeping up with the people whose wealth is accelerating away. I've earned it all, haven't lived beyond my means, own a home that serves it's purpose and decided to overpay the mortgage to get it gone early and put some cash away to hopefully make my life easier should I need to, for example pay for an operation because the NHS is wank. I'm being penalised for the effort I've made then effectively, so why bother in future 🤷 I'd be better off buying a bigger house that I don't actually need, and clearly be better thought of. Somebody has to pay for all the lazy wankers who've down tools since the pandemic I guess. So they come for the grafters and entrepreneurs for daring to better themselves. They'll extract the pips till they've bled the go doers dry and then wonder what happened to all the smaller business's that help create wealth and who already make a massive contribution to the stability of the country. We'll know the score after the budget and what they do with CGT and Corp tax. But if they are hiking it massively it'll be a disaster. The extra tax they take is less money that investors put back into the economy through reinvesting. With the govt saying we can spend your money better. A clueless inefficient govt that reckon they can spend money better than the very people who've demonstrated time and again they know how to spend money and create things. All under the banner of get the evil rich. But its rarely the rich they end up getting. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Oct 26, 2024 16:00:42 GMT
Why am I lucky to have spare capital, why is that considered excess? Penalised for making a frugal choice? I'm not even keeping up with the people whose wealth is accelerating away. I'm 45, I've earned it all, haven't lived beyond my means, own a home that serves it's purpose and decided to overpay the mortgage to get it gone early and put some cash away to hopefully make my life easier should I need to, for example pay for an operation because the NHS is wank. I'm being penalised for the effort I've made then effectively, so why bother in future 🤷 I'd be better off buying a bigger house that I don't actually need, and clearly be better thought of. So you think it is right that Rishi Sunak on average pays a lower rate of tax than someone like me? Just because he is a multimillionaire and I am only taxed on my income? I don’t know how old you are. But anyone who has earned capital gains in their property is very lucky. Anyone who doesn’t need to buy their family home still as they already own it is very lucky as you need to be ever richer to buy nowadays compared with the past as house prices continue increasing far faster than incomes. You are not being penalised. The people who aren’t rich enough to have excess properties and shares are currently being penalised. Starmer will (hopefully) make it even. People without excess capital are taxed at a higher rate on their overall income and so it is much harder for them to be in the very privileged position you are in so they can earn extra income passively and pay lower rates of tax on it than the slog of their day job. I don't get how my capital is considered excess, because I've earned it and decided not to spend it? I haven't been gifted or given it. It's built up over the years but until recently has earned me the square root of fuck all. Bear in mind I've earned next to nothing working in the third sector for 10 years too. I own the property I live in (choosing to overpay a mortgage to do so), and rather than spunk my wages I've saved them, so now some cunt who's gifted pretty much everything can say that I'm the sort of person who isn't a worker? How on earth you believe Starmer will make anything even is beyond me. He's already proven he's a greedy, grasping politician, exactly like the rest of them. The people he's targeting have got better morals than he purports to live by, and that's saying something. At least there's some value in them being wealth creators. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 26, 2024 16:04:48 GMT
So you think it is right that Rishi Sunak on average pays a lower rate of tax than someone like me? Just because he is a multimillionaire and I am only taxed on my income? I don’t know how old you are. But anyone who has earned capital gains in their property is very lucky. Anyone who doesn’t need to buy their family home still as they already own it is very lucky as you need to be ever richer to buy nowadays compared with the past as house prices continue increasing far faster than incomes. You are not being penalised. The people who aren’t rich enough to have excess properties and shares are currently being penalised. Starmer will (hopefully) make it even. People without excess capital are taxed at a higher rate on their overall income and so it is much harder for them to be in the very privileged position you are in so they can earn extra income passively and pay lower rates of tax on it than the slog of their day job. I don't get how my capital is considered excess, because I've earned it and decided not to spend it? I haven't been gifted or given it. It's built up over the years but until recently has earned me the square root of fuck all. Bear in mind I've earned next to nothing working in the third sector for 10 years too. I own the property I live in (choosing to overpay a mortgage to do so), and rather than spunk my wages I've saved them, so now some cunt who's gifted pretty much everything can say that I'm the sort of person who isn't a worker? How on earth you believe Starmer will make anything even is beyond me. He's already proven he's a greedy, grasping politician, exactly like the rest of them. The people he's targeting have got better morals than he purports to live by, and that's saying something. At least there's some value in them being wealth creators. Well, your last paragraph will be shown to be completely wrong if he evens up tax on earned and unearned income in this budget, which has been hinted at. Let’s see. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Oct 26, 2024 16:07:15 GMT
I don't get how my capital is considered excess, because I've earned it and decided not to spend it? I haven't been gifted or given it. It's built up over the years but until recently has earned me the square root of fuck all. Bear in mind I've earned next to nothing working in the third sector for 10 years too. I own the property I live in (choosing to overpay a mortgage to do so), and rather than spunk my wages I've saved them, so now some cunt who's gifted pretty much everything can say that I'm the sort of person who isn't a worker? How on earth you believe Starmer will make anything even is beyond me. He's already proven he's a greedy, grasping politician, exactly like the rest of them. The people he's targeting have got better morals than he purports to live by, and that's saying something. At least there's some value in them being wealth creators. Well, your last paragraph will be shown to be completely wrong if he evens up tax on earned and unearned income in this budget, which has been hinted at. Let’s see. So I've been taxed on the money I've already earned and I'll be taxed more for putting it to one side and not spending it? How are you expected to encourage anybody to invest in an economy or for their future, however little they've got. What would you recommend that I do with my 'excess' earnings as an alternative? |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Oct 26, 2024 16:35:16 GMT
Well, your last paragraph will be shown to be completely wrong if he evens up tax on earned and unearned income in this budget, which has been hinted at. Let’s see. So I've been taxed on the money I've already earned and I'll be taxed more for putting it to one side and not spending it? How are you expected to encourage anybody to invest in an economy or for their future, however little they've got. What would you recommend that I do with my 'excess' earnings as an alternative? You see none of this would be a problem if successive govts and local govt could spend money efficiently but they don't. I spend my life in and out of planning depts across the NW and they are all fucking shit at what they do. Every single last one of them. Even the regeneration authorities that you'd think would be grateful for someone bothering their arse to do shit in their run down crappy areas. Even they don't know their collective arses from their elbows. But dunna werrit Starmer has a solid plan to build build build. Seeing what I personally see day to day I reckon he's got feck all chance. Our planning system is beyond repair. His last gasp at resolving the problem will be to put the power into local communities to decide for themselves. And hey presto they'll decide to do fuck all to keep the locals happy. Edit. I'll give Manchester City Council a bit of credit. I've managed to get a couple of housing consents through there without too much unnecessary cost and delay. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Oct 26, 2024 16:38:48 GMT
So I've been taxed on the money I've already earned and I'll be taxed more for putting it to one side and not spending it? How are you expected to encourage anybody to invest in an economy or for their future, however little they've got. What would you recommend that I do with my 'excess' earnings as an alternative? You see none of this would be a problem if successive govts and local govt could spend money efficiently but they don't. I spend my life in and out of planning depts across the NW and they are all fucking shit at what they do. Every single last one of them. Even the regeneration authorities that you'd think would be grateful for someone bothering their arse to do shit in their run down crappy areas. Even they don't know their collective arses from their elbows. But dunna werrit Starmer has a solid plan to build build build. Seeing what I personally see day to day I reckon he's got feck all chance. Our planning system is beyond repair. His last gasp at resolving the problem will be to put the power into local communities to decide for themselves. And hey presto they'll decide to do fuck all to keep the locals happy. Edit. I'll give Manchester City Council a bit of credit. I've managed to get a couple of housing consents through there without too much unnecessary cost and delay. I hear you brother, unfortunately I suffer on the other side. He's deluded about the entire construction industry if he thinks it's going to be his magic bean. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Oct 26, 2024 16:43:05 GMT
You see none of this would be a problem if successive govts and local govt could spend money efficiently but they don't. I spend my life in and out of planning depts across the NW and they are all fucking shit at what they do. Every single last one of them. Even the regeneration authorities that you'd think would be grateful for someone bothering their arse to do shit in their run down crappy areas. Even they don't know their collective arses from their elbows. But dunna werrit Starmer has a solid plan to build build build. Seeing what I personally see day to day I reckon he's got feck all chance. Our planning system is beyond repair. His last gasp at resolving the problem will be to put the power into local communities to decide for themselves. And hey presto they'll decide to do fuck all to keep the locals happy. Edit. I'll give Manchester City Council a bit of credit. I've managed to get a couple of housing consents through there without too much unnecessary cost and delay. I hear you brother, unfortunately I suffer on the other side. He's deluded about the entire construction industry if he thinks it's going to be his magic bean. To be fair every govt for the last 30 odd years have said this. So it's nothing new. The problem is they say it and then introduce more and more planning legislation to make the process increasingly complicated and therefore slower. Its crackers. Its just a lie basically.. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Oct 26, 2024 16:44:43 GMT
I hear you brother, unfortunately I suffer on the other side. He's deluded about the entire construction industry if he thinks it's going to be his magic bean. To be fair every govt for the last 30 odd years have said this. So it's nothing new. The problem is they say it and then introduce more and more planning legislation to make the process increasingly complicated and therefore slower. Its crackers. Its just a lie basically.. That's essentially the entire era post Egan & Latham. No politician nowadays would even know who they are, or even realise that nobody has implemented their recommendations. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 26, 2024 17:00:42 GMT
Well, your last paragraph will be shown to be completely wrong if he evens up tax on earned and unearned income in this budget, which has been hinted at. Let’s see. So I've been taxed on the money I've already earned and I'll be taxed more for putting it to one side and not spending it? How are you expected to encourage anybody to invest in an economy or for their future, however little they've got. What would you recommend that I do with my 'excess' earnings as an alternative? Whatever you like. But if it earns more money, you should be taxed on that, and if the capital achieves capital gains you should be taxed on that too. Your approach is a race to the bottom of zero taxation because it “discourages investment”. We need higher taxes to repair our decimated public services. There is a choice to be made as to who pays for that. You don’t believe richer people should pay more, primarily because it isn’t good for you. The best thing for the economy is for people to spend their excess money and put it back into the economy, not save it. And so higher taxes on unearned income encourages exactly that. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Oct 26, 2024 17:05:58 GMT
So I've been taxed on the money I've already earned and I'll be taxed more for putting it to one side and not spending it? How are you expected to encourage anybody to invest in an economy or for their future, however little they've got. What would you recommend that I do with my 'excess' earnings as an alternative? Whatever you like. But if it earns more money, you should be taxed on that, and if the capital achieves capital gains you should be taxed on that too. Your approach is a race to the bottom of zero taxation because it “discourages investment”. We need higher taxes to repair our decimated public services. There is a choice to be made as to who pays for that. You don’t believe richer people should pay more, primarily because it isn’t good for you. The best thing for the economy is for people to spend their excess money and put it back into the economy, not save it. And so higher taxes on unearned income encourages exactly that. So if you're not encouraged to save it however do you get that deposit for that bigger property that you need? What would you suggest I spend the excess on then? What's ethical enough for you? Like said earlier, I may as well invest in a bigger home and rattle around in that great big house I don't need, pushing the property market up, no skin off my nose, I can afford it. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 26, 2024 17:15:28 GMT
Whatever you like. But if it earns more money, you should be taxed on that, and if the capital achieves capital gains you should be taxed on that too. Your approach is a race to the bottom of zero taxation because it “discourages investment”. We need higher taxes to repair our decimated public services. There is a choice to be made as to who pays for that. You don’t believe richer people should pay more, primarily because it isn’t good for you. The best thing for the economy is for people to spend their excess money and put it back into the economy, not save it. And so higher taxes on unearned income encourages exactly that. So if you're not encouraged to save it however do you get that deposit for that bigger property that you need? What would you suggest I spend the excess on then? What's ethical enough for you? Like said earlier, I may as well invest in a bigger home and rattle around in that great big house I don't need, pushing the property market up, no skin off my nose, I can afford it. That’s great for you. Do that then. Ethics has got nothing to do with it and I am not sure why you brought that up. You are complaining because you are rich enough to own your own home and have excess capital to invest, but that you may be taxed on the income your excess capital generates at potentially the same level as PAYE income. Cry me a river. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Oct 26, 2024 17:27:40 GMT
So if you're not encouraged to save it however do you get that deposit for that bigger property that you need? What would you suggest I spend the excess on then? What's ethical enough for you? Like said earlier, I may as well invest in a bigger home and rattle around in that great big house I don't need, pushing the property market up, no skin off my nose, I can afford it. That’s great for you. Do that then. Ethics has got nothing to do with it and I am not sure why you brought that up. You are complaining because you are rich enough to own your own home and have excess capital to invest, but that you may be taxed on the income your excess capital generates at potentially the same level as PAYE income. Cry me a river. It's all about choices. We earn two wages and effectively live off one and save one. I own my home because I live in area with reasonable property prices and was savvy enough to overpay the debt on it. I earn a lot less than most do or I could if I lived and worked elsewhere. That's the caveat, but it works out. Now we should be penalised for those decisions because it isn't working out for other people? Why not just knock it on the head and do enough not to have to contribute anything to the system at all but take the benefit out of it? That's effectively what's being encouraged. |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Oct 26, 2024 17:36:37 GMT
I can’t believe what I’m reading from Oggy……. Actually I can, classic.
|
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 26, 2024 17:51:10 GMT
That’s great for you. Do that then. Ethics has got nothing to do with it and I am not sure why you brought that up. You are complaining because you are rich enough to own your own home and have excess capital to invest, but that you may be taxed on the income your excess capital generates at potentially the same level as PAYE income. Cry me a river. It's all about choices. We earn two wages and effectively live off one and save one. I own my home because I live in area with reasonable property prices and was savvy enough to overpay the debt on it. I earn a lot less than most do or I could if I lived and worked elsewhere. That's the caveat, but it works out. Now we should be penalised for those decisions because it isn't working out for other people? Why not just knock it on the head and do enough not to have to contribute anything to the system at all but take the benefit out of it? That's effectively what's being encouraged. Paying tax on income isn’t you being penalised. I bet you want a better nhs, better justice system, better border force, better schools etc. Who should pay for it if not the richer parts of society? How would you raise the money? Tax the poor more? |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 26, 2024 17:51:26 GMT
I can’t believe what I’m reading from Oggy……. Actually I can, classic. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Oct 26, 2024 18:01:17 GMT
It's all about choices. We earn two wages and effectively live off one and save one. I own my home because I live in area with reasonable property prices and was savvy enough to overpay the debt on it. I earn a lot less than most do or I could if I lived and worked elsewhere. That's the caveat, but it works out. Now we should be penalised for those decisions because it isn't working out for other people? Why not just knock it on the head and do enough not to have to contribute anything to the system at all but take the benefit out of it? That's effectively what's being encouraged. Paying tax on income isn’t you being penalised. I bet you want a better nhs, better justice system, better border force, better schools etc. Who should pay for it if not the richer parts of society? How would you raise the money? Tax the poor more? I'd start with identifying waste in the system that I expected other people to pay more for in the first place, and prove that I knew that what I was going to implement would be effective. Rather than just pour more money down a black hole because some career politician claims to know how to fix things despite never having operated in those arenas. That might just get people on side if they could prove their competence first. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 26, 2024 18:04:30 GMT
Paying tax on income isn’t you being penalised. I bet you want a better nhs, better justice system, better border force, better schools etc. Who should pay for it if not the richer parts of society? How would you raise the money? Tax the poor more? I'd start with identifying waste in the system that I expected other people to pay more for in the first place, and prove that I knew that what I was going to implement would be effective. Rather than just pour more money down a black hole because some career politician claims to know how to fix things despite never having operated in those arenas. That might just get people on side if they could prove their competence first. Austerity didn’t work last time. In fact it is a big cause of the mess. And how do you prove that your plans will 100% work before implementing them exactly? |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Oct 26, 2024 18:07:43 GMT
I'd start with identifying waste in the system that I expected other people to pay more for in the first place, and prove that I knew that what I was going to implement would be effective. Rather than just pour more money down a black hole because some career politician claims to know how to fix things despite never having operated in those arenas. That might just get people on side if they could prove their competence first. Austerity didn’t work last time. In fact it is a big cause of the mess. And how do you prove that your plans will 100% work before implementing them exactly? You certainly don't chuck good money after bad. Look where that's got us. This might explain my lack of faith: You employ people who know what they're doing, not SPADs or consultants or other professional grifters on the same gravy train. You hunt down the experts in their fields, pay them far more than any politician earns and ask them to at least figure you out the starter for 10. As for taxing the poor more, apparently that's what Reeves is planning to do by extending the delay on increasing the limit for taxable income until 2030. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 26, 2024 18:35:40 GMT
Austerity didn’t work last time. In fact it is a big cause of the mess. And how do you prove that your plans will 100% work before implementing them exactly? You certainly don't chuck good money after bad. Look where that's got us. This might explain my lack of faith: You employ people who know what they're doing, not SPADs or consultants or other professional grifters on the same gravy train. You hunt down the experts in their fields, pay them far more than any politician earns and ask them to at least figure you out the starter for 10. As for taxing the poor more, apparently that's what Reeves is planning to do by extending the delay on increasing the limit for taxable income until 2030. Like making your AG a top KC, or giving a job to James Timpson? Getting rid of a 130k a year job isn’t going to get waiting lists down. Schools cannot afford hot water and nhs waiting lists are a nightmare. Money is definitely part of the solution and that means tax rises from somewhere. Changing spads may help, but that’s literally just happened. Don’t we now need to see what the new administration can do? |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Oct 26, 2024 18:38:13 GMT
I can’t believe what I’m reading from Oggy……. Actually I can, classic. Why? Well it’s obvious you’re all starry eyed about backing a fellow lefty lawyer.😏 |
|
