|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 3, 2024 14:43:03 GMT
Unite launches judicial review process over Winter Fuel Payment cutUnite’s case is built on the belief that the government has acted unlawfully and its action will have a terrible effect on millions of older people in society and will likely cause an increase in cold related deaths. The pre-action notice was submitted on 29 October. The government has been given until 7 November to respond to the letter and reverse its decision. If it does not reverse its decision then Unite will seek leave of the High Court to mount a full judicial review. Unite is challenging the removal of the Winter Fuel Payment on several grounds including: • The government had a legal duty to refer the cut to the Social Security Advisory Committee. Its failure to do so makes the regulations void. • The government should have gathered considerable evidence about the policy on the impact of the cut, meaning that the decision is irrational. • Under the Equality Act there is a Public Sector Equality Duty to consider the impact of the decision particularly on the disabled who have higher heating costs. • The requirement to take into account relevant considerations has been breached, including relating to fuel poverty and financial circumstances of those living just above the pension credit threshold. • In Wales there is a specific legal duty to consider the full impact of the policy, this was ignored • The Human Rights Act requires particular areas of vulnerability to be taken into account, which could include the impact of the policy on older people, those with a disability and potentially on race. What are the thoughts of our learned Council on this? Good for Unite. All governments should be held to account and, if found to have acted unlawfully, be forced to put that right. I'd like to think this Labour govt will be better than its predecessor which openly admitted to acting illegally, a further step up from unlawfulness, and went ahead anyway! So let's see where this goes and what the govt does if found to have acted unlawfully. All benefits should only go to those who really need them, universality of receipt based on age is a waste of resources, but that's a tangential point. To be fair they only broke International Law "in a very specific and limited way" - it's the same as being partly pregnant The Minister Brandon Lewis had the Balls to announce this in the HoC to the usual harrumphing of "hear, hear" |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 3, 2024 14:54:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 3, 2024 15:40:20 GMT
We could keep up this back and forth bullshit all day - I'm done Let's listen to what the Farmers say 17th September 2024 The NFU and its members met leading Defra officials in Cumbria to highlight the financial losses of more than £10 million in support to upland farmers in the Lake District. The reduction in funding is a result of changes to the government’s environmental schemes from BPS (Basic Payment Scheme) [EU Method] to ELMs (Environmental Land Management schemes).
“It was alarming to report that our upland farmers here in the Lake District have seen direct payments reduce by more than £10 million in income – that’s just in one year, as there are very limited opportunities to access new ELM schemes. This is vital money that is not going back into the local economy and also caring for the environment. This comes when Defra has recently announced a £358 million underspend in the agricultural budget over the last three years which has left farmers and growers with loss of income during the agricultural transition from the BPS to the new ELMs. (I.e transitioning from CAP to UK replacement with a lower Budget, you know the question you refused to answer) www.nfuonline.com/updates-and-information/nfu-urges-defra-to-prioritise-support-for-upland-farms/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CIt%20was%20alarming%20to%20report,to%20access%20new%20ELM%20schemes. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 4, 2024 7:31:22 GMT
My apologies, I think I got it wrong on IHT on farms earlier in this thread. Farmers have greater availability to exemptions than I said.
According to Reeves, A married couple could have £500k per spouse protection on a farm house, plus another £1m each on farmland. So upon both of them dying, up to £3m of their estate will be inherited tax free.
Consider that the best any of us could do with passing down £3M is for £1m to be exempt, then the remaining estate of £2m taxed at 40%, so farmer’s beneficiaries are £800k better off on the first £3m of assets.
Farmland above the £1m exemption both spouses get is then taxed at just 20% rather than the normal 40%.
Farmers complaining should shut up. If anything the rules need tightening against them further to make it fairer to the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 4, 2024 7:44:41 GMT
My apologies, I think I got it wrong on IHT on farms earlier in this thread. Farmers have greater availability to exemptions than I said. According to Reeves, A married couple could have £500k per spouse protection on a farm house, plus another £1m each on farmland. So upon both of them dying, up to £3m of their estate will be inherited tax free. Consider that the best any of us could do with passing down £3M is for £1m to be exempt, then the remaining estate of £2m taxed at 40%, so farmer’s beneficiaries are £800k better off on the first £3m of assets. Farmland above the £1m exemption both spouses get is then taxed at just 20% rather than the normal 40%. Farmers complaining should shut up. If anything the rules need tightening against them further to make it fairer to the rest of us. It's just more evidence of how out of touch the NFU really are with the rest of society. Farmers have had (and continue to have) significant help. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 4, 2024 10:38:21 GMT
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/03/investment-drives-growth-thats-why-gloomy-forecasters-are-so-wrong-about-the-budgetFor once I agree with this commentator. Higher public investment will encourage more private investment and generate more wealth. I hope the government does not lose its nerve, and keeps its eye on avoiding wastage which governments are so good at! The investment must be focused on improved services and greater efficiency, not just higher pay, reduced working hours, or grander offices. My views are often diametrically opposed to this commentator who believes that the UK should have clung on to membership of the slow growing, high tax EU economy, where investment and expenditure is focused on the central core of the market or in the subsidised fringes. Whereas I believe the UK should reduce trade barriers with the rapidly expanding world markets and seek to grow more rapidly and reduce our trade deficit which is draining the country's wealth.
|
|
|
|
Post by questionable on Nov 4, 2024 13:14:23 GMT
Industry sources said the pressure on pricing would be "intense" given the thin margins on which the big supermarkets already operate.
"Food price increases from next April are inevitable," said one.
I don’t agree with this whatsoever, in my past employment I dealt with major players in the supermarkets and back then they were nightmares when it came to what they’d be prepared to pay and literally you had to accept their offers to attain the business, if you didn’t guaranteed someone else would.
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 4, 2024 13:56:56 GMT
couple of £1000 on uni fees incoming
|
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 4, 2024 16:24:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Nov 4, 2024 16:27:01 GMT
couple of £1000 on uni fees incoming "You will pay less under a Labour government." Bridget Phillipson, the now education secretary, 2023 article she wrote for The Times. |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Nov 4, 2024 16:29:09 GMT
Must be another black hole they didn't know about. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 4, 2024 16:35:31 GMT
why wasnt it costed in the budget? |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 4, 2024 16:36:53 GMT
Must be another black hole they didn't know about. It's ostensibly due to new immigration brought in by the previous Conservative government introduced several new immigration restrictions, including higher salary thresholds for skilled worker visas and family visas, and restrictions on dependants accompanying international students. That, combined with the pandemic, Brexit and making studying in the UK more expensive for many international students, competition from other countries such as Canada and Australia (due to their more welcoming immigration policies and perceived safety for international students), and new rules preventing dependants from accompanying international students have added to the decline because students can just go to study in countries where their families can join them. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 4, 2024 16:49:48 GMT
why wasnt it costed in the budget? If they weren't going to pay for it then it wouldn't need to be would it? |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Nov 4, 2024 16:49:50 GMT
Must be another black hole they didn't know about. It's ostensibly due to new immigration brought in by the previous Conservative government introduced several new immigration restrictions, including higher salary thresholds for skilled worker visas and family visas, and restrictions on dependants accompanying international students. That, combined with the pandemic, Brexit and making studying in the UK more expensive for many international students, competition from other countries such as Canada and Australia (due to their more welcoming immigration policies and perceived safety for international students), and new rules preventing dependants from accompanying international students have added to the decline because students can just go to study in countries where their families can join them. I know but Keith seems not to have noticed. BBC Question Time in the run up to the GE "That's a political decision that I took - I'm not going to do the tuition fees abolition because I want to put that money to get our NHS back on its feet." Can't afford to abolish them, OK. No mention of putting them up. |
|
|
|
Post by superjw on Nov 4, 2024 18:22:19 GMT
Industry sources said the pressure on pricing would be "intense" given the thin margins on which the big supermarkets already operate. "Food price increases from next April are inevitable," said one. I don’t agree with this whatsoever, in my past employment I dealt with major players in the supermarkets and back then they were nightmares when it came to what they’d be prepared to pay and literally you had to accept their offers to attain the business, if you didn’t guaranteed someone else would. Thin margins? I think the profits of these supermarkets on their books says something different tbh |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 5, 2024 12:03:16 GMT
the NHS needs reform as much as it needs extra money www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0lkxl7061oAs part of the Budget, the chancellor said the NHS would receive an extra £25bn this year and next – with reducing waits a priority. A key part of Labour’s plan is for staff to work evenings and weekends, to cut the backlog. But the BBC News investigation raises concerns about whether this approach can deliver value for money. One senior NHS source said: “Consultants hold all the cards – they know we cannot make progress on the backlog without them." The source said consultants were in a "pretty unique position compared to other staff" because their contracts meant they could opt out of weekend work and then charge whatever their hospital was willing to pay for overtime. They said it was not in the BMA's interests to renegotiate these "outdated" contracts, more than 20 years old. |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 5, 2024 17:45:34 GMT
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/03/investment-drives-growth-thats-why-gloomy-forecasters-are-so-wrong-about-the-budgetFor once I agree with this commentator. Higher public investment will encourage more private investment and generate more wealth. I hope the government does not lose its nerve, and keeps its eye on avoiding wastage which governments are so good at! The investment must be focused on improved services and greater efficiency, not just higher pay, reduced working hours, or grander offices. My views are often diametrically opposed to this commentator who believes that the UK should have clung on to membership of the slow growing, high tax EU economy, where investment and expenditure is focused on the central core of the market or in the subsidised fringes. Whereas I believe the UK should reduce trade barriers with the rapidly expanding world markets and seek to grow more rapidly and reduce our trade deficit which is draining the country's wealth. I suspect he's right on both. While you're right about the UK exploiting rapidly growing markets, mainly because it bloody well has to after leaving the EU and suffering the inevitable loss of trade as a result!, so will the EU. It won't stand idly by while the UK hoovers up all the juicy trade deals! As I've said many times, we are now basically a corner shop in trade terms trying to compete with the big supermarket next door for the same markets. I wonder who's better placed with more economic heft and bargaining power to do so? |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Nov 25, 2024 18:32:50 GMT
Rachel from HBOS customer help line saysChancellor Rachel Reeves has told businesses she is "not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes" as she defended the tax rises on businesses announced in the Budget."I faced a problem, and I faced into it...we've put our public finances back on a firm footing, and we've now set the budgets for public services for the duration of this Parliament.
"Public services now need to live within their means because I'm really clear, I'm not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes."Right then Border Force, teachers, bin men, firemen etc. suck it up you'll get what you are given.
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 25, 2024 21:37:16 GMT
Rachel from HBOS customer help line saysChancellor Rachel Reeves has told businesses she is "not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes" as she defended the tax rises on businesses announced in the Budget."I faced a problem, and I faced into it...we've put our public finances back on a firm footing, and we've now set the budgets for public services for the duration of this Parliament.
"Public services now need to live within their means because I'm really clear, I'm not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes."Right then Border Force, teachers, bin men, firemen etc. suck it up you'll get what you are given. Where does she go from here next budget 1. Can’t break the manifesto pledge of no tax rises for workers 2. No more tax hikes for business. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 25, 2024 21:49:39 GMT
Rachel from HBOS customer help line saysChancellor Rachel Reeves has told businesses she is "not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes" as she defended the tax rises on businesses announced in the Budget."I faced a problem, and I faced into it...we've put our public finances back on a firm footing, and we've now set the budgets for public services for the duration of this Parliament.
"Public services now need to live within their means because I'm really clear, I'm not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes."Right then Border Force, teachers, bin men, firemen etc. suck it up you'll get what you are given. Where does she go from here next budget 1. Can’t break the manifesto pledge of no tax rises for workers 2. No more tax hikes for business. Wealth taxes |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Nov 25, 2024 22:18:42 GMT
Rachel from HBOS customer help line saysChancellor Rachel Reeves has told businesses she is "not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes" as she defended the tax rises on businesses announced in the Budget."I faced a problem, and I faced into it...we've put our public finances back on a firm footing, and we've now set the budgets for public services for the duration of this Parliament.
"Public services now need to live within their means because I'm really clear, I'm not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes."Right then Border Force, teachers, bin men, firemen etc. suck it up you'll get what you are given. Where does she go from here next budget 1. Can’t break the manifesto pledge of no tax rises for workers 2. No more tax hikes for business. Or borrowing. Down to good old growing the economy then. Or U turning. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 25, 2024 22:29:50 GMT
Where does she go from here next budget 1. Can’t break the manifesto pledge of no tax rises for workers 2. No more tax hikes for business. Wealth taxes Behave. They should have done that year 1. Not piss off business and freeze pensioners first |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 25, 2024 22:40:21 GMT
I struggle to understand that we borrow to pay the interest on our national debt, but then we proceed to give money away to foreign countries or international entities, rather than tackling our own immediate issues to reduce the need to borrow in the first place and eventually pay the debt down.
I'm sure I'm just being thick and Wannabee will explain it.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 25, 2024 22:44:55 GMT
I struggle to understand that we borrow to pay the interest on our national debt, but then we proceed to give money away to foreign countries or international entities, rather than tackling our own immediate issues to reduce the need to borrow in the first place and eventually pay the debt down. I'm sure I'm just being thick and Wannabee will explain it. There is no explanation, the country is run by cunts for cunts |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 25, 2024 23:11:08 GMT
I struggle to understand that we borrow to pay the interest on our national debt, but then we proceed to give money away to foreign countries or international entities, rather than tackling our own immediate issues to reduce the need to borrow in the first place and eventually pay the debt down. I'm sure I'm just being thick and Wannabee will explain it. There is no explanation, the country is run by cunts for cunts Let's see if our resident financial expert can expand on that explanation maybe? |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 25, 2024 23:55:11 GMT
There is no explanation, the country is run by cunts for cunts Let's see if our resident financial expert can expand on that explanation maybe? You know how we're always arguing about whether Britain should pay reparations or not. We'll it's smoke and mirrors. Were already paying. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 26, 2024 7:56:08 GMT
Behave. They should have done that year 1. Not piss off business and freeze pensioners first Yes they should have done that. But it won’t raise as much as the NI increase. So what would you have done to raise the £25bn instead? |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 26, 2024 8:22:11 GMT
Behave. They should have done that year 1. Not piss off business and freeze pensioners first Yes they should have done that. But it won’t raise as much as the NI increase. So what would you have done to raise the £25bn instead? increase tax on dividends for a start - people running business pay themselves £12750 a year so they only pay 8.75% on their true income, if your income is dividends id take the tax allowance off them also close every other fucking tax loophole you can find and do more to collect this money - theres over 30 billion missing and the tories should have done more www.taxwatchuk.org/hmrc-tax-gap-2023/ but labour have been saying they will collect this money for years "Individuals classed by HMRC as wealthy – which covers around 800,000 people – are responsible for around 5% of the tax gap, while all other individuals combined are only responsible for around 6% of the gap. While wealthy taxpayers are dealt with by specialist teams and have a much greater level of scrutiny, it seems apparent that more could be done with this group of taxpayers to increase compliance. It’s also assumed that this group will be more likely to feature in the offshore tax gap, which is to be measured separately (see above), so the 5% figure may actually be an underestimate of their share of the tax gap." 5% of 35 billion is a start Error and carelessness account for around 45% of the tax gap, indicating that other, more serious, behaviours are involved for over 50% of the gap – a sum of nearly £20bn. Our whole tax system needs to be reformed to ensure its fair, progressive and unavoidable |
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Nov 26, 2024 9:00:57 GMT
Yes they should have done that. But it won’t raise as much as the NI increase. So what would you have done to raise the £25bn instead?
close every other fucking tax loophole you can find and do more to collect this money - theres over 30 billion missing and the tories should have done more www.taxwatchuk.org/hmrc-tax-gap-2023/ but labour have been saying they will collect this money for years "Individuals classed by HMRC as wealthy – which covers around 800,000 people – are responsible for around 5% of the tax gap, while all other individuals combined are only responsible for around 6% of the gap. While wealthy taxpayers are dealt with by specialist teams and have a much greater level of scrutiny, it seems apparent that more could be done with this group of taxpayers to increase compliance. It’s also assumed that this group will be more likely to feature in the offshore tax gap, which is to be measured separately (see above), so the 5% figure may actually be an underestimate of their share of the tax gap." 5% of 35 billion is a start Error and carelessness account for around 45% of the tax gap, indicating that other, more serious, behaviours are involved for over 50% of the gap – a sum of nearly £20bn. Our whole tax system needs to be reformed to ensure its fair, progressive and unavoidable It's not that basic. Yes it's the tax effecient way of being paid because of the Employers NI charge but that 8.75% dividend tax rate you're not happy with is coming out of profits that have already had 19%/25% corporation tax charged on them. So no the buiness owner is not only paying 8.75 Tax rate overall, but it does still work out slightly less than being paid fully via PAYE. There really isn't much in it these days. I'd even hazard a guess that from next April small businesses will be better off not being limited anymore, especially when the added accountancy cost is taken into account. |
|
