 |
By *andu66 OP Couple 41 weeks ago
South Devon |
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/05/banker-budget-mega-rich-traders-jeremy-hunt
The budget is a piece of theatre meant for your consumption. It is a cute moment – a photogenic moment where a multimillionaire can hold up a red box and bribe you with a bit of your money, while they and all the other multimillionaires bankrupt the government with monetary and fiscal stimulus packages that seem somehow to always end up in their own pockets |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lfasoCouple 40 weeks ago
South East |
This morning Rachel Reeves has accepted the evidence that the cut in Capital Gains Tax on second homes announced in the budget will actually increase tax revenue. Won’t go down well with the socialist idealogues. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 40 weeks ago
|
"This morning Rachel Reeves has accepted the evidence that the cut in Capital Gains Tax on second homes announced in the budget will actually increase tax revenue. Won’t go down well with the socialist idealogues."
the large part of the benefit is from "unlocking" eg bringing forward disposals. The residue impact is small. It's also very behavioural driven.
Imo, labour will keep an eye on what ONS says. And will reverse if the ONS change it's views. It's sensible to be aligned with ONS here as they show tax changes that are consistent rather than just driven by ideology. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This morning Rachel Reeves has accepted the evidence that the cut in Capital Gains Tax on second homes announced in the budget will actually increase tax revenue."
Why would she do that? Even though it is true, she could have denied it and used it as a 'tax cuts for the rich' stick to beat the Tories with. Why would she undercut her own party's position in an election year? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This morning Rachel Reeves has accepted the evidence that the cut in Capital Gains Tax on second homes announced in the budget will actually increase tax revenue. Won’t go down well with the socialist idealogues."
This feels like another step Labour are taking to get close to the Tory position. If they carry on then choosing between voting Labour or conservative will make no difference at all |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lfasoCouple 40 weeks ago
South East |
It is the OBR not the ONS providing the numbers.
Reeves also said that as Chancellor, she would do nothing that decreased the Tax yield. So, unsurprisingly, we deduce that a Labour government would either maintain the personal tax burden at current levels or increase it further. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 40 weeks ago
|
"It is the OBR not the ONS providing the numbers.
Reeves also said that as Chancellor, she would do nothing that decreased the Tax yield. So, unsurprisingly, we deduce that a Labour government would either maintain the personal tax burden at current levels or increase it further."
pre coffee forming ! My point of using the official and impartial source stands.
What did she mean by tax yield? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It is the OBR not the ONS providing the numbers.
Reeves also said that as Chancellor, she would do nothing that decreased the Tax yield. So, unsurprisingly, we deduce that a Labour government would either maintain the personal tax burden at current levels or increase it further."
So after complaining about it for months if not years they will not change it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If Hunt can find £10bn for a 2p income tax cut and ensure that families on £120k can claim child benefit, why can't he find any money for the huge increase in defence spending that is so obviously required? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 40 weeks ago
|
"If Hunt can find £10bn for a 2p income tax cut and ensure that families on £120k can claim child benefit, why can't he find any money for the huge increase in defence spending that is so obviously required? "
Is it obviously required? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Hunt can find £10bn for a 2p income tax cut and ensure that families on £120k can claim child benefit, why can't he find any money for the huge increase in defence spending that is so obviously required?
Is it obviously required? "
Are you serious? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 40 weeks ago
|
"If Hunt can find £10bn for a 2p income tax cut and ensure that families on £120k can claim child benefit, why can't he find any money for the huge increase in defence spending that is so obviously required?
Is it obviously required?
Are you serious? "
Certainly am. We should be (as a world) looking at less spending on defence, not more.
Every nation should aim to have the smallest standing military possible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Hunt can find £10bn for a 2p income tax cut and ensure that families on £120k can claim child benefit, why can't he find any money for the huge increase in defence spending that is so obviously required?
Is it obviously required?
Are you serious?
Certainly am. We should be (as a world) looking at less spending on defence, not more.
Every nation should aim to have the smallest standing military possible. "
Then it's a good job you're not in any position of power because we'd all be in shxx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 40 weeks ago
|
"If Hunt can find £10bn for a 2p income tax cut and ensure that families on £120k can claim child benefit, why can't he find any money for the huge increase in defence spending that is so obviously required?
Is it obviously required?
Are you serious?
Certainly am. We should be (as a world) looking at less spending on defence, not more.
Every nation should aim to have the smallest standing military possible.
Then it's a good job you're not in any position of power because we'd all be in shxx "
Maybe I just understand that In normal times peace can be maintained adequately by diplomacy (and that’s how all wars are ultimately decided, too).
Not to mention that in the 21st century, military might is less reliant on bodies and more reliant on tech than ever, and that’s only going in one direction. You can knock out a satellite and do more damage than a battalion of armed troops in a month.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Hunt can find £10bn for a 2p income tax cut and ensure that families on £120k can claim child benefit, why can't he find any money for the huge increase in defence spending that is so obviously required?
Is it obviously required?
Are you serious?
Certainly am. We should be (as a world) looking at less spending on defence, not more.
Every nation should aim to have the smallest standing military possible.
Then it's a good job you're not in any position of power because we'd all be in shxx
Maybe I just understand that In normal times peace can be maintained adequately by diplomacy (and that’s how all wars are ultimately decided, too).
Not to mention that in the 21st century, military might is less reliant on bodies and more reliant on tech than ever, and that’s only going in one direction. You can knock out a satellite and do more damage than a battalion of armed troops in a month.
"
Once again, I'll ask if you are aware of the invasion of Ukraine. I despair of this type of thinking. It'll be the downfall of the nation |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 40 weeks ago
|
"If Hunt can find £10bn for a 2p income tax cut and ensure that families on £120k can claim child benefit, why can't he find any money for the huge increase in defence spending that is so obviously required?
Is it obviously required?
Are you serious?
Certainly am. We should be (as a world) looking at less spending on defence, not more.
Every nation should aim to have the smallest standing military possible.
Then it's a good job you're not in any position of power because we'd all be in shxx
Maybe I just understand that In normal times peace can be maintained adequately by diplomacy (and that’s how all wars are ultimately decided, too).
Not to mention that in the 21st century, military might is less reliant on bodies and more reliant on tech than ever, and that’s only going in one direction. You can knock out a satellite and do more damage than a battalion of armed troops in a month.
Once again, I'll ask if you are aware of the invasion of Ukraine. I despair of this type of thinking. It'll be the downfall of the nation "
That’s why I specifically said ‘in normal times’.
And I’d argue that constant sabre rattling is more dangerous than actively seeking peace. This is the 21st century now and it’s high time that humans started acting like it rather than fighting over man-made lines drawn on a map.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Hunt can find £10bn for a 2p income tax cut and ensure that families on £120k can claim child benefit, why can't he find any money for the huge increase in defence spending that is so obviously required?
Is it obviously required?
Are you serious?
Certainly am. We should be (as a world) looking at less spending on defence, not more.
Every nation should aim to have the smallest standing military possible.
Then it's a good job you're not in any position of power because we'd all be in shxx
Maybe I just understand that In normal times peace can be maintained adequately by diplomacy (and that’s how all wars are ultimately decided, too).
Not to mention that in the 21st century, military might is less reliant on bodies and more reliant on tech than ever, and that’s only going in one direction. You can knock out a satellite and do more damage than a battalion of armed troops in a month.
Once again, I'll ask if you are aware of the invasion of Ukraine. I despair of this type of thinking. It'll be the downfall of the nation
That’s why I specifically said ‘in normal times’.
And I’d argue that constant sabre rattling is more dangerous than actively seeking peace. This is the 21st century now and it’s high time that humans started acting like it rather than fighting over man-made lines drawn on a map.
"
These are normal times. Actively seeking peace is a lovely idea but so are fairies at the bottom of the garden. If you want peace, you prepare for war. History tells us that and thinking of your ilk will only lead to one thing, irrelevant of how well meaning it might be. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 40 weeks ago
|
"If Hunt can find £10bn for a 2p income tax cut and ensure that families on £120k can claim child benefit, why can't he find any money for the huge increase in defence spending that is so obviously required?
Is it obviously required?
Are you serious?
Certainly am. We should be (as a world) looking at less spending on defence, not more.
Every nation should aim to have the smallest standing military possible.
Then it's a good job you're not in any position of power because we'd all be in shxx
Maybe I just understand that In normal times peace can be maintained adequately by diplomacy (and that’s how all wars are ultimately decided, too).
Not to mention that in the 21st century, military might is less reliant on bodies and more reliant on tech than ever, and that’s only going in one direction. You can knock out a satellite and do more damage than a battalion of armed troops in a month.
Once again, I'll ask if you are aware of the invasion of Ukraine. I despair of this type of thinking. It'll be the downfall of the nation
That’s why I specifically said ‘in normal times’.
And I’d argue that constant sabre rattling is more dangerous than actively seeking peace. This is the 21st century now and it’s high time that humans started acting like it rather than fighting over man-made lines drawn on a map.
These are normal times. Actively seeking peace is a lovely idea but so are fairies at the bottom of the garden. If you want peace, you prepare for war. History tells us that and thinking of your ilk will only lead to one thing, irrelevant of how well meaning it might be. "
And preparing for war in the 21st century does not mean buying tanks and arming troops.
The next great war will be fought via space, via tech, in darkened rooms over computer screens - because that’s how you cripple a nation, not with guns and bombs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Hunt can find £10bn for a 2p income tax cut and ensure that families on £120k can claim child benefit, why can't he find any money for the huge increase in defence spending that is so obviously required? "
National debt trebled by tories, interest is £9bn a month forever. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Hunt can find £10bn for a 2p income tax cut and ensure that families on £120k can claim child benefit, why can't he find any money for the huge increase in defence spending that is so obviously required?
Is it obviously required?
Are you serious?
Certainly am. We should be (as a world) looking at less spending on defence, not more.
Every nation should aim to have the smallest standing military possible.
Then it's a good job you're not in any position of power because we'd all be in shxx
Maybe I just understand that In normal times peace can be maintained adequately by diplomacy (and that’s how all wars are ultimately decided, too).
Not to mention that in the 21st century, military might is less reliant on bodies and more reliant on tech than ever, and that’s only going in one direction. You can knock out a satellite and do more damage than a battalion of armed troops in a month.
Once again, I'll ask if you are aware of the invasion of Ukraine. I despair of this type of thinking. It'll be the downfall of the nation
That’s why I specifically said ‘in normal times’.
And I’d argue that constant sabre rattling is more dangerous than actively seeking peace. This is the 21st century now and it’s high time that humans started acting like it rather than fighting over man-made lines drawn on a map.
These are normal times. Actively seeking peace is a lovely idea but so are fairies at the bottom of the garden. If you want peace, you prepare for war. History tells us that and thinking of your ilk will only lead to one thing, irrelevant of how well meaning it might be.
And preparing for war in the 21st century does not mean buying tanks and arming troops.
The next great war will be fought via space, via tech, in darkened rooms over computer screens - because that’s how you cripple a nation, not with guns and bombs. "
You say wars are resolved with peace. Putin won't stop till he has what he want so I guess at the peace talks you would just say that's OK take what you want but let's not fight over land and money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Hunt can find £10bn for a 2p income tax cut and ensure that families on £120k can claim child benefit, why can't he find any money for the huge increase in defence spending that is so obviously required?
Is it obviously required?
Are you serious?
Certainly am. We should be (as a world) looking at less spending on defence, not more.
Every nation should aim to have the smallest standing military possible.
Then it's a good job you're not in any position of power because we'd all be in shxx
Maybe I just understand that In normal times peace can be maintained adequately by diplomacy (and that’s how all wars are ultimately decided, too).
Not to mention that in the 21st century, military might is less reliant on bodies and more reliant on tech than ever, and that’s only going in one direction. You can knock out a satellite and do more damage than a battalion of armed troops in a month.
Once again, I'll ask if you are aware of the invasion of Ukraine. I despair of this type of thinking. It'll be the downfall of the nation
That’s why I specifically said ‘in normal times’.
And I’d argue that constant sabre rattling is more dangerous than actively seeking peace. This is the 21st century now and it’s high time that humans started acting like it rather than fighting over man-made lines drawn on a map.
These are normal times. Actively seeking peace is a lovely idea but so are fairies at the bottom of the garden. If you want peace, you prepare for war. History tells us that and thinking of your ilk will only lead to one thing, irrelevant of how well meaning it might be.
And preparing for war in the 21st century does not mean buying tanks and arming troops.
The next great war will be fought via space, via tech, in darkened rooms over computer screens - because that’s how you cripple a nation, not with guns and bombs. "
You're entitled to your opinion but you are a fool if you genuinely believe the tripe you are putting out here |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 40 weeks ago
|
"If Hunt can find £10bn for a 2p income tax cut and ensure that families on £120k can claim child benefit, why can't he find any money for the huge increase in defence spending that is so obviously required?
Is it obviously required?
Are you serious?
Certainly am. We should be (as a world) looking at less spending on defence, not more.
Every nation should aim to have the smallest standing military possible.
Then it's a good job you're not in any position of power because we'd all be in shxx
Maybe I just understand that In normal times peace can be maintained adequately by diplomacy (and that’s how all wars are ultimately decided, too).
Not to mention that in the 21st century, military might is less reliant on bodies and more reliant on tech than ever, and that’s only going in one direction. You can knock out a satellite and do more damage than a battalion of armed troops in a month.
Once again, I'll ask if you are aware of the invasion of Ukraine. I despair of this type of thinking. It'll be the downfall of the nation
That’s why I specifically said ‘in normal times’.
And I’d argue that constant sabre rattling is more dangerous than actively seeking peace. This is the 21st century now and it’s high time that humans started acting like it rather than fighting over man-made lines drawn on a map.
These are normal times. Actively seeking peace is a lovely idea but so are fairies at the bottom of the garden. If you want peace, you prepare for war. History tells us that and thinking of your ilk will only lead to one thing, irrelevant of how well meaning it might be.
And preparing for war in the 21st century does not mean buying tanks and arming troops.
The next great war will be fought via space, via tech, in darkened rooms over computer screens - because that’s how you cripple a nation, not with guns and bombs.
You're entitled to your opinion but you are a fool if you genuinely believe the tripe you are putting out here "
I recommend some reading on the subject. Start with ‘The future of Geography’ by Tim Marshall  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Hunt can find £10bn for a 2p income tax cut and ensure that families on £120k can claim child benefit, why can't he find any money for the huge increase in defence spending that is so obviously required?
Is it obviously required?
Are you serious?
Certainly am. We should be (as a world) looking at less spending on defence, not more.
Every nation should aim to have the smallest standing military possible.
Then it's a good job you're not in any position of power because we'd all be in shxx
Maybe I just understand that In normal times peace can be maintained adequately by diplomacy (and that’s how all wars are ultimately decided, too).
Not to mention that in the 21st century, military might is less reliant on bodies and more reliant on tech than ever, and that’s only going in one direction. You can knock out a satellite and do more damage than a battalion of armed troops in a month.
Once again, I'll ask if you are aware of the invasion of Ukraine. I despair of this type of thinking. It'll be the downfall of the nation
That’s why I specifically said ‘in normal times’.
And I’d argue that constant sabre rattling is more dangerous than actively seeking peace. This is the 21st century now and it’s high time that humans started acting like it rather than fighting over man-made lines drawn on a map.
These are normal times. Actively seeking peace is a lovely idea but so are fairies at the bottom of the garden. If you want peace, you prepare for war. History tells us that and thinking of your ilk will only lead to one thing, irrelevant of how well meaning it might be.
And preparing for war in the 21st century does not mean buying tanks and arming troops.
The next great war will be fought via space, via tech, in darkened rooms over computer screens - because that’s how you cripple a nation, not with guns and bombs.
You're entitled to your opinion but you are a fool if you genuinely believe the tripe you are putting out here
I recommend some reading on the subject. Start with ‘The future of Geography’ by Tim Marshall "
I recommend looking at what's happening in the world |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 40 weeks ago
|
"If Hunt can find £10bn for a 2p income tax cut and ensure that families on £120k can claim child benefit, why can't he find any money for the huge increase in defence spending that is so obviously required?
Is it obviously required?
Are you serious?
Certainly am. We should be (as a world) looking at less spending on defence, not more.
Every nation should aim to have the smallest standing military possible.
Then it's a good job you're not in any position of power because we'd all be in shxx
Maybe I just understand that In normal times peace can be maintained adequately by diplomacy (and that’s how all wars are ultimately decided, too).
Not to mention that in the 21st century, military might is less reliant on bodies and more reliant on tech than ever, and that’s only going in one direction. You can knock out a satellite and do more damage than a battalion of armed troops in a month.
Once again, I'll ask if you are aware of the invasion of Ukraine. I despair of this type of thinking. It'll be the downfall of the nation
That’s why I specifically said ‘in normal times’.
And I’d argue that constant sabre rattling is more dangerous than actively seeking peace. This is the 21st century now and it’s high time that humans started acting like it rather than fighting over man-made lines drawn on a map.
These are normal times. Actively seeking peace is a lovely idea but so are fairies at the bottom of the garden. If you want peace, you prepare for war. History tells us that and thinking of your ilk will only lead to one thing, irrelevant of how well meaning it might be.
And preparing for war in the 21st century does not mean buying tanks and arming troops.
The next great war will be fought via space, via tech, in darkened rooms over computer screens - because that’s how you cripple a nation, not with guns and bombs.
You're entitled to your opinion but you are a fool if you genuinely believe the tripe you are putting out here
I recommend some reading on the subject. Start with ‘The future of Geography’ by Tim Marshall
I recommend looking at what's happening in the world "
Indeed. And that’s why you don’t understand why you’re wrong |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
