FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Keir Starmer hints at tax rises on people with income from assets
Keir Starmer hints at tax rises on people with income from assets
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Keir Starmer has hinted at tax rises for those who earn their income from shares and property, saying that they did not fit his definition of “working people”. What are the criteria for working people. Most pension scheme recipients earn their money from invested shares and property, either directly or via managed funds. Anyone with savings, inheritance from savers and investors, owners of 5 million rented homes looking like they will be targeted. That’s a lot of people who don’t meet ‘his’ definition of workers. (His key adviser Tony Blair has a £30m rental portfolio) " Technically pensioners are not ‘working people ‘ | |||
"And what about “working people” who have used a little bit of their net income from their salary to invest in assets?" CGT is currently at its lowest level for decades, I hope labour doesn’t increase it to much as it will stifle growth | |||
 | |||
" Anyone with savings, inheritance from savers and investors, owners of 5 million rented homes looking like they will be targeted. " Savings are not subject to CGT. In principle I agree with this - those who make their income from simply having money , currently have a huge tax advantage over those who make money by working for it. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Most landlords are parasites who hoard housing and contribute nothing to society, so Starmer is actually onto a good thing for once." Impressive life you must live, knowing most landlords and all  | |||
"Wonder if his bf lord ali will be chased for money then " Kier Starmer has a bf? | |||
"Most landlords are parasites who hoard housing and contribute nothing to society, so Starmer is actually onto a good thing for once." You sound so much like someone who says that about people on benefits. | |||
| |||
" People sitting on their arses doing nothing and earning income from shares, trusts, and other portfolios do not pay the same increasing tax rates irrespective of their income. . " How does that work for people that have worked and saved/invested and contributed via tax’s. And are now retired with assets, on their arses Does this new asset tax have an age parameter. That sir free clothes Starmer will set | |||
"Most landlords are parasites who hoard housing and contribute nothing to society, so Starmer is actually onto a good thing for once." I’m not keen on the private rental sector being the go to place for housing. Previous Labour increased the PRS from 2.5 million homes in 1997, to 4 million when they left office in 2010. A 60% increase in the private rented homes and built less council housing than thatcher | |||
"You have to laugh. I thought Labour were supposed by encouraging investment in industry to fuel growth. Now they're doing the exact opposite. Their incompetence beggars belief." This was Reeves manifesto message. “ the taxes will come from economic growth”. “Economic growth is my number one priority” We are not hearing much in the way of policies promoting SME investment so far. Extra tax’s for businesses are likely next week. | |||
"Got to say the way that unearned income is taxed has always seemed a bit strange to me. Ordinary workers go out to work, exhaust themselves, give up their time but get paid for it. Unfortunately, it seems the harder you work and/or the more successful you are in work - the more you are taxed. People sitting on their arses doing nothing and earning income from shares, trusts, and other portfolios do not pay the same increasing tax rates irrespective of their income. I have always thought that there is a case to be made to tax unearned income more than earned income because with unearned income, you are not giving up anything in terms of time and effort to get that income. " Quite the assumption... Are you saying I or others haven't earned the money to buy shares, I or others have just sat on our arses and they landed in our lap? Politics of envy here we come..... | |||
" Quite the assumption... Are you saying I or others haven't earned the money to buy shares, I or others have just sat on our arses and they landed in our lap? Politics of envy here we come..... " Keir Starmer those who earn their income from shares and property, do not fit his definition of “working people”. So they should pay higher taxes, according to his definition | |||
"Got to say the way that unearned income is taxed has always seemed a bit strange to me. Ordinary workers go out to work, exhaust themselves, give up their time but get paid for it. Unfortunately, it seems the harder you work and/or the more successful you are in work - the more you are taxed. People sitting on their arses doing nothing and earning income from shares, trusts, and other portfolios do not pay the same increasing tax rates irrespective of their income. I have always thought that there is a case to be made to tax unearned income more than earned income because with unearned income, you are not giving up anything in terms of time and effort to get that income. Quite the assumption... Are you saying I or others haven't earned the money to buy shares, I or others have just sat on our arses and they landed in our lap? Politics of envy here we come..... " I don’t know anything about trading in stocks but if someone’s income is from trading in shares is there any reason they should pay a lower rate of tax than say a doctor or a nurse. If s | |||
" Quite the assumption... Are you saying I or others haven't earned the money to buy shares, I or others have just sat on our arses and they landed in our lap? Politics of envy here we come..... Keir Starmer those who earn their income from shares and property, do not fit his definition of “working people”. So they should pay higher taxes, according to his definition " It’s another definition disaster…. If I decide to work hard and put my money in shares to retire on, I take the risk. He is basically saying you had the audacity to do something to look after yourself now give me a cut. If i have property that I rent out, he will want a slice of that too. Is he going to come and help me fit the new sink, or paint the outside, replace the fence? It’s obviously not working for a living….. If he ever bumps into a woman that works, is a private landlord and owns shares, he will go into a melt down | |||
"Got to say the way that unearned income is taxed has always seemed a bit strange to me. Ordinary workers go out to work, exhaust themselves, give up their time but get paid for it. Unfortunately, it seems the harder you work and/or the more successful you are in work - the more you are taxed. People sitting on their arses doing nothing and earning income from shares, trusts, and other portfolios do not pay the same increasing tax rates irrespective of their income. I have always thought that there is a case to be made to tax unearned income more than earned income because with unearned income, you are not giving up anything in terms of time and effort to get that income. Quite the assumption... Are you saying I or others haven't earned the money to buy shares, I or others have just sat on our arses and they landed in our lap? Politics of envy here we come..... I don’t know anything about trading in stocks but if someone’s income is from trading in shares is there any reason they should pay a lower rate of tax than say a doctor or a nurse. If s" Point well made. But that’s not this message. His message appears to suggest an extra tax for everyone on assets/savings that people have in addition to their job. No details have been given yet | |||
"Got to say the way that unearned income is taxed has always seemed a bit strange to me. Ordinary workers go out to work, exhaust themselves, give up their time but get paid for it. Unfortunately, it seems the harder you work and/or the more successful you are in work - the more you are taxed. People sitting on their arses doing nothing and earning income from shares, trusts, and other portfolios do not pay the same increasing tax rates irrespective of their income. I have always thought that there is a case to be made to tax unearned income more than earned income because with unearned income, you are not giving up anything in terms of time and effort to get that income. Quite the assumption... Are you saying I or others haven't earned the money to buy shares, I or others have just sat on our arses and they landed in our lap? Politics of envy here we come..... I don’t know anything about trading in stocks but if someone’s income is from trading in shares is there any reason they should pay a lower rate of tax than say a doctor or a nurse. If s" There are very few people who make a living from their shares, they are an investment in your future. It is no different to a pension but you are making the choices rather than a middleman who takes a slice. This will be a tax on people who have invested their income  | |||
"Most landlords are parasites who hoard housing and contribute nothing to society, so Starmer is actually onto a good thing for once." That makes it OK then | |||
" I don’t know anything about trading in stocks but if someone’s income is from trading in shares is there any reason they should pay a lower rate of tax than say a doctor or a nurse. There are very few people who make a living from their shares, they are an investment in your future. It is no different to a pension but you are making the choices rather than a middleman who takes a slice. This will be a tax on people who have invested their income "If people are not trading in shares Dividends are taxed at 8.75% (basic rate), 33.75% (higher rate), and 39.35% (additional rate). Thats enough and progressive ? Why should they pay more ? Capital gains annual tax free allowances have been quartered by tories. Any assets over £325k will be taxed at 40% on death/ iht. How much more do Labour think the prudent should pay. (I don’t own any shares) | |||
| |||
| |||
"Keir Starmer has hinted at tax rises for those who earn their income from shares and property, saying that they did not fit his definition of “working people”. What are the criteria for working people. Most pension scheme recipients earn their money from invested shares and property, either directly or via managed funds. Anyone with savings, inheritance from savers and investors, owners of 5 million rented homes looking like they will be targeted. That’s a lot of people who don’t meet ‘his’ definition of workers. (His key adviser Tony Blair has a £30m rental portfolio) Technically pensioners are not ‘working people ‘ " They sometimes reinvest their some of their pension back into the economy and buy property which they may not now. They might just put it in shoe box until a goverment comes along who knows what they are doing. At the rate things are going seems to be never. | |||
"Keir Starmer has hinted at tax rises for those who earn their income from shares and property, saying that they did not fit his definition of “working people”. What are the criteria for working people. Most pension scheme recipients earn their money from invested shares and property, either directly or via managed funds. Anyone with savings, inheritance from savers and investors, owners of 5 million rented homes looking like they will be targeted. That’s a lot of people who don’t meet ‘his’ definition of workers. (His key adviser Tony Blair has a £30m rental portfolio) Technically pensioners are not ‘working people ‘ They sometimes reinvest their some of their pension back into the economy and buy property which they may not now. They might just put it in shoe box until a goverment comes along who knows what they are doing. At the rate things are going seems to be never." Working or not, pensioners savings ate ‘working’ in the economy. If it is sat in a bank account it is contributing to the 10% gdp contribution of the financial services sector. Starmer is showing his colours now Can’t define a working person, he couldn’t define what a woman was a few weeks ago. On interview he would not answer, gutless character. I’ve never voted Tory in my life but Sunak was right all along, they will put your taxes up. | |||
"Keir Starmer has hinted at tax rises for those who earn their income from shares and property, saying that they did not fit his definition of “working people”. What are the criteria for working people. Most pension scheme recipients earn their money from invested shares and property, either directly or via managed funds. Anyone with savings, inheritance from savers and investors, owners of 5 million rented homes looking like they will be targeted. That’s a lot of people who don’t meet ‘his’ definition of workers. (His key adviser Tony Blair has a £30m rental portfolio) Technically pensioners are not ‘working people ‘ They sometimes reinvest their some of their pension back into the economy and buy property which they may not now. They might just put it in shoe box until a goverment comes along who knows what they are doing. At the rate things are going seems to be never. Working or not, pensioners savings ate ‘working’ in the economy. If it is sat in a bank account it is contributing to the 10% gdp contribution of the financial services sector. Starmer is showing his colours now Can’t define a working person, he couldn’t define what a woman was a few weeks ago. On interview he would not answer, gutless character. I’ve never voted Tory in my life but Sunak was right all along, they will put your taxes up. " Agreed but the last sentence was disingenuous (although true) by Sunak as the Conservatives had baked in multiple tax rises too had they gor back into Govt. The finances have been fucked by lead up to Brexit, Covid, almost actual Brexit, Ukraine war, Truss/Kwartang. So belt tightening was inevitable whoever sat in No.10. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Labour has consistently lied to the public, sacrificing groups for socialist approval while irresponsibly spending funds not held to satisfy the unions, and most damaging without accountability or a meaningful deal to prevent further strikes next year. They’ve not answered directly any question asked of them. The changes to fiscal rules are a mess that break most their manifesto pledges, which will no doubt burden us for years to come. Reeves big ideas on borrowing are nothing more than a smokescreen to baffle the country, a gamble based on their flimsy ideas, and her constant references to “guard rails” are utterly meaningless once the money’s spent." Yes they are gambling, and guess who pays if they get it wrong which they will 👍 | |||
"Labour has consistently lied to the public, sacrificing groups for socialist approval while irresponsibly spending funds not held to satisfy the unions, and most damaging without accountability or a meaningful deal to prevent further strikes next year. They’ve not answered directly any question asked of them. The changes to fiscal rules are a mess that break most their manifesto pledges, which will no doubt burden us for years to come. Reeves big ideas on borrowing are nothing more than a smokescreen to baffle the country, a gamble based on their flimsy ideas, and her constant references to “guard rails” are utterly meaningless once the money’s spent. Yes they are gambling, and guess who pays if they get it wrong which they will 👍" Let’s all hope that budget won’t be as bad as Liz Truss and Kwartangs | |||
| |||
"Serious question. We know that a combination of ageing population and increase in working people prefering not to work means the public welfare is going to suffer. How do you prefer solving the problem? Do you want to keep funding the welfare by increasing taxes? If yes, which taxes would you rather increase? Do you prefer cutting down on the welfare? If yes, which welfare do you prefer cutting? Or is there any other solution? " Oh that’s not what this forum is for. It’s a place for blaming and whataboutery. | |||
| |||
"Serious question. We know that a combination of ageing population and increase in working people prefering not to work means the public welfare is going to suffer. How do you prefer solving the problem? Do you want to keep funding the welfare by increasing taxes? If yes, which taxes would you rather increase? Do you prefer cutting down on the welfare? If yes, which welfare do you prefer cutting? Or is there any other solution? Oh that’s not what this forum is for. It’s a place for blaming and whataboutery." It's not just this forum though. Pretty much the whole population is living in denial. There seems to be some expectation that the government will spin a magic wand and the problem will be solved. There are some difficult and honest conversations to be had. The people aren't willing to have those conversations. Neither are the politicians. So they end up making false promises to get into power like the way labour did and then go on to break their promises. | |||
"Serious question. We know that a combination of ageing population and increase in working people prefering not to work means the public welfare is going to suffer. How do you prefer solving the problem? Do you want to keep funding the welfare by increasing taxes? If yes, which taxes would you rather increase? Do you prefer cutting down on the welfare? If yes, which welfare do you prefer cutting? Or is there any other solution? Oh that’s not what this forum is for. It’s a place for blaming and whataboutery. It's not just this forum though. Pretty much the whole population is living in denial. There seems to be some expectation that the government will spin a magic wand and the problem will be solved. There are some difficult and honest conversations to be had. The people aren't willing to have those conversations. Neither are the politicians. So they end up making false promises to get into power like the way labour did and then go on to break their promises. " I’ll judge them at the end of their first term. Financially I was ok under the last government but I saw my country’s infrastructure crumble. That was my thought before even Covid hit us. The whole save the NHS from being overwhelmed was due to the cuts in hospital beds. We had the highest tax take on record but broken public services so where did that money go to. It certainly wasn’t the workforce because after the financial crash they had either no pay rises or below inflation rises. | |||
"Keir Starmer has hinted at tax rises for those who earn their income from shares and property, saying that they did not fit his definition of “working people”. What are the criteria for working people. Most pension scheme recipients earn their money from invested shares and property, either directly or via managed funds. Anyone with savings, inheritance from savers and investors, owners of 5 million rented homes looking like they will be targeted. That’s a lot of people who don’t meet ‘his’ definition of workers. (His key adviser Tony Blair has a £30m rental portfolio) " Not sure width they are going to do, as income from property and shares are already taxable | |||
"Serious question. We know that a combination of ageing population and increase in working people prefering not to work means the public welfare is going to suffer. How do you prefer solving the problem? Do you want to keep funding the welfare by increasing taxes? If yes, which taxes would you rather increase? Do you prefer cutting down on the welfare? If yes, which welfare do you prefer cutting? Or is there any other solution? Oh that’s not what this forum is for. It’s a place for blaming and whataboutery. It's not just this forum though. Pretty much the whole population is living in denial. There seems to be some expectation that the government will spin a magic wand and the problem will be solved. There are some difficult and honest conversations to be had. The people aren't willing to have those conversations. Neither are the politicians. So they end up making false promises to get into power like the way labour did and then go on to break their promises. I’ll judge them at the end of their first term. Financially I was ok under the last government but I saw my country’s infrastructure crumble. That was my thought before even Covid hit us. The whole save the NHS from being overwhelmed was due to the cuts in hospital beds. We had the highest tax take on record but broken public services so where did that money go to. It certainly wasn’t the workforce because after the financial crash they had either no pay rises or below inflation rises." Where did the money go? Increasing levels of welfare payments, for starters, with massive increases expected in the next few years. And colossal amounts of waste in the state sector. | |||
"Serious question. We know that a combination of ageing population and increase in working people prefering not to work means the public welfare is going to suffer. How do you prefer solving the problem? Do you want to keep funding the welfare by increasing taxes? If yes, which taxes would you rather increase? Do you prefer cutting down on the welfare? If yes, which welfare do you prefer cutting? Or is there any other solution? Oh that’s not what this forum is for. It’s a place for blaming and whataboutery. It's not just this forum though. Pretty much the whole population is living in denial. There seems to be some expectation that the government will spin a magic wand and the problem will be solved. There are some difficult and honest conversations to be had. The people aren't willing to have those conversations. Neither are the politicians. So they end up making false promises to get into power like the way labour did and then go on to break their promises. I’ll judge them at the end of their first term. Financially I was ok under the last government but I saw my country’s infrastructure crumble. That was my thought before even Covid hit us. The whole save the NHS from being overwhelmed was due to the cuts in hospital beds. We had the highest tax take on record but broken public services so where did that money go to. It certainly wasn’t the workforce because after the financial crash they had either no pay rises or below inflation rises." A significant portion of the tax take is used to pay back the country’s debt capital and interest. Govt debt got more expensive thanks to Truss and Kwartang. Overall Govt tax receipts actually dropped (I believe, sure someone will correct me) due to the impact of the Financial Crisis, QE, pre-Brexit, Covid, initial launch of Brexit (full impact still not felt), war in Ukraine, Truss/Kwartang, inflation. Basically everything cost more but was having to be paid for with less and it got worse! | |||
" I’ll judge them at the end of their first term. " The fact is that Labour promised that they won't increase taxes. As expected, they are getting into power and sending out all messages to get the population ready for taxes. This why I am asking why the politicians aren't being honest. " Financially I was ok under the last government but I saw my country’s infrastructure crumble. That was my thought before even Covid hit us. The whole save the NHS from being overwhelmed was due to the cuts in hospital beds. " The reason is ageing population and a huge amount of working age population that's not working. The crumbling infrastructure problem isn't specific to UK. It's happening in many European countries and the reason is the same " We had the highest tax take on record but broken public services so where did that money go to. It certainly wasn’t the workforce because after the financial crash they had either no pay rises or below inflation rises." The previous labour government was borrowing and spending to mask the problems in the country. The recession was always going to hit people double hard when you do it. As things stand, Labour will lie to us saying they won't increase taxes, get into power and increase taxes or cut down welfare of pensioners who typically won't vote for Labour. Tories will lie to us about how they will leave the welfare system untouched, get into power and cut down welfare which typical Labour voters depend upon. This cycle is bound to continue until people face the truth and see the situation for what it is, stop depending on the government for everything and be willing to make some sacrifices. | |||
"Serious question. We know that a combination of ageing population and increase in working people prefering not to work means the public welfare is going to suffer. How do you prefer solving the problem? Do you want to keep funding the welfare by increasing taxes? If yes, which taxes would you rather increase? Do you prefer cutting down on the welfare? If yes, which welfare do you prefer cutting? Or is there any other solution? Oh that’s not what this forum is for. It’s a place for blaming and whataboutery. It's not just this forum though. Pretty much the whole population is living in denial. There seems to be some expectation that the government will spin a magic wand and the problem will be solved. There are some difficult and honest conversations to be had. The people aren't willing to have those conversations. Neither are the politicians. So they end up making false promises to get into power like the way labour did and then go on to break their promises. I’ll judge them at the end of their first term. Financially I was ok under the last government but I saw my country’s infrastructure crumble. That was my thought before even Covid hit us. The whole save the NHS from being overwhelmed was due to the cuts in hospital beds. We had the highest tax take on record but broken public services so where did that money go to. It certainly wasn’t the workforce because after the financial crash they had either no pay rises or below inflation rises." “I’ll judge them at the end of their first term” Again, you are assuming that they will get re-elected. As you previously stated, they will “walk” the next election. I will judge them today and tomorrow, based on what they do today and tomorrow. I certainly won’t give them a 5 year pass like you are choosing to. And not sure that I share your view that the next election is a forgone conclusion. | |||
| |||
" The verbal gymnastics that labour are now engaging in re what constitutes “a working person” is just so predictable. Anyone who fell for the obvious lie, and is now surprised, needs their head examined. Couldn’t have said what they meant by “working people” before the election, no? Dishonest " On top of this is the new definition of the fiscal rules, shorthand for, I want to borrow more money because we over promised, we have already massively overspent and we are going down the plug hole very quickly. That will be wrapped up as invigorating growth, sounds about right for Joe Public…. The definition change is how we borrow money, she will start to confuse the nation with capitalisation and how businesses will borrow based upon an expected ROI, and we need to do the same. The parts she will gloss over is a business model for raising investment is not the same for a government that is raising it against their own ideas that need funding by the private sector, the money coming in this side is to encourage the private sector to get onboard, after all they need to see the government has some skin in the game, it does our skin. This strategy will hide away the shortfall in the budget they have blown already. I expect to see announcements in jobs created and projects starting, that will run us for at least the next 5 years, enough to get them over the line at the next GE, if the gamble doesn’t pay off it will be then we will be in a real financial mess, yet again! We have history of labour and the private sector going for big gains and then the bubble bursts when the private sector call in the commitments promised from the government…… | |||
" The verbal gymnastics that labour are now engaging in re what constitutes “a working person” is just so predictable. Anyone who fell for the obvious lie, and is now surprised, needs their head examined. Couldn’t have said what they meant by “working people” before the election, no? Dishonest On top of this is the new definition of the fiscal rules, shorthand for, I want to borrow more money because we over promised, we have already massively overspent and we are going down the plug hole very quickly. That will be wrapped up as invigorating growth, sounds about right for Joe Public…. The definition change is how we borrow money, she will start to confuse the nation with capitalisation and how businesses will borrow based upon an expected ROI, and we need to do the same. The parts she will gloss over is a business model for raising investment is not the same for a government that is raising it against their own ideas that need funding by the private sector, the money coming in this side is to encourage the private sector to get onboard, after all they need to see the government has some skin in the game, it does our skin. This strategy will hide away the shortfall in the budget they have blown already. I expect to see announcements in jobs created and projects starting, that will run us for at least the next 5 years, enough to get them over the line at the next GE, if the gamble doesn’t pay off it will be then we will be in a real financial mess, yet again! We have history of labour and the private sector going for big gains and then the bubble bursts when the private sector call in the commitments promised from the government……" Yeah, “let me just change the rules so I can borrow another 50 billion”. … again, shouldn’t this have been made clear before the election? Basically, they got elected by keeping quiet and not saying what they were going to do. To be fair, that was the easiest route to power | |||
" The verbal gymnastics that labour are now engaging in re what constitutes “a working person” is just so predictable. Anyone who fell for the obvious lie, and is now surprised, needs their head examined. Couldn’t have said what they meant by “working people” before the election, no? Dishonest On top of this is the new definition of the fiscal rules, shorthand for, I want to borrow more money because we over promised, we have already massively overspent and we are going down the plug hole very quickly. That will be wrapped up as invigorating growth, sounds about right for Joe Public…. The definition change is how we borrow money, she will start to confuse the nation with capitalisation and how businesses will borrow based upon an expected ROI, and we need to do the same. The parts she will gloss over is a business model for raising investment is not the same for a government that is raising it against their own ideas that need funding by the private sector, the money coming in this side is to encourage the private sector to get onboard, after all they need to see the government has some skin in the game, it does our skin. This strategy will hide away the shortfall in the budget they have blown already. I expect to see announcements in jobs created and projects starting, that will run us for at least the next 5 years, enough to get them over the line at the next GE, if the gamble doesn’t pay off it will be then we will be in a real financial mess, yet again! We have history of labour and the private sector going for big gains and then the bubble bursts when the private sector call in the commitments promised from the government…… Yeah, “let me just change the rules so I can borrow another 50 billion”. … again, shouldn’t this have been made clear before the election? Basically, they got elected by keeping quiet and not saying what they were going to do. To be fair, that was the easiest route to power " Several people and parties warned what Labour were going to raise multiple taxes,that affect many and increase the already huge debt, long before the election but were dismissed. I don't think anyone predicted quite how uncaring they are by removing the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, which according to their own reports will impact seriously on thousands including deaths. The surprising thing is, that some are surprised | |||
" The verbal gymnastics that labour are now engaging in re what constitutes “a working person” is just so predictable. Anyone who fell for the obvious lie, and is now surprised, needs their head examined. Couldn’t have said what they meant by “working people” before the election, no? Dishonest On top of this is the new definition of the fiscal rules, shorthand for, I want to borrow more money because we over promised, we have already massively overspent and we are going down the plug hole very quickly. That will be wrapped up as invigorating growth, sounds about right for Joe Public…. The definition change is how we borrow money, she will start to confuse the nation with capitalisation and how businesses will borrow based upon an expected ROI, and we need to do the same. The parts she will gloss over is a business model for raising investment is not the same for a government that is raising it against their own ideas that need funding by the private sector, the money coming in this side is to encourage the private sector to get onboard, after all they need to see the government has some skin in the game, it does our skin. This strategy will hide away the shortfall in the budget they have blown already. I expect to see announcements in jobs created and projects starting, that will run us for at least the next 5 years, enough to get them over the line at the next GE, if the gamble doesn’t pay off it will be then we will be in a real financial mess, yet again! We have history of labour and the private sector going for big gains and then the bubble bursts when the private sector call in the commitments promised from the government…… Yeah, “let me just change the rules so I can borrow another 50 billion”. … again, shouldn’t this have been made clear before the election? Basically, they got elected by keeping quiet and not saying what they were going to do. To be fair, that was the easiest route to power Several people and parties warned what Labour were going to raise multiple taxes,that affect many and increase the already huge debt, long before the election but were dismissed. I don't think anyone predicted quite how uncaring they are by removing the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, which according to their own reports will impact seriously on thousands including deaths. The surprising thing is, that some are surprised" Agree to an extent. I’m not at all surprised at the tax grab, that was obvious. I am surprised at the WFA policy though, like you say their own analysis suggested that it would cause thousands of deaths. | |||
| |||
"Serious question. We know that a combination of ageing population and increase in working people prefering not to work means the public welfare is going to suffer. How do you prefer solving the problem? Do you want to keep funding the welfare by increasing taxes? If yes, which taxes would you rather increase? Do you prefer cutting down on the welfare? If yes, which welfare do you prefer cutting? Or is there any other solution? " Yes! They should stop giving money away 
If they stopped giving our money away to other countries and crackpot ideas like millibands pie in the sky GB Energy they would not have to raise taxes.
And now she’s in about borrowing billions more 🤦 but is still giving billions away 🤷♂️ | |||
"Serious question. We know that a combination of ageing population and increase in working people prefering not to work means the public welfare is going to suffer. How do you prefer solving the problem? Do you want to keep funding the welfare by increasing taxes? If yes, which taxes would you rather increase? Do you prefer cutting down on the welfare? If yes, which welfare do you prefer cutting? Or is there any other solution? Yes! They should stop giving money away
If they stopped giving our money away to other countries and crackpot ideas like millibands pie in the sky GB Energy they would not have to raise taxes.
And now she’s in about borrowing billions more 🤦 but is still giving billions away 🤷♂️"You’re not wrong about miliband. His plans could bankrupt us | |||
"Serious question. We know that a combination of ageing population and increase in working people prefering not to work means the public welfare is going to suffer. How do you prefer solving the problem? Do you want to keep funding the welfare by increasing taxes? If yes, which taxes would you rather increase? Do you prefer cutting down on the welfare? If yes, which welfare do you prefer cutting? Or is there any other solution? Yes! They should stop giving money away
If they stopped giving our money away to other countries and crackpot ideas like millibands pie in the sky GB Energy they would not have to raise taxes.
"That's not true at all. The country is in a fucking wreck after 14 years of brutal Tory rule, and after Brexit. Something has to be done. Although I don't think we have the means. A global economic upturn that brings us along is our best hope. " And now she’s in about borrowing billions more 🤦 but is still giving billions away 🤷♂️" What billions are being given away? | |||
"Serious question. We know that a combination of ageing population and increase in working people prefering not to work means the public welfare is going to suffer. How do you prefer solving the problem? Do you want to keep funding the welfare by increasing taxes? If yes, which taxes would you rather increase? Do you prefer cutting down on the welfare? If yes, which welfare do you prefer cutting? Or is there any other solution? Yes! They should stop giving money away
If they stopped giving our money away to other countries and crackpot ideas like millibands pie in the sky GB Energy they would not have to raise taxes.
That's not true at all. The country is in a fucking wreck after 14 years of brutal Tory rule, and after Brexit.
Something has to be done. Although I don't think we have the means. A global economic upturn that brings us along is our best hope.
And now she’s in about borrowing billions more 🤦 but is still giving billions away 🤷♂️
What billions are being given away?"Are you for real ? 🤣🤣🤣 | |||
"Serious question. We know that a combination of ageing population and increase in working people prefering not to work means the public welfare is going to suffer. How do you prefer solving the problem? Do you want to keep funding the welfare by increasing taxes? If yes, which taxes would you rather increase? Do you prefer cutting down on the welfare? If yes, which welfare do you prefer cutting? Or is there any other solution? Yes! They should stop giving money away
If they stopped giving our money away to other countries and crackpot ideas like millibands pie in the sky GB Energy they would not have to raise taxes.
That's not true at all. The country is in a fucking wreck after 14 years of brutal Tory rule, and after Brexit.
Something has to be done. Although I don't think we have the means. A global economic upturn that brings us along is our best hope.
And now she’s in about borrowing billions more 🤦 but is still giving billions away 🤷♂️
What billions are being given away?
Are you for real ? 🤣🤣🤣
"Which bit are you asking if I am for real about? | |||
"Serious question. We know that a combination of ageing population and increase in working people prefering not to work means the public welfare is going to suffer. How do you prefer solving the problem? Do you want to keep funding the welfare by increasing taxes? If yes, which taxes would you rather increase? Do you prefer cutting down on the welfare? If yes, which welfare do you prefer cutting? Or is there any other solution? Yes! They should stop giving money away
If they stopped giving our money away to other countries and crackpot ideas like millibands pie in the sky GB Energy they would not have to raise taxes.
That's not true at all. The country is in a fucking wreck after 14 years of brutal Tory rule, and after Brexit.
Something has to be done. Although I don't think we have the means. A global economic upturn that brings us along is our best hope.
And now she’s in about borrowing billions more 🤦 but is still giving billions away 🤷♂️
What billions are being given away?"It's so funny watching rmaeiners still complaining about Brexit being responsible for all the countries misery when Western European countries are doing as bad or even worse. So much for a union that's dying a slow death. | |||
"Serious question. We know that a combination of ageing population and increase in working people prefering not to work means the public welfare is going to suffer. How do you prefer solving the problem? Do you want to keep funding the welfare by increasing taxes? If yes, which taxes would you rather increase? Do you prefer cutting down on the welfare? If yes, which welfare do you prefer cutting? Or is there any other solution? Yes! They should stop giving money away
If they stopped giving our money away to other countries and crackpot ideas like millibands pie in the sky GB Energy they would not have to raise taxes.
That's not true at all. The country is in a fucking wreck after 14 years of brutal Tory rule, and after Brexit.
Something has to be done. Although I don't think we have the means. A global economic upturn that brings us along is our best hope.
And now she’s in about borrowing billions more 🤦 but is still giving billions away 🤷♂️
What billions are being given away?
It's so funny watching rmaeiners still complaining about Brexit being responsible for all the countries misery when Western European countries are doing as bad or even worse. So much for a union that's dying a slow death.
"Regardless of whether the EU and member states are doing well or not, it is inarguable that Brexit and everything leading up to and subsequently has had a huge cost to the UK economy. Some will argue it is temporary (although they can never say for how long), others say it has resulted in a permanent negative impact of 4% to GDP. That IS a reason for why the coffers are empty and the economy has been struggling. It may well come back and it may prove long term to have been the right thing. But short term the impact has been negative and is a major factor for the shit we are in now. | |||
"Serious question. We know that a combination of ageing population and increase in working people prefering not to work means the public welfare is going to suffer. How do you prefer solving the problem? Do you want to keep funding the welfare by increasing taxes? If yes, which taxes would you rather increase? Do you prefer cutting down on the welfare? If yes, which welfare do you prefer cutting? Or is there any other solution? Oh that’s not what this forum is for. It’s a place for blaming and whataboutery. It's not just this forum though. Pretty much the whole population is living in denial. There seems to be some expectation that the government will spin a magic wand and the problem will be solved. There are some difficult and honest conversations to be had. The people aren't willing to have those conversations. Neither are the politicians. So they end up making false promises to get into power like the way labour did and then go on to break their promises. I’ll judge them at the end of their first term. Financially I was ok under the last government but I saw my country’s infrastructure crumble. That was my thought before even Covid hit us. The whole save the NHS from being overwhelmed was due to the cuts in hospital beds. We had the highest tax take on record but broken public services so where did that money go to. It certainly wasn’t the workforce because after the financial crash they had either no pay rises or below inflation rises. “I’ll judge them at the end of their first term” Again, you are assuming that they will get re-elected. As you previously stated, they will “walk” the next election. " I can only judge them at the end of their first term because that’s when I get the chance to make a difference if I’m not impressed with their progress. I don’t consider moaning about them on as being credible. I do think they’ll win the next election though but because I don’t think the Tories will have stopped their little salience to the right until they have lost another election, a bit like Labour after 2010, and Reform will still be nowhere near power. | |||
| |||
"Sir Lego head. Apart from being completely robotic he has also had the worst start to any PM. Who’s admits to foolishly voting for this programmed android??? " I did, who did you vote for ? | |||
| |||
"If I lived in England I would have voted for a reform, " No further questions needed. | |||
| |||
"Serious question. We know that a combination of ageing population and increase in working people prefering not to work means the public welfare is going to suffer. How do you prefer solving the problem? Do you want to keep funding the welfare by increasing taxes? If yes, which taxes would you rather increase? Do you prefer cutting down on the welfare? If yes, which welfare do you prefer cutting? Or is there any other solution? Yes! They should stop giving money away
If they stopped giving our money away to other countries and crackpot ideas like millibands pie in the sky GB Energy they would not have to raise taxes.
That's not true at all. The country is in a fucking wreck after 14 years of brutal Tory rule, and after Brexit.
Something has to be done. Although I don't think we have the means. A global economic upturn that brings us along is our best hope.
And now she’s in about borrowing billions more 🤦 but is still giving billions away 🤷♂️
What billions are being given away?
It's so funny watching rmaeiners still complaining about Brexit being responsible for all the countries misery when Western European countries are doing as bad or even worse. So much for a union that's dying a slow death.
Regardless of whether the EU and member states are doing well or not, it is inarguable that Brexit and everything leading up to and subsequently has had a huge cost to the UK economy. Some will argue it is temporary (although they can never say for how long), others say it has resulted in a permanent negative impact of 4% to GDP. That IS a reason for why the coffers are empty and the economy has been struggling. It may well come back and it may prove long term to have been the right thing. But short term the impact has been negative and is a major factor for the shit we are in now. "It definitely has a temporary impact. But calling it a "major factor" for the shit show is a bit of an overreaction. If that's the case, Germany/France would have been doing much better than the UK? | |||
"Serious question. We know that a combination of ageing population and increase in working people prefering not to work means the public welfare is going to suffer. How do you prefer solving the problem? Do you want to keep funding the welfare by increasing taxes? If yes, which taxes would you rather increase? Do you prefer cutting down on the welfare? If yes, which welfare do you prefer cutting? Or is there any other solution? Yes! They should stop giving money away
If they stopped giving our money away to other countries and crackpot ideas like millibands pie in the sky GB Energy they would not have to raise taxes.
That's not true at all. The country is in a fucking wreck after 14 years of brutal Tory rule, and after Brexit.
Something has to be done. Although I don't think we have the means. A global economic upturn that brings us along is our best hope.
And now she’s in about borrowing billions more 🤦 but is still giving billions away 🤷♂️
What billions are being given away?
It's so funny watching rmaeiners still complaining about Brexit being responsible for all the countries misery when Western European countries are doing as bad or even worse. So much for a union that's dying a slow death.
Regardless of whether the EU and member states are doing well or not, it is inarguable that Brexit and everything leading up to and subsequently has had a huge cost to the UK economy. Some will argue it is temporary (although they can never say for how long), others say it has resulted in a permanent negative impact of 4% to GDP. That IS a reason for why the coffers are empty and the economy has been struggling. It may well come back and it may prove long term to have been the right thing. But short term the impact has been negative and is a major factor for the shit we are in now.
It definitely has a temporary impact. But calling it a "major factor" for the shit show is a bit of an overreaction. If that's the case, Germany/France would have been doing much better than the UK?"I disagree due to the different nature of the economies. You cannot make direct comparisons. It is also actually not particularly relevant how they doing as the impact of Brexit on the UK is unique to the UK. For example, inward investment in the UK has fallen sharply since Brexit as previously non-EU based companies often favoured setting up in the UK as a stepping stone into the EU markets (also due to English being the universal language of business). That USP has been lost. | |||
"Serious question. We know that a combination of ageing population and increase in working people prefering not to work means the public welfare is going to suffer. How do you prefer solving the problem? Do you want to keep funding the welfare by increasing taxes? If yes, which taxes would you rather increase? Do you prefer cutting down on the welfare? If yes, which welfare do you prefer cutting? Or is there any other solution? Yes! They should stop giving money away
If they stopped giving our money away to other countries and crackpot ideas like millibands pie in the sky GB Energy they would not have to raise taxes.
That's not true at all. The country is in a fucking wreck after 14 years of brutal Tory rule, and after Brexit.
Something has to be done. Although I don't think we have the means. A global economic upturn that brings us along is our best hope.
And now she’s in about borrowing billions more 🤦 but is still giving billions away 🤷♂️
What billions are being given away?
It's so funny watching rmaeiners still complaining about Brexit being responsible for all the countries misery when Western European countries are doing as bad or even worse. So much for a union that's dying a slow death.
Regardless of whether the EU and member states are doing well or not, it is inarguable that Brexit and everything leading up to and subsequently has had a huge cost to the UK economy. Some will argue it is temporary (although they can never say for how long), others say it has resulted in a permanent negative impact of 4% to GDP. That IS a reason for why the coffers are empty and the economy has been struggling. It may well come back and it may prove long term to have been the right thing. But short term the impact has been negative and is a major factor for the shit we are in now.
It definitely has a temporary impact. But calling it a "major factor" for the shit show is a bit of an overreaction. If that's the case, Germany/France would have been doing much better than the UK?
I disagree due to the different nature of the economies. You cannot make direct comparisons. It is also actually not particularly relevant how they doing as the impact of Brexit on the UK is unique to the UK. For example, inward investment in the UK has fallen sharply since Brexit as previously non-EU based companies often favoured setting up in the UK as a stepping stone into the EU markets (also due to English being the universal language of business). That USP has been lost."Agree that comparing economies are hard. You can't A/B test something like this. This is exactly why all those predictions about UK lost X billions because of Brexit are also hardly accurate. I recommend searching for "The World’s Top Recipients of Foreign Direct Investment". It's an IMF blog. It shows a nice animated graph of FDI in a few countries since 2009. For UK, you will see an interesting trend before and after 2016. | |||
"Serious question. We know that a combination of ageing population and increase in working people prefering not to work means the public welfare is going to suffer. How do you prefer solving the problem? Do you want to keep funding the welfare by increasing taxes? If yes, which taxes would you rather increase? Do you prefer cutting down on the welfare? If yes, which welfare do you prefer cutting? Or is there any other solution? Yes! They should stop giving money away
If they stopped giving our money away to other countries and crackpot ideas like millibands pie in the sky GB Energy they would not have to raise taxes.
That's not true at all. The country is in a fucking wreck after 14 years of brutal Tory rule, and after Brexit.
Something has to be done. Although I don't think we have the means. A global economic upturn that brings us along is our best hope.
And now she’s in about borrowing billions more 🤦 but is still giving billions away 🤷♂️
What billions are being given away?
It's so funny watching rmaeiners still complaining about Brexit being responsible for all the countries misery when Western European countries are doing as bad or even worse. So much for a union that's dying a slow death.
Regardless of whether the EU and member states are doing well or not, it is inarguable that Brexit and everything leading up to and subsequently has had a huge cost to the UK economy. Some will argue it is temporary (although they can never say for how long), others say it has resulted in a permanent negative impact of 4% to GDP. That IS a reason for why the coffers are empty and the economy has been struggling. It may well come back and it may prove long term to have been the right thing. But short term the impact has been negative and is a major factor for the shit we are in now.
It definitely has a temporary impact. But calling it a "major factor" for the shit show is a bit of an overreaction. If that's the case, Germany/France would have been doing much better than the UK?
I disagree due to the different nature of the economies. You cannot make direct comparisons. It is also actually not particularly relevant how they doing as the impact of Brexit on the UK is unique to the UK. For example, inward investment in the UK has fallen sharply since Brexit as previously non-EU based companies often favoured setting up in the UK as a stepping stone into the EU markets (also due to English being the universal language of business). That USP has been lost.
Agree that comparing economies are hard. You can't A/B test something like this. This is exactly why all those predictions about UK lost X billions because of Brexit are also hardly accurate.
I recommend searching for "The World’s Top Recipients of Foreign Direct Investment". It's an IMF blog. It shows a nice animated graph of FDI in a few countries since 2009. For UK, you will see an interesting trend before and after 2016."Ok thanks will do | |||
| |||
| |||
"The UK tax gap in 2022 to 2023 was estimated to be 4.8% of total theoretical tax liabilities, or £39.8 billion in absolute terms, which means HMRC collected 95.2% of all tax due. (HMRC own figs) Starmer and Reeves are missing this from their narrative, there’s enough uncollected tax to fill two of Rachels black holes, annually. " It isn't enough, they are spending more than that | |||
"The UK tax gap in 2022 to 2023 was estimated to be 4.8% of total theoretical tax liabilities, or £39.8 billion in absolute terms, which means HMRC collected 95.2% of all tax due. (HMRC own figs) Starmer and Reeves are missing this from their narrative, there’s enough uncollected tax to fill two of Rachels black holes, annually. " That's probably in the "to difficult tasks" tray. Easier to go for low hanging fruit of "ordinary working people" who have reached retirement age and who have saved for retirement and whom may die in the next 10 years. | |||
"Sir Lego head. Apart from being completely robotic he has also had the worst start to any PM." Erm..... remember Truss? | |||
"Most landlords are parasites who hoard housing and contribute nothing to society, so Starmer is actually onto a good thing for once." ABSOLUTE IDIOT - YOU KNOW NOTHING | |||
"Most landlords are parasites who hoard housing and contribute nothing to society, so Starmer is actually onto a good thing for once. Impressive life you must live, knowing most landlords and all "idiot hasn't a clue | |||
"Most landlords are parasites who hoard housing and contribute nothing to society, so Starmer is actually onto a good thing for once." exactly right low interest rates over the years have meant that landlords with money or equity can buy up property easily pushing up prices & making it difficult for first time buyers , lack of rent controls have made the problems for tenants worse | |||
"Most landlords are parasites who hoard housing and contribute nothing to society, so Starmer is actually onto a good thing for once. exactly right low interest rates over the years have meant that landlords with money or equity can buy up property easily pushing up prices & making it difficult for first time buyers , lack of rent controls have made the problems for tenants worse " How are property landlords any more 'parasites' than any enterprise that rents their asset for financial gain? e.g. car rental, tool rental..... They have acquired assets, often with loans, and are entitled to a return. Do they make unjustified profit after loan repayment, repairs, taxes etc? | |||
"Most landlords are parasites who hoard housing and contribute nothing to society, so Starmer is actually onto a good thing for once. exactly right low interest rates over the years have meant that landlords with money or equity can buy up property easily pushing up prices & making it difficult for first time buyers , lack of rent controls have made the problems for tenants worse " You sure it's not that landlords pay tax on 'income' & not profit that helps push rents up? | |||
"Most landlords are parasites who hoard housing and contribute nothing to society, so Starmer is actually onto a good thing for once. exactly right low interest rates over the years have meant that landlords with money or equity can buy up property easily pushing up prices & making it difficult for first time buyers , lack of rent controls have made the problems for tenants worse How are property landlords any more 'parasites' than any enterprise that rents their asset for financial gain? e.g. car rental, tool rental..... They have acquired assets, often with loans, and are entitled to a return. Do they make unjustified profit after loan repayment, repairs, taxes etc?" if you hire out cars or tools their value rapidly depreciates whereas over time property prices increase quicker than normal inflation | |||
"Most landlords are parasites who hoard housing and contribute nothing to society, so Starmer is actually onto a good thing for once. exactly right low interest rates over the years have meant that landlords with money or equity can buy up property easily pushing up prices & making it difficult for first time buyers , lack of rent controls have made the problems for tenants worse How are property landlords any more 'parasites' than any enterprise that rents their asset for financial gain? e.g. car rental, tool rental..... They have acquired assets, often with loans, and are entitled to a return. Do they make unjustified profit after loan repayment, repairs, taxes etc? if you hire out cars or tools their value rapidly depreciates whereas over time property prices increase quicker than normal inflation " The pronlem with the original statement is it assumes all landlords are bad people deliberately ripping people off! Some are actually decent. Provide quality housing for reasonable rents. Sweeping statements help nobody. | |||
"Most landlords are parasites who hoard housing and contribute nothing to society, so Starmer is actually onto a good thing for once. exactly right low interest rates over the years have meant that landlords with money or equity can buy up property easily pushing up prices & making it difficult for first time buyers , lack of rent controls have made the problems for tenants worse How are property landlords any more 'parasites' than any enterprise that rents their asset for financial gain? e.g. car rental, tool rental..... They have acquired assets, often with loans, and are entitled to a return. Do they make unjustified profit after loan repayment, repairs, taxes etc? if you hire out cars or tools their value rapidly depreciates whereas over time property prices increase quicker than normal inflation " Homes require maintenance too. Rent controls fucked New York because after awhile Landlords didn't care and it started affecting the availability and quality of rental stock negatively. | |||
"Keir Starmer has hinted at tax rises for those who earn their income from shares and property, saying that they did not fit his definition of “working people”. What are the criteria for working people. Most pension scheme recipients earn their money from invested shares and property, either directly or via managed funds. Anyone with savings, inheritance from savers and investors, owners of 5 million rented homes looking like they will be targeted. That’s a lot of people who don’t meet ‘his’ definition of workers. (His key adviser Tony Blair has a £30m rental portfolio) " Majority of Tesco employees receive company shares, even the ones working on checkouts Kier Starmer shows how far out of touch he is when he says people who can't write a cheque for repairs, people no longer write cheques and many companies do not accept a cheque for payment | |||
| |||
"Most landlords are parasites who hoard housing and contribute nothing to society, so Starmer is actually onto a good thing for once. exactly right low interest rates over the years have meant that landlords with money or equity can buy up property easily pushing up prices & making it difficult for first time buyers , lack of rent controls have made the problems for tenants worse How are property landlords any more 'parasites' than any enterprise that rents their asset for financial gain? e.g. car rental, tool rental..... They have acquired assets, often with loans, and are entitled to a return. Do they make unjustified profit after loan repayment, repairs, taxes etc? if you hire out cars or tools their value rapidly depreciates whereas over time property prices increase quicker than normal inflation " Until you get a housing crash and prices plummet leaving you with a negative equity situation. I think we’ve been there in the recent past haven’t we. | |||
"Keir Starmer has hinted at tax rises for those who earn their income from shares and property, saying that they did not fit his definition of “working people”. What are the criteria for working people. Most pension scheme recipients earn their money from invested shares and property, either directly or via managed funds. Anyone with savings, inheritance from savers and investors, owners of 5 million rented homes looking like they will be targeted. That’s a lot of people who don’t meet ‘his’ definition of workers. (His key adviser Tony Blair has a £30m rental portfolio) Technically pensioners are not ‘working people ‘ " He said anyone "who receives a pay slip". Pensioners get pay slips. | |||
| |||
