General Election July 2024

[Murph7355]

Kermit power said:

....
Unless we find a way for everyone to contribute their fair share to making our society successfully, we are truly beyond salvation.

Defining "fair" is the tricky bit.

[AdeTuono]

swisstoni said:

The Hypno-Toad said:

MC Bodge said:

Mr Penguin said:

A must read column
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/articl...

A very good article.
.

Agreed

Pretty much sums up what I have been saying for the past few years. Unless something changes at far deeper level than just politics, we are all truly fked.

We are about to get the strongest Government there’s been in generations.

[pingu393]

Murph7355 said:

MC Bodge said:

A very good article.

Anybody who is interested should (and probably does, even if they pretend otherwise) already know what this article is talking about.

Governments need to tax more, even those well-off PHers who are still Tory supporters or thinking that Reform sounds like sensible chaps.

Or electorates need to accept lesser service provision. Or a combination of both.

Apparently, however, "hard working people" shouldn't be expected to pay more tax.

Which sounds like those not working should be. Which is a strange position for Labour to take, but does highlight a significant problem - that not enough people are paying in.

It could get very "interesting".

The only non-workers with money are pensioners and investors.

It would be political suicide to go after pensioners, so it's investors that will be targetted.

Prepare for a increase in tax on investments.

[Kermit power]

AdeTuono said:

swisstoni said:

The Hypno-Toad said:

MC Bodge said:

Mr Penguin said:

A must read column
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/articl...

A very good article.
.

Agreed

Pretty much sums up what I have been saying for the past few years. Unless something changes at far deeper level than just politics, we are all truly fked.

We are about to get the strongest Government there’s been in generations.

As in "the government with the biggest majority".

[119]

Indeed, maybe the biggest but not the strongest.

However who knows? They might surprise us all!

[The Hypno-Toad]

I did see a Starmer speech the other day in which he said that not raising income tax was a manifesto commitment... Not a promise or a pledge, a commitment.

If you don't fulfill a promise or a pledge does that mean you have reneged on your manifesto and been untruthful to the electorate, where as does saying its a commitment give you more wriggle room?

"We were committed not to raise income tax, we really don't want to but that all that money we really, really had to spend on x,y,z means that we have to now raise income tax. But moving forward into the future, we are committed to lowering the total level of tax the average householder pays,"

Is that the way it will go?

[irc]

pingu393 said:

It could get very "interesting".

The only non-workers with money are pensioners and investors.

It would be political suicide to go after pensioners, so it's investors that will be targetted.

Depends. Many pensioners are well off. As NI is really just another tax why are they exempt? Get the crusties to pay NI.

Or another NI tweak would be to increase the NI rate for higher rate taxpayers. After all in Scotland higher rate taxpayers pay the full 8% rate from £43k to £50k and there hasn't been much complaint.

So rather than the current 2% make the current 8% rate up to well past £50k. There are tax rises coming and it won't just be the very richest that pay them.

[119]

Interesting those that are happy to load pensioners with more tax burden, and yet will bh and moan when they reach retirement age that it’s all going on tax.

[M1AGM]

The Hypno-Toad said:

I did see a Starmer speech the other day in which he said that not raising income tax was a manifesto commitment... Not a promise or a pledge, a commitment.

If you don't fulfill a promise or a pledge does that mean you have reneged on your manifesto and been untruthful to the electorate, where as does saying its a commitment give you more wriggle room?

"We were committed not to raise income tax, we really don't want to but that all that money we really, really had to spend on x,y,z means that we have to now raise income tax. But moving forward into the future, we are committed to lowering the total level of tax the average householder pays,"

Is that the way it will go?

I thought he said he wasn’t going to raise income tax for ‘hard working’ people. When asked what he meant by that in a recent interview he said ‘hard working’ people were those working but with no savings who have to rely on the state if ‘things go wrong’. I presume he is trying to badly say poor people who are in work but on benefits. So, that would suggest income tax rises for working people who are not receiving in work state benefits.

[Vanden Saab]

M1AGM said:

The Hypno-Toad said:

I did see a Starmer speech the other day in which he said that not raising income tax was a manifesto commitment... Not a promise or a pledge, a commitment.

If you don't fulfill a promise or a pledge does that mean you have reneged on your manifesto and been untruthful to the electorate, where as does saying its a commitment give you more wriggle room?

"We were committed not to raise income tax, we really don't want to but that all that money we really, really had to spend on x,y,z means that we have to now raise income tax. But moving forward into the future, we are committed to lowering the total level of tax the average householder pays,"

Is that the way it will go?

I thought he said he wasn’t going to raise income tax for ‘hard working’ people. When asked what he meant by that in a recent interview he said ‘hard working’ people were those working but with no savings who have to rely on the state if ‘things go wrong’. I presume he is trying to badly say poor people who are in work but on benefits. So, that would suggest income tax rises for working people who are not receiving in work state benefits.

And on savings

[pingu393]

Hopefully, the tax will only be on gains (or interest), and not on the capital, but you never know.

It could be time to turn pounds, shillings and pence into physical assets.

[Boringvolvodriver]

119 said:

Interesting those that are happy to load pensioners with more tax burden, and yet will bh and moan when they reach retirement age that it’s all going on tax.

That is the same whatever the issue- everybody should pay more, apart from me of course!

I don’t have an issue with the concept of paying more tax, providing that the system is fair and equitable so that the more income you have, the more tax that you pay.

So yes, rich pensioners who earn more should pay more and arguably if their income is above a certain threshold, then the state pension should be effectively taken away from them.

The rationale being that someone who has private income of say, as an example, £50,000 doesn’t really need the extra £11000 of state pension.

Imo, one shouldn’t pay tax in the expectation that you get something back personally from said tax in the form of monetary payments.

[BigMon]

119 said:

Indeed, maybe the biggest but not the strongest.

However who knows? They might surprise us all!

I doubt very much they will, unless they surprise us in a bad way.

I'm expecting more deck chair shuffling and not a lot else. You can't polish a turd, and they aren't very adept at polishing anyway.

[Rufus Stone]

Boringvolvodriver said:

That is the same whatever the issue- everybody should pay more, apart from me of course!

I don’t have an issue with the concept of paying more tax, providing that the system is fair and equitable so that the more income you have, the more tax that you pay.

So yes, rich pensioners who earn more should pay more and arguably if their income is above a certain threshold, then the state pension should be effectively taken away from them.

The rationale being that someone who has private income of say, as an example, £50,000 doesn’t really need the extra £11000 of state pension.

Imo, one shouldn’t pay tax in the expectation that you get something back personally from said tax in the form of monetary payments.

You want fairness and equitibility yet want to remove the state pension from those who have been sensible and prudent enough to save for retirement yet reward those who pissed it up a wall instead?

Edited by Rufus Stone on Sunday 30th June 16:49

[pingu393]

Perhaps, I should have spent an extra £100 down the pub, or on fags, every month for the last 40 years

[JagLover]

Murph7355 said:

Apparently, however, "hard working people" shouldn't be expected to pay more tax.

Which sounds like those not working should be. Which is a strange position for Labour to take, but does highlight a significant problem - that not enough people are paying in.

The Labour definition of working people apparently excludes people with any savings.

[JagLover]

The Hypno-Toad said:

I did see a Starmer speech the other day in which he said that not raising income tax was a manifesto commitment... Not a promise or a pledge, a commitment.

If you don't fulfill a promise or a pledge does that mean you have reneged on your manifesto and been untruthful to the electorate, where as does saying its a commitment give you more wriggle room?

They can raise tax revenues significantly without touching headline rates of tax and NI. So they will likely keep to that as a significant promise made, but raise billions from such things as pensions tax relief, council tax, fuel duty, etc and etc.

To say nothing of the fact that both the Tories and Labour will keep tax thresholds frozen so will raise billions more on income that would have either been not subject to tax, or taxed at a lower rate, if those thresholds rose in line with inflation.

[Boringvolvodriver]

Rufus Stone said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

That is the same whatever the issue- everybody should pay more, apart from me of course!

I don’t have an issue with the concept of paying more tax, providing that the system is fair and equitable so that the more income you have, the more tax that you pay.

So yes, rich pensioners who earn more should pay more and arguably if their income is above a certain threshold, then the state pension should be effectively taken away from them.

The rationale being that someone who has private income of say, as an example, £50,000 doesn’t really need the extra £11000 of state pension.

Imo, one shouldn’t pay tax in the expectation that you get something back personally from said tax in the form of monetary payments.

You want fairness and equitibility yet want to remove the state pension from those who have been sensible and prudent enough to save for retirement yet reward those who pissed it up a wall instead?

Edited by Rufus Stone on Sunday 30th June 16:49

That is exactly the attitude of many people though - what about those who through no fault of their own (and yes there are those people) who haven’t got loads of money and haven’t pissed it up against a wall then?

No system is perfect although in a decent society surely there should be an expectation that those who are fortunate enough to have funds should support those well off? Or do you think we should look after number one and sod the rest of the population?

The issue for me is at what level someone doesn’t need te state pension, - does someone with £100k income in retirement need it? It was brought in to help those workers who were low paid.

Edited by Boringvolvodriver on Sunday 30th June 17:05

[Rufus Stone]

Boringvolvodriver said:

That is exactly the attitude of many people though - what about those who through no fault of their own (and yes there are those people) who haven’t got loads of money and haven’t pissed it up against a wall then?

No system is perfect although in a decent society surely there should be an expectation that those who are fortunate enough to have funds should support those well off? Or do you think we should look after number one and sod the rest of the population?

The issue for me is at what level someone doesn’t need te state pension, - does someone with £100k income in retirement need it? It was brought in to help those workers who were low paid.

Edited by Boringvolvodriver on Sunday 30th June 17:05

Your suggestion does not create a decent society. Would you like rich people to be forced to pay for their medical care too? Or perhaps pay more road tax so that poor people can pay less?

[Sway]

Rufus Stone said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

That is exactly the attitude of many people though - what about those who through no fault of their own (and yes there are those people) who haven’t got loads of money and haven’t pissed it up against a wall then?

No system is perfect although in a decent society surely there should be an expectation that those who are fortunate enough to have funds should support those well off? Or do you think we should look after number one and sod the rest of the population?

The issue for me is at what level someone doesn’t need te state pension, - does someone with £100k income in retirement need it? It was brought in to help those workers who were low paid.

Edited by Boringvolvodriver on Sunday 30th June 17:05

Your suggestion does not create a decent society. Would you like rich people to be forced to pay for their medical care too? Or perhaps pay more road tax so that poor people can pay less?

Generally, the high tax socialist countries with both staggeringly good public services and happy citizenry, everyone pays a big chunk. There's not really a perspective of 'who can afford to' - everyone chips in a decent percentage of whatever income they've got (yes, there's obviously progressive rates, but in some ways less progressive than what we have).