Top 5 financial things to do before labour get in?
Discussion
Michael_B said:
SpidersWeb said:
Is it fair that the wealthy residents of Westminster get to pay so little and the areas with the more deprived populations have to pay so much?
Not at all, hence why a system of subsidies/equalisation (like happens here) would be part of the answer.Michael_B said:
But this doesn't mean that more local democracy in terms of funding and management is not a good idea.
Local democracy to determine the management of the centrally allocated money is not a bad thing, but that is utterly different from giving the local community revenue raising powers - and then as before, to make it worse by needing to go through the faff of passing money on to poorer areas or drawing down money from wealthy areas.Michael_B said:
Unfortunately the UK's experience of regional authorities with tax-raising powers has not been that great so far, but it doesn't mean that it's not fundamentally preferable to a distant and centralised government taxing everyone the same and then making decisions for everyone in all corners of the country.
On the contrary, I do think it is preferable to tax people according to the needs of the country as a whole, rather than taxing them a lower amount because they happen to wealthy enough to buy a property in an area where the local authority doesn't need to spend money on those services that the authorities dealing with deprivation have to.First rule don't imply labour are after your taxes when they've been taken by the tories.
Second rule, realise the tories have taxed working more than any party by not raising thresholds. It's daylight robbery that the press have ignored.
Third rule, I don't f
king know, Just don't vote tory thinking they're the low tax party. They're not, never have been. See VAT raises.
Fourth rule, do whatever the fk you want but don't claim voting tory is a vote for low tax. It isn't.
Second rule, realise the tories have taxed working more than any party by not raising thresholds. It's daylight robbery that the press have ignored.
Third rule, I don't f
king know, Just don't vote tory thinking they're the low tax party. They're not, never have been. See VAT raises.Fourth rule, do whatever the f
k you want but don't claim voting tory is a vote for low tax. It isn't.SpidersWeb said:
It appears to be pointless and expensive bureaucracy to raise money locally and then pass back / draw down some of that money to / from central government, rather than simply getting central government to do the whole of the collection and distribution in the first place.
Local democracy to determine the management of the centrally allocated money is not a bad thing, but that is utterly different from giving the local community revenue raising powers - and then as before, to make it worse by needing to go through the faff of passing money on to poorer areas or drawing down money from wealthy areas.
...I do think it is preferable to tax people according to the needs of the country as a whole, rather than taxing them a lower amount because they happen to wealthy enough to buy a property in an area where the local authority doesn't need to spend money on those services that the authorities dealing with deprivation have to.
I think there is perhaps a confusion between cantons/communes here and local authorities in the UK. Westminster would be the equivalent of the commune of Cologny here (groaning with mansions on the south side of the lake), where the additional communal tax (council tax) is very low in percentage terms because the cantonal tax take (same % rate for all communes) is so high due to so many HNW households there. Greater London would probably be an entire canton, so would include all the rich and many deprived areas as well.Local democracy to determine the management of the centrally allocated money is not a bad thing, but that is utterly different from giving the local community revenue raising powers - and then as before, to make it worse by needing to go through the faff of passing money on to poorer areas or drawing down money from wealthy areas.
...I do think it is preferable to tax people according to the needs of the country as a whole, rather than taxing them a lower amount because they happen to wealthy enough to buy a property in an area where the local authority doesn't need to spend money on those services that the authorities dealing with deprivation have to.
But here as part of cantonal income tax, one is also taxed on a notional rental value of your house, even if you live in it, similar to the old rateable value system in the UK. This is a de facto property tax[1] which hits pretty hard. So I get taxed on £45k/year I don't actually earn[2], whereas many Colognotes are having hundreds of thousands added to their taxable incomes just for owning and living in their palaces. As an illustration, 40% of all Genevan personal income tax is paid by just 900 out of 105'000 registered tax-paying households, and over 30'000 households pay none at all. It's not for nothing that the rest of Switzerland refers the canton as the People's Socialist Republic of Geneva
Anyway, one person's "faff and pointless/expensive bureaucracy" is another's accountability, subsidiarity, democracy and solidarity. Switzerland can afford it and considers it to be a necessary mechanism to ensure all voices are heard. It works here thanks to historical and cultural reasons, mostly due to the cantons being fiercely independent (hence why Geneva gets to spend 85% of my tax and Bern only 15%), and a PR electoral system at all levels, meaning that negotiation and compromise are always the order of the day.
Things move slowly overall, but big infrastructure projects get built and structural reforms do happen because there is a long-term view, rather than each party just trying desperately to get elected for the next five years. The electorate knows that there is not a magic money-tree, so often actually votes in favour of tax rises (e.g. recent increase in VAT to provide more funds for the state pension), instead being bribed by tax cuts every time there is an election looming.
I strongly believe that the UK would greatly benefit from electoral reform, away from FPTP towards a form of PR, and more local democracy and accountability. But as I said earlier, I'm not holding my breath.
Bonne soirée,
[1] For the mere 18% of owner-occupiers in the canton, the rest live in private or state rental properties.
[2] I even get taxed in Switzerland on the notional rental income of my French house, which I don't rent out.
SpidersWeb said:
You say that as if everyone in the country receiving an equal service wherever they live in the UK is a bad thing.
No I didn't, you lifted it out of context. It's how best to collect and manage a finite budget. You're asking central government to micro manage funding and budgets that they have no local knowledge of. You're adding layers of pointless, wasteful admin. It's too big, they can't do it all. It should be left to local government to collect and spend their budgets where they see fit because they know their patch best. They know their income and they know where to spend it to serve their population. One area or county might consider themselves worse off in, say, policing, but that's because local party politics and policy chooses to spend the money somewhere else instead. You can't just ask central government for all the money you need to make every department the best there ever was, all over the country... the budgets would be forever inflating and the place would be bankrupt in months. The pot could be larger, sure, but then that's a taxation level argument and a different kettle of fish.I think the entire political party system in the uk is st.
Our leaders, the people we elect to lead, must spend more than half their time and energy fighting, scheming, dealing with the media as opposed to going into work and adding value like normal people. Combine this with almost constant changes to key appointments (again, wouldn’t fly in our world).
We need a really good dictatorship to do useful work for a couple of decades.
Stephen Fry would get my vote.
t.Our leaders, the people we elect to lead, must spend more than half their time and energy fighting, scheming, dealing with the media as opposed to going into work and adding value like normal people. Combine this with almost constant changes to key appointments (again, wouldn’t fly in our world).
We need a really good dictatorship to do useful work for a couple of decades.
Stephen Fry would get my vote.
r44flyer said:
It's how best to collect and manage a finite budget. You're asking central government to micro manage funding and budgets that they have no local knowledge of. You're adding layers of pointless, wasteful admin. It's too big, they can't do it all. It should be left to local government to collect and spend their budgets where they see fit because they know their patch best. They know their income and they know where to spend it to serve their population. One area or county might consider themselves worse off in, say, policing, but that's because local party politics and policy chooses to spend the money somewhere else instead. You can't just ask central government for all the money you need to make every department the best there ever was, all over the country... the budgets would be forever inflating and the place would be bankrupt in months. The pot could be larger, sure, but then that's a taxation level argument and a different kettle of fish.
It isn't the issue of 'collecting and managing' that is the problem with council tax. Collecting the money is pretty irrelevant whoever does it, although there would be economies of scale in simply getting a single government department to do it, rather than duplicate hundreds of collection teams across the UK.
Managing the money locally rather than centrally is a political viewpoint that has advocates on both sides, and even if it is done locally then there is virtually no control of how that money is spent by the electorate as most just vote based on national party politics.
The key issue with council tax is that the level of taxation depends on the wealth of the community that it is taxing. Wealthy areas have low taxation because they have few of the social issues that poorer deprived areas do.
What you pay in tax shouldn't be decided on whether you are wealthy enough to buy yourself into an area that excludes poorer people so you don't have to contribute to UK society as a whole.
Jag_NE said:
I think the entire political party system in the uk is st.
Our leaders, the people we elect to lead, must spend more than half their time and energy fighting, scheming, dealing with the media as opposed to going into work and adding value like normal people. Combine this with almost constant changes to key appointments (again, wouldn’t fly in our world).
We need a really good dictatorship to do useful work for a couple of decades.
Stephen Fry would get my vote.
I'd rather see a technocrat government without political parties. No ideologies and empty promises, just doing what's best for the country. Run the country like a business where we elect people based on their skills and performance, not what colour tie they wear.t.Our leaders, the people we elect to lead, must spend more than half their time and energy fighting, scheming, dealing with the media as opposed to going into work and adding value like normal people. Combine this with almost constant changes to key appointments (again, wouldn’t fly in our world).
We need a really good dictatorship to do useful work for a couple of decades.
Stephen Fry would get my vote.
Condi said:
Problem is nearly all good dictatorships become bad dictatorships.
If you want to live under one, Russia and China are both accepting applications. Russia may require a short period of military service. Potentially very short indeed.
But Russia have elected a president, pretty good at it too. They've been doing it around the world.If you want to live under one, Russia and China are both accepting applications. Russia may require a short period of military service. Potentially very short indeed.
98elise said:
I'd rather see a technocrat government without political parties. No ideologies and empty promises, just doing what's best for the country. Run the country like a business where we elect people based on their skills and performance, not what colour tie they wear.
Which is?NerveAgent said:
98elise said:
I'd rather see a technocrat government without political parties. No ideologies and empty promises, just doing what's best for the country. Run the country like a business where we elect people based on their skills and performance, not what colour tie they wear.
Which is?98elise said:
I'd rather see a technocrat government without political parties. No ideologies and empty promises, just doing what's best for the country. Run the country like a business where we elect people based on their skills and performance, not what colour tie they wear.
Given the incompetence and bullsttery I encounter every day from senior people who have been promoted within large businesses and organizations across Europe, presumably based on their skills and performance… gawdelpus all ! 
Biggy Stardust said:
Condi said:
But the increase in house value doesn't come from nowhere, it comes directly from the next generation, or the future house buyers.
As a general rule the house hasn't increased in value; it's more that the value of money has decreased. also I thought one of the main issues was a lack of house building, which would result in increased values too due to higher demand? Biggy Stardust said:
As a general rule the house hasn't increased in value; it's more that the value of money has decreased.
Indeed - It's one of the biggest myths out there. Once you adjust for inflation, then house prices have not risen at all since 2002 yet everyone thinks otherwise.https://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/indices-nationwi... worth looking at.
fat80b said:
Biggy Stardust said:
As a general rule the house hasn't increased in value; it's more that the value of money has decreased.
Indeed - It's one of the biggest myths out there. Once you adjust for inflation, then house prices have not risen at all since 2002 yet everyone thinks otherwise.https://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/indices-nationwi... worth looking at.
It’s also worth noting that salaries struggled too, so spending power hasn’t come closer either, I think it is further away actually.
NRS said:
I’m not an expert, but that is using RPI which uses house prices as part of its adjustment so will partly correct for house price changes in the inflation, meaning there will be less difference? So if you used other forms of inflation there would be lower interest rates to use as the correction, meaning house price increases were more.
It’s also worth noting that salaries struggled too, so spending power hasn’t come closer either, I think it is further away actually.
Most useful to look at the ratio of mean house price to mean salary over time.It’s also worth noting that salaries struggled too, so spending power hasn’t come closer either, I think it is further away actually.
This gives some indication of affordability.
911hope said:
Most useful to look at the ratio of mean house price to mean salary over time.
This gives some indication of affordability.
For example:This gives some indication of affordability.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...
Remind me who was in power in from 1999 til 2008 where the situation worsened the most sharply in England ?
Starmer & the Labour Party have said repeatedly said that they will not increase taxes for "ordinary working people". Starmer was asked yesterday what is meant by "ordinary working people" and he replied " people in a job without any savings". So, savings will be an obvious target for the next government. I am a pensioner and inevitably have some savings so I better start planning some changes now!
R.
R.
Starters definition of “working people” really worries me.
I work very hard for a decent income as a construction project manager and my other half is a midwife.
Were a couple from working class families trying to do our best to have a decent life for ourselves and our son, I fear Labour will try and “level up” the people who either don’t work or haven’t applied themselves by levelling down people trying to do their best to have a nicer life.
Surely the definition of working people includes people who work hard, pay taxes and save for their own and their families future? Not just people living month to month.
I work very hard for a decent income as a construction project manager and my other half is a midwife.
Were a couple from working class families trying to do our best to have a decent life for ourselves and our son, I fear Labour will try and “level up” the people who either don’t work or haven’t applied themselves by levelling down people trying to do their best to have a nicer life.
Surely the definition of working people includes people who work hard, pay taxes and save for their own and their families future? Not just people living month to month.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff