Kiers tax rises

Jimmy Jazz said:
It looks like I have misunderstood the o/p, I thought it was about the lack of trust of politicians.
I know nothing about EU armies but I know that we used to do exercises with many EU countries and continental American countries.
When I have been to Ireland I have not found the boarding to be hard, on the contrary.
Click to expand...
You posted a Leave lie( not Reform or any political party) about the 350m on the side of a red bus and I just countered that with the remain lies there's many more.👍
 
poolseasider said:
Do you remember the emergency budget,500,000 job losses,cuts to benefits and pensions,house price crashes,families £4,300 worse off, EU armies,Hard Boarder in Ireland etc?

Both sides lied but only one narrative is ever mentioned.
Click to expand...
Which of those hasn't happened other than the EU Army? Project Fear is reality.
 
Did anyone think there would be no tax rises given the state of the NHS and infrastructure? You'd be naive in the extreme if you did. Regardless of who the government is.

Of course nobody wants tax rises. But they are both necessary and inevitable.
 
Amazing now that the damage of Brexit is hitting people harder and harder in their own pocket through all this high inflation and tax rises that they still try to blame anything but Brexit for it. Almost like they are in eternal denial of their self-inflicted damage.
 
Macseasider said:
Did anyone think there would be no tax rises given the state of the NHS and infrastructure? You'd be naive in the extreme if you did. Regardless of who the government is.

Of course nobody wants tax rises. But they are both necessary and inevitable.
Click to expand...
so you acknowledge they've broken their pledge? Maybe it's you who is naive. After all, you've been backing them all along over so many issues. You backed them on issues they've now had to do a u-turn on. But i suppose on here we've been used to reading your hatred and bile for 14 years.

Btw, still waiting for your apology after your drunken rant. Maybe you should consider banning yourself for a week or two!
 
An interesting article this morning about the proposed Mansion Tax, which it is believed by some will be brought in in November.

A number of Labour Politicians will be caught up in this new tax, including Ed Miliband and Yvette Cooper who both own 'Mansions' over and above £2m. The PM is apparently ,presently, just out side that figure. How many others will be caught up in Labour and in other parties is not in the article I read, but I'm sure there will be many more.
 
Macseasider said:
Did anyone think there would be no tax rises given the state of the NHS and infrastructure? You'd be naive in the extreme if you did. Regardless of who the government is.

Of course nobody wants tax rises. But they are both necessary and inevitable.
Click to expand...
Erm, thought the Chancellor herself declared there was no expectation of need for further tax rises after the last budget.

Are you saying you don't believe her?
 
Curryman said:
An interesting article this morning about the proposed Mansion Tax, which it is believed by some will be brought in in November.

A number of Labour Politicians will be caught up in this new tax, including Ed Miliband and Yvette Cooper who both own 'Mansions' over and above £2m. The PM is apparently ,presently, just out side that figure. How many others will be caught up in Labour and in other parties is not in the article I read, but I'm sure there will be many more.
Click to expand...
Good. If you're sat on property worth that kind of money you're not short of a bob or two
 
Macseasider said:
Did anyone think there would be no tax rises given the state of the NHS and infrastructure? You'd be naive in the extreme if you did. Regardless of who the government is.

Of course nobody wants tax rises. But they are both necessary and inevitable.
Click to expand...
They were inevitable, you’re absolutely correct. It begs the question why they promised no tax rises way back when. What kind of moronic government would promise that, whilst simultaneously being incapable of managing public finances? It’s one or the other - you decrease public spending to offset the need for tax rises, or you raise taxes. You can’t promise no tax rises whilst increasing public spending 😂

It’s essentially consigned Labour to the dustbin, same as the Tories. Nobody has any faith in either of those parties to turn things around. It’s going to be absolute carnage at the next election. My money is on a hung parliament with Reform and one of Green Party or Lib Dems, or potentially all three.
 
FY4Representer said:
They were inevitable, you’re absolutely correct. It begs the question why they promised no tax rises way back when. What kind of moronic government would promise that, whilst simultaneously being incapable of managing public finances? It’s one or the other - you decrease public spending to offset the need for tax rises, or you raise taxes. You can’t promise no tax rises whilst increasing public spending

It’s essentially consigned Labour to the dustbin, same as the Tories. Nobody has any faith in either of those parties to turn things around. It’s going to be absolute carnage at the next election. My money is on a hung parliament with Reform and one of Green Party or Lib Dems, or potentially all three.
Click to expand...
No party says they will raise taxes in manifestos.
 
Macseasider said:
Did anyone think there would be no tax rises given the state of the NHS and infrastructure? You'd be naive in the extreme if you did. Regardless of who the government is.

Of course nobody wants tax rises. But they are both necessary and inevitable.
Click to expand...
Bugger all to do with funding, all down to wildly inefficient public sector management.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Bugger all to do with funding, all down to wildly inefficient public sector management.
Click to expand...
Or having to spend on restoring what had been allowed to fall apart? The lack of basic maintenance by privatised contractors has led to far more spending to put right what should never have been allowed to deteriorate in the first place.

You say public sector, but vast swathes are contracted out to the cheapest private contractors with no regard for quality, just the bottom line. Cleaning and building maintenance are the obvious examples.
 
EdgeleyTangerine said:
The mistake Labour made was promising they wouldn’t raise taxes. The reality is it should have been the first thing they did.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, you take on a mountain of debt and public services at there ever lowest point of delivery then promise the money that pays for all the services won't be raised.
It was a promise that Labour surely knew would have to be broke at some time during their term in office. Even with the little wriggle room they had left when conjuring up the figures would have known any slight deviation would have thrown all the budgets out of the water.
 
Seasider1 said:
Totally agree, you take on a mountain of debt and public services at there ever lowest point of delivery then promise the money that pays for all the services won't be raised.
It was a promise that Labour surely knew would have to be broke at some time during their term in office. Even with the little wriggle room they had left when conjuring up the figures would have known any slight deviation would have thrown all the budgets out of the water.
Click to expand...
Bear in mind, the real problem is that Reeves went on a £100bn spending spree in her first budget.
 
Macseasider said:
Did anyone think there would be no tax rises given the state of the NHS and infrastructure? You'd be naive in the extreme if you did. Regardless of who the government is.

Of course nobody wants tax rises. But they are both necessary and inevitable.
Click to expand...
They just WASTE ALOT of money.
 
Wizaard said:
Or having to spend on restoring what had been allowed to fall apart? The lack of basic maintenance by privatised contractors has led to far more spending to put right what should never have been allowed to deteriorate in the first place.

You say public sector, but vast swathes are contracted out to the cheapest private contractors with no regard for quality, just the bottom line. Cleaning and building maintenance are the obvious examples.
Click to expand...
Not so sure about your second para.

I know who has the cleaning contract at the Vic and they most certainly aren't the cheapest or the worst. The problem will be that the scope set by whoever manages these things in the NHS won't cover the required work. I'm no expert on the NHS but I've seen enough stuff from @Lytham_fy8 over the years to suggest the money isn't being particularly well managed.
 
pooljimbo said:
Not so sure about your second para.

I know who has the cleaning contract at the Vic and they most certainly aren't the cheapest or the worst. The problem will be that the scope set by whoever manages these things in the NHS won't cover the required work. I'm no expert on the NHS but I've seen enough stuff from @Lytham_fy8 over the years to suggest the money isn't being particularly well managed.
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but they are not public sector employees, that's my point, yet it's the public sector who get the blame for failings.
 
Wizaard said:
Maybe not, but they are not public sector employees, that's my point, yet it's the public sector who get the blame for failings.
Click to expand...
Yes, but in my example it’s the public sector who hire the private companies and expect them to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. I would guess in the NHS that the pointless middle management roles are absorbing a lot of the funding that should be going into building maintenance and cleaning, not to mention the healthcare professionals. That’s a public sector failing.
 
pooljimbo said:
Not so sure about your second para.

I know who has the cleaning contract at the Vic and they most certainly aren't the cheapest or the worst. The problem will be that the scope set by whoever manages these things in the NHS won't cover the required work. I'm no expert on the NHS but I've seen enough stuff from @Lytham_fy8 over the years to suggest the money isn't being particularly well managed.
Click to expand...
It's terribly managed.
 
Don't worry.... am sure the government will have a consultation costing millions about the whole situation.
Then come up with some wonderful public sector efficiency and cost saving plans.
Ohhh! Hang on.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Of course she will break the manifesto pledge if it happens. That much is obvious. Now, do you want to have a go at answering my question?
Click to expand...
yes. To raise more money. Do i see that money having a significant effect on getting the country back on its feet. Not a chance. To do that taxes would have to go up significantly more than what they dare do. The infrastructure of the country is pretty much fucked.
 
20togo said:
yes. To raise more money. Do i see that money having a significant effect on getting the country back on its feet. Not a chance. To do that taxes would have to go up significantly more than what they dare do. The infrastructure of the country is pretty much fucked.
Click to expand...
OK. Let's develop this because your point is worth considering. The infrastructure needs to be rebuilt. It's important for our country. If that needs higher tax then so be it. I do think Labour were wrong to commit to no tax rises for working people. The country was ripe for a change of government and I don't believe it would have compromised Labour's victory.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
OK. Let's develop this because your point is worth considering. The infrastructure needs to be rebuilt. It's important for our country. If that needs higher tax then so be it. I do think Labour were wrong to commit to no tax rises for working people. The country was ripe for a change of government and I don't believe it would have compromised Labour's victory.
Click to expand...
glad you think it's a great point [wink]. Not more i can say though on the specifics except yes of course the country was ripe for change. But they've made a very poor start,
 
20togo said:
glad you think it's a great point [wink]. Not more i can say though on the specifics except yes of course the country was ripe for change. But they've made a very poor start,
Click to expand...
The good things they have done are being ignored by the shouty press. However, they have not made a good start.
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
Well for someone who voted Labour in little over 15 months ago I can honestly say it’s the worst thing I’ve ever done in my life and I’ll regret it till the day I die.

I’m old enough to remember the Labour Party used to be for the working class and it put the people of this country first it’s gone the complete opposite now and thinks nothing anymore of the people and it continually puts other people first.

It’s a shambles these days it really is the sooner they’ve gone the better.
Click to expand...
I think labour been seen as the party of the ‘working class’ is now just a myth. What actually used to be traditional labour working voters in post industrial towns have been treated like absolute scum from the ‘modern’ Labour Party. Seen it with Brexit and continue to see it with anybody expressing concerns about our lawless borders who are smeared as neo-nazis and racists etc.
I am a floating voter think in last 5 elections voted Tory 3 times and labour twice. Now I will vote reform (not sure if they will make a difference) but I am sickened by everyone at Westminster and they all deserve a good kicking and knocked off the gravy train which I hope happens at next election 👍
 
20togo said:
yes. To raise more money. Do i see that money having a significant effect on getting the country back on its feet. Not a chance. To do that taxes would have to go up significantly more than what they dare do. The infrastructure of the country is pretty much fucked.
Click to expand...
Why's that?

Back in the early 80s, interest rates on mortgages and inflation were both in double figures, while basic rate tax was at 30%. but you could still afford to get on the housing ladder in your early 20s and have enough money to go out most nights and start a family.

Now, more and more will never own their own house and the national infrastructure is indeed fucked, and privately owned.

You won't be surprised I blame Thatcher for selling off the country's silverware for short term tax breaks, no longer affordable, that we are now scared to reverse in case the influential wealthy scream and shout.
 
Wizaard said:
Why's that?

Back in the early 80s, interest rates on mortgages and inflation were both in double figures, while basic rate tax was at 30%. but you could still afford to get on the housing ladder in your early 20s and have enough money to go out most nights and start a family.

Now, more and more will never own their own house and the national infrastructure is indeed fucked, and privately owned.

You won't be surprised I blame Thatcher for selling off the country's silverware for short term tax breaks, no longer affordable, that we are now scared to reverse in case the influential wealthy scream and shout.
Click to expand...
yep but how much do they pay for their mobile contracts. Youngsters of today seem to attach more importance to that. Far more choice today isn't there? Once again, you seem to have a problem with wealthy people. And as a father who is no doubt sat on a good pension etc etc, have you not made provision to help your children out when the time comes. The importance of family or is it not relevant? Just to make it clear, the last part is not meant as an insult and i hope you would know that.
 
Wizaard said:
And there it is. Forelocks still being tugged to their betters.
Click to expand...
I don't have an issue with anyone, rich, middle class or poor
I certainly don't have an issue with anyone bettering themselves,
working hard and making a bit of money.
Whereas you obviously do.
Some people prefer to take a risk rather than take the easy option
of sitting in a 9 to 5 job working for somebody else all their lives.
And to those who do take that risk and make good, I applaud them.
None of this envy. It's an awul trait and one I'm glad that I don't suffer from.
 
20togo said:
yep but how much do they pay for their mobile contracts. Youngsters of today seem to attach more importance to that. Far more choice today isn't there? Once again, you seem to have a problem with wealthy people. And as a father who is no doubt sat on a good pension etc etc, have you not made provision to help your children out when the time comes. The importance of family or is it not relevant? Just to make it clear, the last part is not meant as an insult and i hope you would know that.
Click to expand...
I don't have an issue with anyone wealthy. I have an issue with the presumption that cuts against the poorest is the way to go.

There are people in this country making more from interest on their savings in a year that over 50% can earn in their lifetime, yet that's apparently fine and should be left untouched.

At lunchtime on the radio someone came on and proposed scrapping the minimum wage and working time directive as they are 'holding back business' while at the same time cutting benefits.

Explain why it's good for the country to impoverish millions so some businesses stay above water. If they were any good, they'd be in profit.

Rather than penalise the workforce in favour of profits for the owner, why not pay a decent wage and incentivise the workers? As it is, the taxpayers are keeping failing businesses going through millions on the working element of Universal Credit. You can bet the owners are still taking their cut.
 
Wizaard said:
I don't have an issue with anyone wealthy. I have an issue with the presumption that cuts against the poorest is the way to go.

There are people in this country making more from interest on their savings in a year that over 50% can earn in their lifetime, yet that's apparently fine and should be left untouched.

At lunchtime on the radio someone came on and proposed scrapping the minimum wage and working time directive as they are 'holding back business' while at the same time cutting benefits.

Explain why it's good for the country to impoverish millions so some businesses stay above water. If they were any good, they'd be in profit.

Rather than penalise the workforce in favour of profits for the owner, why not pay a decent wage and incentivise the workers? As it is, the taxpayers are keeping failing businesses going through millions on the working element of Universal Credit. You can bet the owners are still taking their cut.
Click to expand...
'If they were any good they'd be in profit'
You haven't got a single clue about what it's like to run a business
But you're in good company as neither has the person who alledgedly looks after the UK's finances.
Of course there are some who take advantage and I totally condemn them.
But not all business owners are ogres who take advantage.
But you're making some very general and wide sweeping claims. I know quite a few small business
owners, a lot of whom work on very small profit margins and struggle to make ends meet.
They don't have the luxury of a guaranteed wage each month and often have to work very long hours.
Those people I mentioned in a previous post, many of whom took a risk to start up their own business
And without business owners there would be very little employment opportunities for anyone and the country
would be in a far bigger mess than what it is.
Like I said previously, the politics of envy. It's obvious you don't like anyone who has strived to better themselves
and succeeded and made a bit of money Just admit it.
 
RUSTY_2_STANDS said:
'If they were any good they'd be in profit'
You haven't got a single clue about what it's like to run a business
But you're in good company as neither has the person who alledgedly looks after the UK's finances.
Of course there are some who take advantage and I totally condemn them.
But not all business owners are ogres who take advantage.
But you're making some very general and wide sweeping claims. I know quite a few small business
owners, a lot of whom work on very small profit margins and struggle to make ends meet.
They don't have the luxury of a guaranteed wage each month and often have to work very long hours.
Those people I mentioned in a previous post, many of whom took a risk to start up their own business
And without business owners there would be very little employment opportunities for anyone and the country
would be in a far bigger mess than what it is.
Like I said previously, the politics of envy. It's obvious you don't like anyone who has strived to better themselves
and succeeded and made a bit of money Just admit it.
Click to expand...
I'm making generalised sweeping statements, like others have said how the public sector is completely ineffecient...

The same public sector that worked all hours to devise and implement a furlough scheme in six weeks allowing millions of private sector staff to sit at home on 80% pay through the pandemic. Very inefficient.
 
How about taxing the Royal Family on their income, assets and inheritance like everyone else? And remove the nation's assets that generate income for them (coastal seabed)? Also ban offshoring and family trusts above a prescribed level. Those measures should raise many billions and gain massive support.
 
20togo said:
yep but how much do they pay for their mobile contracts. Youngsters of today seem to attach more importance to that. Far more choice today isn't there? Once again, you seem to have a problem with wealthy people. And as a father who is no doubt sat on a good pension etc etc, have you not made provision to help your children out when the time comes. The importance of family or is it not relevant? Just to make it clear, the last part is not meant as an insult and i hope you would know that.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously suggesting people can't get on the housing ladder because of thr cost of a mobile contract?
 
Wizaard said:
Are you seriously suggesting people can't get on the housing ladder because of thr cost of a mobile contract?
Click to expand...
but you were trying to make comparisons between then and now. You seem to think that everybody could afford a house back then and go out every night. People had to make sacrifices back then too. What is considered normal now wasn't back then. We only had a black and white tele for a couple of years when i first got married. And like i said, i reckon many parents today are much more able to help their children out than they were back then. Seems you don't want to consider that point. And i'd much rather be in a position to do that than things you suggest. I'm sorry for putting my family first. Maybe you don't agree with that.
 
20togo said:
but you were trying to make comparisons between then and now. You seem to think that everybody could afford a house back then and go out every night. People had to make sacrifices back then too. What is considered normal now wasn't back then. We only had a black and white tele for a couple of years when i first got married. And like i said, i reckon many parents today are much more able to help their children out than they were back then. Seems you don't want to consider that point. And i'd much rather be in a position to do that than things you suggest. I'm sorry for putting my family first. Maybe you don't agree with that.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but it's getting to the point where the majority of young people will never own their own property because it's simply unaffordable.

A third of the country live in London where the average starting price is over £500,000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top