What is the point of labour ?

[Theroadlesstravelled]

How come Liebour haven't fixed everything yet?

It's a pure disgrace.

[Granny Danger]

Looks like Labour is laying the groundwork for raising taxes in two areas, the speculation in the MSM is undoubtedly as a result of deep background briefings.

The first change will be to tax relief on pension contributions from higher income tax earners, its proposed to limit this to 30% rather than 40% and 45%.  It won’t effect anyone who isn’t in the higher tax brackets.  Don’t see this changing much about how people build their pension pots.

The second change will be in inheritance tax.  Less clear what is being proposed but one idea being floated is brining pension pots into the mix; they are currently exempt.  I can see that being a bit more controversial and possibly leading to changed practices.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

3 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

Looks like Labour is laying the groundwork for raising taxes in two areas, the speculation in the MSM is undoubtedly as a result of deep background briefings.

The first change will be to tax relief on pension contributions from higher income tax earners, its proposed to limit this to 30% rather than 40% and 45%.  It won’t effect anyone who isn’t in the higher tax brackets.  Don’t see this changing much about how people build their pension pots.

The second change will be in inheritance tax.  Less clear what is being proposed but one idea being floated is brining pension pots into the mix; they are currently exempt.  I can see that being a bit more controversial and possibly leading to changed practices.

Any change to pensions (irrespective if it actually affects many or not) will be controversial because the MSM will make it controversial.

[Granny Danger]

5 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Any change to pensions (irrespective if it actually affects many or not) will be controversial because the MSM will make it controversial.

When you’re a brand new government and:

a) have a massive majority; and

b) can genuinely claim the last lot have left you in the shit

Then you should have the balls to do something if you believe it’s the right/necessary thing to do.

 

As someone who will be significantly effected by one of these proposed changes I would be willing to accept it more graciously if they also tackle other fiscal and spending matters, but I have my doubts.

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

46 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

When you’re a brand new government and:

a) have a massive majority; and

b) can genuinely claim the last lot have left you in the shit

Then you should have the balls to do something if you believe it’s the right/necessary thing to do.

 

As someone who will be significantly effected by one of these proposed changes I would be willing to accept it more graciously if they also tackle other fiscal and spending matters, but I have my doubts.

 

Like tackling those af the very top that pay almost no tax because of the various accounting loopholes they exploit?

Labour won't do it because they are shite scared.

Edited July 28 by DeeTillEhDeh

[Arthur Orton]

33 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Like tackling those af the very top that pay almost no tax because of the various accounting loopholes they exploit?

Labour won't do it because they are shite scared.

Three immediate things they should do but won't. 

1. Scrap the two child benefit cap 

2. Rejoin the customs union

3. Be smart and look to change the awful FPTP system.

They won't though despite a large majority.

I'd hoped the Ming Vase strategy was just that and they would have some big ideas upon coming to power...

[DeeTillEhDeh]

1 hour ago, Arthur Orton said:

Three immediate things they should do but won't. 

1. Scrap the two child benefit cap 

2. Rejoin the customs union

3. Be smart and look to change the awful FPTP system.

They won't though despite a large majority.

I'd hoped the Ming Vase strategy was just that and they would have some big ideas upon coming to power...

Keir Starmer has token of the mask to reveal Keir Starmer.

Edited July 28 by DeeTillEhDeh

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Like tackling those af the very top that pay almost no tax because of the various accounting loopholes they exploit?

Labour won't do it because they are shite scared.

That’s one thing.  Moving away from using the private sector to deliver public sector services at inflated prices is another.  That is not an overnight thing but changes need to be happening promptly.

Stopping wasting money on Trident yet another but I’m not realistically expecting that, sadly.

 

[A Diamond For Me]

7 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Like tackling those af the very top that pay almost no tax because of the various accounting loopholes they exploit?

Labour won't do it because they are shite scared.

The deepest fear any Labour minister can have is being accused of having a single thought in their brain to the left of a Times editorial.  Of course they won't do it. 

[ford prefect]

Yeah. Labour are shit scared of doing anything that the Tory press can jump on as SoCialIsM!!! They give the impression they just want on the gravy train without willing to do what the country actually needs.

[Jedi2]

On 27/07/2024 at 09:06, Wee Bully said:

But @Jedi2, you seem riled. Why so?

Riled about?

[Granny Danger]

Looks like Reeves is about to order cuts to projects and attempt to find ‘savings’ in some areas of spending; ie more cuts.

[Granny Danger]

28 minutes ago, Sheas_cake said:

Yeah, a planned road tunnel under Stonehenge, some of HS2 and some pish Boris Johnson idea. These seem perfectly reasonable things to bin. Interestingly she seems keen to agree to some public sector wage rises to avert the greater costs of strike action. Surely this is a cunning move to cause the aging Daily Mail/Telegraph-reading demographic massive coronaries and save a hew hundred grand on pension payments. 

Yeah and when people shrug their shoulders at that what comes next?  Also ‘efficiency savings’?

 

[scottsdad]

Just now, Granny Danger said:

Yeah and when people shrug their shoulders at that what comes next?  Also ‘efficiency savings’?

 

I read that management consultant costs are one thing she's looking at. 

How will the big accountancy firms survive without the (literally) hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers money each year?

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, scottsdad said:

I read that management consultant costs are one thing she's looking at. 

How will the big accountancy firms survive without the (literally) hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers money each year?

Yip, ‘one things’.  That one I’d be happy with, let’s see what the others are.

[Michael W]

10 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

I read that management consultant costs are one thing she's looking at. 

How will the big accountancy firms survive without the (literally) hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers money each year?

This seems a very small piece of the supposed £20bn that Reeves is pretending is a huge shock. Undeniably, the government has been totally rinsed by such firms 1) during Brexit and 2) from the pandemic. With both behind us, I am not sure that there's going to be much saving here, although it'll keep people happy and politicians are totally obsessed with how things look rather than the impact they'll make. 

The Stonehenge bypass was supposed to cost £1.7bn, although it's been delayed with court challenges so who knows what the true cost of that is now. No idea how much Boris Johnson's fantasy hospital pledge was supposedly worth, but we can assume several billions. With HS2, we are at the stage now where the project just ought to be canned entirely if we're unwilling to borrow the money to do it properly. I still don't think it's good value for money, but gradually slicing away at it as has been the trend is continually diminishing the benefit of the project. I don't think we need to go all Liz Truss here either - it's a piece of infrastructure and there's therefore a tangible output rather than a tax cut for some wealthy people. 

Interested to see how the Tories respond to this. They rightly point out that Reeves is a liar and is pretending to be surprised, yet this is the party that went into the election also ignorong the blackhole and promising to abolish National Insurance. 

[AndyM]

11 hours ago, ford prefect said:

Yeah. Labour are shit scared of doing anything that the Tory press can jump on as SoCialIsM!!! They give the impression they just want on the gravy train without willing to do what the country actually needs.

Surely nobody was expecting anything remotely resembling socialism from a government led by Sir Keir Starmer KC KBE. You've more chance of finding rocking horse dung.   Meanwhile Rachel Reeves is set to announce in parliament a £20bn black hole this morning left by those nasty Tories and the cuts that she will need to make to keep the public finances in order to go along with it.  Strangely enough, the bald soothsayer Stephen Flynn forewarned the public of this but it appears nobody was listening.

[Wee Bully]

8 hours ago, Jedi2 said:

Riled about?

Ah, you are here.

So, tell us about the £20bn black hole, which you denies was even £18bn. Were Labour lying again?

[I Clavdivs]

There was ample warning from the Office of Budget Responsibility and the Institute of Fiscal Studies of a budget black hole yet the hapless Reeves and egregious Sarwar chose to ignore the warnings during the election campaign.

Just another reason we need out of this one sided,broken ,corrupt and London centric union.

[scottsdad]

9 minutes ago, I Clavdivs said:

There was ample warning from the Office of Budget Responsibility and the Institute of Fiscal Studies of a budget black hole yet the hapless Reeves and egregious Sarwar chose to ignore the warnings during the election campaign.

Just another reason we need out of this one sided,broken ,corrupt and London centric union.

"Vote for me! I'll raise taxes and/or cut spending!"

I can see that working on the placards.