Forum menu
Currently there's everything to lose by not voting green - even if the intention might not be to get green in power due to the numbers. It sends the signal that we want positive progressive policy and push back from all this jack-boot nonsense that started (let's face it) ages ago.
We need to get out of this spiral. The right-wingers are looking at the economy which they have baulked with their bullshit ruinous neoliberal agenda - and to save it for their own needs they're going to ask us all to suffer again via cuts and taxation delivered by Reeves. (Who's not going to balance the books in a month of Sundays.) And it's destructive and counter intuitive too.
The inflation by interest rate adjustment is not working - but will break something eventually. In the meantime interest income is being paid to wealth, and they've never had such a good ride with assets like gold and equities absolutely piling through the roof.
It's disgraceful.
It doesn't work for the majority. It will never work as it stands. Whatever form Labour take next they need a seriously bad kicking so the Labour right can go **** themselves.
The risk with the Greens is they double down further on Net Zero, one of the things absolutely having our pants down. Pretty sure we said the same about Labour after the Tories and look how that's played out.
Genuinely think the entire place is rammed full of inept individuals. I think the culture of politics either breeds them, or shapes them to be that way. Not sure we can vote ourselves out of this mess if I'm honest.
I voted Labour partly in hope that Starmer the supposed grownup would tell a few home truths to the Brexit types, Reform voters etc. The other part was quite simply to get the bloody Tories out.
GTTO was achieved, so box ticked, job done, no need for any allegiance as such. I held on for about the first 12 months. But Starmer just pandered more and more to the voters who are already lost to Reform. His speech about irreparable damage and an island of strangers did it for me. Frankly, he can go **** himself if he wants my vote again.
The only good news right now is that Reeves is starting to openly blame Brexit for the financial hole we're in. But the handling of this football match thing in particular has just shown how politically clueless this bunch are. Not only are they falling over themselves to pander to bigots, they can't even see the huge sign saying "elephant trap ahead". Starmer is playing Wile E Coyote and making Roadrunner Farage look like a political genius.
It's embarrassing. I've done my bit defending Starmer to my more gammony acquaintances.
The risk with the Greens is they double down further on Net Zero, one of the things absolutely having our pants down.
I think overall that's a good thing that needs some tweaking. (I'm sure Polanksi talked about that and reframing as 'lowering'. Not 100% on that and it's probaly still green party policy.)
And even if you're not keen on that framing - there are still a million reasons to be in a better place with the Greens.
Only Reform want to actually abolish net-zero targets I believe.
I think the communication is off - "the right" use net-zero to anger people. Like a lot of things the narrative needs changing to explain the benefits.
If we removed Net-Zero 'costs' on energy bills of 20% (which could be done easily) - or nationalised them even - I'm guessing the anger at net-zero might dissappear.
The only good news right now is that Reeves is starting to openly blame Brexit for the financial hole we're in
I actually thing she's doing that to shift the blame away from Labour's handling of the economy.
Her narrative still leaves 'good brexit' v 'bad brexit' on the table when it should really be bad 'trickle-down' got us here.
I'm guessing the anger at net-zero might dissappear.
I would imagine there is a wide spectrum of things that in combination could sensibly improve people's living standards and see a reduction in anger.
It is not limited to one issue, we might also need to be open to the fact that no one group or person has the monopoly on what those changes could be.
Quite a lot of things anger people and rightly so. We spend way too much time moralising their perspective. It's the activity confused as action issue which is not uncommon with those who think they know better than the thickos people who hold an different view.
there are still a million reasons to be in a better place with the Greens.
Better, or less shit?
I think we've got quite a few hard yards before we're out of the shit. I'm more than happy to give the Greens a go, but what if they're monumentally inept? Then what?
If we removed Net-Zero 'costs' on energy bills of 20% (which could be done easily) - or nationalised them even - I'm guessing the anger at net-zero might dissappear.
Or re-did the energy market so the price of electricity was not determined by the price of gas, and could take advantage of cheap renewables?
Absolutely!
One big rig.
Her narrative still leaves 'good brexit' v 'bad brexit' on the table
There is no good Brexit. There's degrees of shit. But Brexit in any form is bad for the UK. How can it be otherwise - distancing ourselves from the closest economies (stage, proximity, outlook etc)?
Brexit summed up perfectly by Marina Hyde in the Guardian the other day. It’s done now though, whether we like it or not, glorifying in its own stupidity.
When David Cameron blithely called the referendum on Britain’s EU membership, the then-Conservative prime minister may have thought he was offering a sensible we-know-best choice which could be swayed by the remain campaign’s hilarious strategy of coordinating letters to the Times from 100 big business leaders, or coordinating letters to the Times from 100 medium business leaders.
But what Cameron was actually doing was giving the British public a ****-you button, and asking: “Do you want to press it?”
There is no good Brexit. There's degrees of shit. But Brexit in any form is bad for the UK. How can it be otherwise - distancing ourselves from the closest economies (stage, proximity, outlook etc)?
I know but that's how Labour will spin it becuase they don't want to be seen to oppose Brexit.
Besides like a few of us have said for ages - Brexit can't and shouldn't take the blame for all of the failures of neoliberalism and Labour or Tory policy.
Brexit is a part of a much bigger problem. Being in the EU didn't deliver good living standards for many.
Labour are in an entirely reasonable position despite what they say to invest heavily in the country now. They're choosing not to. It has nothing whatsoever to do with being in the EU. No point looking for an excuse, that would be giving Labour far far too much slack.
Like i say vote Green and most positions become here aligned.
You don't say?
The madness of trying to balance books due to nonsensical economic misunderstandings about how to deliver for public purpose is the driving force of modern decline.
Labour are going to do it again despite what the evidence shows.
I know but that's how Labour will spin it becuase they don't want to be seen to oppose Brexit.
Well that's one of the reasons they've lost my vote after GTTO ceased to be a thing.
Being in the EU didn't deliver good living standards for many.
So how is not being in the EU working out then?
It's not like there is some magic utopian answer that will give everyone a unicorn that shits sunbeams. There will always be richer and poorer but there's no reason why even the poor should have to sit on trolleys for 24h in A&E.
Labour government in doing what a Labour government is supposed to do Shocka!
Here’s hoping that this signals more of the same, closing dodgy tax loopholes to stop high earners dodging it. If we work on the principle that if the right wing press is up in arms about it, then it’s probably a good thing… job jobbed
Tax raid on solicitors and GPs as Rachel Reeves targets wealthy
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/rachel-reeves-ni-tax-rise-national-insurance-fc6w9dhv5
Tax raid on solicitors and GPs as Rachel Reeves targets wealthy
So, targeting the bit-better-off as opposed to the actual filthy rich. Quel surpris.
So, targeting the bit-better-off as opposed to the actual filthy rich. Quel surpris.
Well, the bit-better-off tend to be the ones who are easiest to go after.
The not-so-well off haven't got much of a pot left to piss in and cash-in-hand white van stuff isn't easy to trace and prove (and probably wouldn't net that much after all the expense of chasing so many dispersed transactions).
The very-well-off have access to all sorts of yummy advice, schemes, special purpose vehicles, trusts and even law to keep their wealth either off-book or beyond taxing. Even if they get 'done' the expense of getting to that point is prohibitive if you're looking at it purely from a net benefit/cost point of view.
It's the payrolled, PAYE, suckers in the middle who are easiest to assess and squeeze. The big problem with that is that we are the vast majority of working age voters.
Yep, I would vote for getting rid of PAYE all together then we can all have a go at deciding what taxes we want to pay and what loopholes we can use.
Yes it is always going to be harder to deal with wealth, closing loopholes etc,. than just hitting PAYE but so what, if you started working on it 20 years ago it would be in a pretty good place by now...
Get rid of PAYE and all you’ll get is millions of people being fined for late or inaccurate tax returns. Farage would have a field day.
"A penny in tax from a thousand or a thousand in tax from one"
Can't remember which chancellor it was though.
I'm not saying that PAYE is a bad thing at all.
All I am saying is that it applies to the vast majority of working age people and generally is easiest to avoid/evade for those who either:
Take lots of their income as cash - which, given the need to bank it over a certain level, will most often be those not-so-well-off. Or, in some extreme cases will involve turning that cash into less traceable assets.
Or:
Are already vastly wealthy or incredibly high-earning - so that schemes/advice etc that have an entry level requirement of wealth can be accessed to hide that wealth.
It really is just a pareto if you're wanting to get the maximum in for the minimum cost. Otherwise you're chasing tens of millions of small, cash in hand transactions or locking horns with financial advisers who are highly paid, motivated, and able to run rings around most civil servants just doing a 9 to 5.
So, targeting the bit-better-off as opposed to the actual filthy rich. Quel surpris
Like so many others I had big hopes for this administration, adults in the room etc. however they just take the easy shots.
They take the easy shots & still somehow keep missing.
Aren't we short of GPs and other countries keep trying to steal ours!? 🤷♂️
France introduced PAYE a few years ago taking on board the UK model. It means the tax comes in earlier (which at the time in France temporarily filled a growing hole) and means people can't decide not to pay which means more money comes in.
Still trying to rob from the current pie, rather than figuring out how to grow the pie. I bet they all **** missionary with their socks on.
I’m all up for a bit of redistribution. Growth that just gets creamed off the top is dismantling our society. Yeah, as an advanced economy we need steady slow growth, but using taxes to ensure we can deliver services to all, and to make sure everyone benefits from that, is key. At the most basic level, opt outs to pay a lower rate than PAYE only employees on your income are hard to justify, so starting there seems sound to me.
Here’s hoping that this signals more of the same, closing dodgy tax loopholes to stop high earners dodging it.
That they're going for solicitors and GPs and not the ultra wealthy suggests they'll do **** all about the serious tax dodgers
That they're going for solicitors and GPs
Are they? Or are just those examples journalists have used to make you decide these tax loopholes are justified?
Or are just those examples journalists have used to make you decide these tax loopholes are justified?
Can you point out where I said the stated loopholes are justified?
The bit you chose not to quote, maybe could be worded better...
not the ultra wealthy suggests they'll do **** all about the serious tax dodgers
Close the loopholes. Not getting millionaires to pay their fair share because… “what about the 1%”… is the common cry at the moment. Close the loops holes used by the better of and the super rich. Do both. If that headline in The Times was “Newspaper column writers and radio talk show presenters to pay the same taxes as you as Rachel Reeves targets wealthy tax avoiders” the responses would be quite different. Ask why it isn’t.
So when you said you wanted the government to close tax loopholes, you didn’t mean THOSE tax loopholes?
mkay…
So when you said you wanted the government to close tax loopholes, you didn’t mean THOSE tax loopholes?
What are you talking about? I haven't said "not those loopholes". I haven't said anything of the sort so don't start inventing it.
That they're going for solicitors and GPs and not the ultra wealthy suggests they'll do **** all about the serious tax dodgers
I would argue that the fundamental basis of a tax system is that it should be fair. If someone on the same income as me pays less tax by using a convenient (but legal) means, then as a PAYE taxpayer I object.
Don't really understand why Rachel Reeves isn't just straightforward with the electorate and says upfront that more money is needed and that everyone in the higher tax brackets can cough up an extra penny.
Making ridiculous promises just pins you into a corner when the easiest solution is just staring you in the face. This issue led to them increasing the employer's NI tax, which seemed a futile idea at the time and still does.
Don't really understand why Rachel Reeves isn't just straightforward with the electorate and says upfront that more money is needed and that everyone in the higher tax brackets can cough up an extra penny
Because she's clueless.
The tax system is separate from the spending system.
The reason to tax is to reduce inequality not to fund spending.
Reeves is not interested in either. She doesn't understand the actual sequence of the economy.
Spend - grow - tax.
Until governments recognise these operational facts we will be in a mess, and historically we have followed this path which is why things are dire.
Reeves is not really interested in making substantial tax reforms either. There is no appetite for neoliberal Governments to raise taxes at a high enough level to make a difference.
Evidence the fact that she chased and chased old people for 1.5bn. A totally dismal amount that most won't even register in terms of economic change.
They're stuck - and we are suffering because of that.
Things are simply not going to get much better with Labour. In fact they will get much worse because she will drain money in the budget without the subsequent investment.
Tax - remove money from the economy.
Spend - add money to the economy.
Net(deficit) - our wealth.
The whole idea that the we broadly agree the economy is not really serving its people well and then as a result - cutting stuff from people to try and save money and not expecting poor outcomes is economically insane.
Especially whilst at the same time the BoE pays people with money - interest income for people with wealth. That money all comes from the same place that Reeves calls the black-hole.
If someone on the same income as me pays less tax by using a convenient (but legal) means, then as a PAYE taxpayer I object.
In this instance, it seems to be National Insurance Contributions as being "partners" they're self employed.
More than 190,000 workers use partnerships, particularly in the legal world, and they offer a significant tax benefit over ordinary employment. They are not subject to employer’s national insurance as partners are treated as self-employed.
Treat dividends as income when it comes to all National Insurance. Even better (and there’s no chance of this from this government as they’ve boxed themselves into a corner on direct taxation) scrap NI and roll it into income tax.
Imho there’s always been an issue with the disparity between the different taxation types, so working on that seems fine to me,
https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/are-preferential-tax-rates-self-employed-justified
Oh dear. It seems that Keir and Lisa have been making stuff up. Shocked, I tell you
So the attack on higher earning PAYE employees turns out to be closing a loop hole very specific to certain professions. Not really going to generate a lot of revenue, seems fair to me, probably done for sound bite purposes. All in all meh on every level.
Generally higher rate tax payers are always the easy targets, not much we can do about it but if I hear those with broadest shoulders I'm not going to be impressed. They need to go after the uber wealthy and the cash in hand brigade, don't kid yourselves the latter are all on the breadline
They need to go after the uber wealthy and the cash in hand brigade, don't kid yourselves the latter are all on the breadline
I absolutely agree, but that is because of the political message it sends, not the actual monetary benefit to the country. It all depends on how they view the task. If it is to get the maximum income for least additional cost, you go after the on-book, rule-abiding majority and stick a percent here and half a percent there. If it is to appear to be fair you do go after the cash in hand brigade and the fat cats, but you have to accept that the return (if any) is likely to be marginal with the additional cost of either going after tens of millions of off-book transactions or taking on tax avoidance/evasion schemes that will be defended by extremely motivated and well-paid 'advisors'.
In other news, has anyone noticed that no one suitable seems to want to be anywhere near the child abuse inquiry top jobs? I think that the political heat around this issue, now it is being weaponised by the far right, is causing a fair few potential candidates to say "err, no thanks".
has anyone noticed that no one suitable seems to want to be anywhere near the child abuse inquiry top jobs? I think that the political heat around this issue, now it is being weaponised by the far right, is causing a fair few potential candidates to say "err, no thanks".
You have to marvel at the sheer hard-faced audacity of Kemi Badanoch and Chris Phelp, both of whom were members of a government that did the square root of sod all about child grooming gangs, including totally ignoring ALL the recommendations of the inquiry that’s already published its findings after 7 years investigation. When given the opportunity to actually do something themselves, they instead just brushed the whole thing under the carpet!
I thought Starmer was very statesmanlike and showed remarkable restraint at PMQ’s this week, obviously through respect for the survivors, when faced by those charlatans who seem more than happy to weaponise this whole thing to suit their own personal agendas.
And as for having a go at Jess Phillips? That woman has done more to represent the interests of the victims of sexual and domestic violence than the entire Tory party managed in 14 years in power
They're absolutely shameless! They literally couldn’t give a shit!
No wonder nobody fancies being at the sharp end of that sort of rank and morality-free opportunism. Would you?
The worst part is that the co-opting of some victims and the wesponisation of the inquiry as a whole is already leading to a diminished chance of survivors seeing justice. The survivors need to beware of false prophets. Numerous candidates to chair the inquiry have already walked away citing political interference. No one wants a brick through the window or threats against family members for not reaching the 'right'* conclusions. Reform in particular want an anti-muslim witch hunt. Badenoch and Jenrick aren't far behind.
Sadly, this is the country we now live in.
*Politically correct as opposed to good, old-fashioned, objective, fact-based correct.