Forum menu
The trouble with that Ernesto is that in a democracy you need to get (re) elected.
They already got elected without mentioning cutting disability benefits, although they did mention something about sorting out non Dom. They seem to have forgotten non-dom but are now pursuing something they didn't mention. The very thing they could continue not to mention when the time comes for them to lose the next election.
They are doing this purely because they want to and 'punish' the people who are least likely to be able to deal with it. The sort of thing you expected from the tories, no?
We’ve not actually got the proposals yet, have we? There seems to be a lot of conclusions being drawn from something we haven’t got any of the detail about yet?
The main problem with the present disability benefits system, as with so many things designed by the half-wits in power for the last 14 years, is that it’s catastrophically dysfunctional.
So it’s not just the fact that it’s costing an absolute fortune - which it is - but that the outcomes for the people it’s meant to help are generally terrible
They seem to have forgotten non-dom
Non-dom tax status ends when the new tax year starts in a few weeks time.
And binners hits the nail firmly on the head, even if unintentionally.
The primary driver isn't actually what is best or necessary for the country, it is the desperate need to rake the gutters for votes.
It might be 9 months since the general election but Labour are still very much in election mode. Partly because of an obsession that elections are all that ever matters (binners favourite mantra) and partly because panic has gripped the Labour leadership.
The May local elections and the Runcorn by-election are fast approaching and with Labour on about 25%, the same as Reform, it looks very likely to be a total disaster for Labour.
Furthermore it looks increasingly likely that unless things change very dramatically Labour will lose the next general election. Which I think will probably be unprecedented - I don't think that any party with such a huge majority, as Labour currently has, has ever lost a general election.
For the man who is mostly running the show, Morgan McSweeney, the priority appears to be to convince voters that Labour is no longer a left-wing party....see cutting benefits for disabled people, slashing foreign aid by 40%, denying asylum seekers the right to citizenship, etc, in that light.
I heard yesterday someone describe Starmer as appearing to be 'a passenger in his own government', I think that probably sums it up perfectly.
The primary driver isn't actually what is best or necessary for the country
Is it not? I don’t think anyone who has had any dealings with disability benefits system would have a good word to say about it. It’s an absolute shambles!
The difference now is that we have a government who, having not been responsible for putting the shambles in place, can acknowledge that it’s an absolute mess and try and do something to try and sort it out
Thats their job, isn’t it?
By sorting it out you mean removing the benefit from many people who rely on it? The disability benefits system is a shambles because it is actually harder to get than it should be and stressful with the continual questioning on whether you are still disabled or maybe not as disabled as you need to be anymore.
Assuming the disabled people you know are looking forward to the changes to potentially lower their assistance?
As I’ve already mentioned: we don’t know what they’re proposing yet as we haven’t seen any details and in the absence of that there’s just speculation
I’ll reserve judgement until I’ve seen what it is they’re actually proposing. What I do know for sure is that the present system is completely and utterly dysfunctional and is in desperate need of reform, as the outcomes for the people it’s supposed to help are generally dreadful.
It’s genuinely benefitting very few people yet is costing an absolute fortune. Not a great combination really that, is it? For anyone.
It’s genuinely benefitting very few people yet is costing an absolute fortune
That's real money going into the economy to be spent, what do you think happens when you remove that? Do you think it will grow or shrink?
The actual cost, by the way, is not a financial one - it's the actual cost to the people and society, who are victims of idiotic spreadsheets maths on a system that doesn't demand to be in balance. In fact it's virtually never in balance.
Just imagine this was the Tories doing it and you would be in a frenzy.
At which point who decides what a fortune is? The cost is less than 0.4% of all government spending.
And just off-topic-ish shits and giggles here's Musk today on his DOGE mission (not dissimilar to Reeves) actually discovering the Fed creates the money it needs out of thin air.
The UK has pretty much the same Fiat system.
Not a surprise to me or anyone else who's taken time to understand government finances. Don't forget Musk is an nutty advocate of believing they use tax payers money. His whole mission is built on this.
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1901646958806049204?t=irIGGU9N5fu-e_gJwjbNkQ&s=19
As I’ve already mentioned: we don’t know what they’re proposing yet as we haven’t seen any details and in the absence of that there’s just speculation
I’ll reserve judgement until I’ve seen what it is they’re actually proposing.
Never mind the details of how Starmer-Reeves intend to reduce the benefits bill you seem to have a pretty good idea of where this government is taking us. I will quote you :
The trouble with that Ernesto is that in a democracy you need to get (re) elected.
And as we unfortunately learnt in 2016, a majority of this countries electorate go misty eyed at the idea of Brittania ruling the waves and Spitfires and stuff and they also think that anyone who’s on benefits is Frank Gallagher off Shameless.
It is quite obvious that you are tempting to justify Starmer's dramatic lurch to the right, which includes attacks on asylum seekers and people with mental health conditions. As I said the aim is clear, to convince voters that Labour is no longer a left-wing party.
Btw if "winning" is all that matters, as you seem to believe, why not join the Tory Party? After all the Tories have won more elections in the last 200 than probably any other political party in the world.
The primary driver isn't actually what is best or necessary for the country, it is the desperate need to rake the gutters for votes.
And if voters wish to punish the desperate, the old, the sick or the disabled, they can drink full fat rather than diet coke and vote Reform. Labour's grubby tribute act is an electoral dead end.
I’ll reserve judgement until I’ve seen what it is they’re actually proposing.
Only a few hours left before you can pass your "judgement" binners. I look forward to it.
Is it likely to include pictures of donkeys? I expect it will as you attempt to turn the issue into some sort of joke.
It's so emotionaly exhausting to read the relentless speculative drivel on here from the usual suspects...
So yes, let's wait to see what is acutually announced? FWIW I don't personally think further benefits cuts are the right thing to do, and I'll be equally as sceptical.
Maybe we are so used to accidental 'leaks' being policy opinion tests under the last Tory government that we are too quick to jump to conclusions.
It’s genuinely benefitting very few people
It literally benefits everyone who gets anything from it. The clue is in the word.
It's so emotionaly exhausting to read the relentless speculative drivel on here from the usual suspects...
It's very brave of you to put yourself through it.
The credence being given to what is, after all, just speculation, is particularly odd given last week’s discussion of the ‘well nobody saw that one coming’ nature of abolishing NHS England.
I keep hearing all about what the government ‘might’ do, but as Wayne famously noted ‘yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt’
Eight months in and "at least they're not the Tories" is losing its shine for me. Sure this government still look better than the end of days Tories with their blatant individual power/money grabs. But imposing Tory policies with an apology is not much better than imposing Tory policies with a gloat. The end result is quite similar.
When Labour either scrape Runcorn or lose it to Reform, I find it highly unlikely McSweeney will change tack. He'll double-down on trying to out-nasty Reform. I really hope we don't end up with four and a half more years of Tory policies with the rougher edges sanded off followed by defeat to a Tory-Reform merger, but I think that's where we are headed.
Whether this supposed realpolitik of pandering to post-Brexit jingoism and intolerance is the fault of politicians for not grasping the nettle sooner or society for holding those views is sort of missing the point. Someone needs to have the balls to challenge this crap. Not preface every comment about the NHS or armed forces with "our amazing" but actually make the case for societal fairness and get on and do something about it.
It's so emotionaly exhausting to read the relentless speculative drivel on here from the usual suspects...
The Guardian? I expected you to be a fan!
'Speculative drivel' sounds a bit harsh, what didn't you like about the article?
It's not really speculation is it. They were pre-briefing to expect cuts of £6billion last week and had significant backlash from MPs because of this. Go back and listen to R4 "world at one" from Friday. That's a massive number to be recovered only by improving a system; there's got to be cuts in there too and it seems highly unlikely to avoid cutting from people with genuine need.
Eight months in and "at least they're not the Tories" is losing its shine for me. Sure this government still look better than the end of days Tories with their blatant individual power/money grabs. But imposing Tory policies with an apology is not much better than imposing Tory policies with a gloat. The end result is quite similar.
According to the Guardian [boo-hiss] in some cases worse than the Tories. :
Ministers, who are facing the wrath of Labour MPs and peers over the plans, are understood to have taken fright after being accused in meetings with MPs of planning measures rejected as unfair even by former Tory chancellor George Osborne during the Conservative years of austerity.
You realise just how much Starmer has swung Labour to the right when even Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper join the foray!
Pretty desperate to dismiss govt briefing of massive cuts as "speculative drivel". I suppose if you assume the govt doesn't know its arse from its elbow, there could be some truth in that.
If Labour want to get people back to work (as they should be) there are any number of ways to do that rather than reaching for the big tory stick to beat up benefits claimants. In 97 I was on the dole after failing to find a job after graduation. Gordon Brown created a scheme to get graduates like me back to work, which involved funding employers to take on graduates for 3 month placements paying them double what the dole paid. Both sides were incentivised and it worked, I've had a job ever since. It cost money though, which this labour govt has ruled out due to their blinkered fixation with fiscal rules and tory austerity policies.
Personally, I don't think its inappropriate for any govt of any colour to examine what it spends its money on, and that includes welfare. While it's not (in the grand scheme of things) now the single biggest thing we spend money on, it's becoming increasingly obvious that the costs is only going one way, and it's probably appropriate to do something about it sooner rather than later. We have to face the fact that we are as a nation become older (generally) and fatter and hypertensive/pre-diabetic, or T2, and the mental health of young people is getting worse (councils are spending more on SEN transport for kids than they do on repair roads and libraries), and we can see the effects in NHS spending and welfare spending and those things combined with a pension triple lock and a lack of functioning ways to get back into employment are costing us more and more. Is it more appropriate to do more to resolve the cause of these things than to spend money on the result of them? That's what I'll be looking for today.
I think its easy to criticise, and shout about cruelty and no one wants anyone to suffer, but if we make it hard to get employment support, then its shouldn't come as a massive surprise that folks will claim disability or health benefits in their place. and those criticising Labour for forcing folks into work seem to forget that Labour have always regarded work as the way out from poverty and want, and have always regarded putting money into 'front pockets' than 'back pockets' as more virtuous and sustainable.
and those criticising Labour for forcing folks into work seem to forget that Labourhave alwaysregarded work as the way out from poverty and want, and have always regarded putting money into 'front pockets' than 'back pockets' as more virtuous and sustainable.
See above. I've got no problem with Labour getting people back to work, I'm a direct beneficiary of that, but they need to do it with support and incentives, not a massive stick in the form of benefits cuts. If Gordon Brown had taken the same approach in 97 and cut my benefits I'd probably have ended up homeless. Cutting benefits will cost more in the long run.
The disability benefits system is a shambles because it is actually harder to get than it should be and stressful with the continual questioning on whether you are still disabled or maybe not as disabled as you need to be anymore.
According to what was said this morning one of the proposals will be to permanently sign off those who can clearly never work again meaning they don't have to reapply over and over.
I've been wincing at what been all over social media so fear the worst but the snippet on BBC this morning made me hope they have an actual plan that 'may' improve the system. We'll see.
and the mental health of young people is getting worse (councils are spending more on SEN transport for kids than they do on repair roads and libraries)
Whilst there is an increase in mental health issues the link you provide doesnt demonstrate that but instead shows far more interesting questions/issue. The percentage increase in SEN transport has happened for a variety of reasons. Partly due to it being legally required so cant be chopped unlike other services, partly due to more claims (which doesnt necessarily mean an increase in actual ill health), partly due to lack of local schooling and then about a third down to general increased costs.
Its interesting you also talk about getting people back to work. Which misses that a lot of working people have to claim benefits since their wages arent sufficient and rents are extremely high. Now who is actually really benefiting there?
Its interesting you also talk about getting people back to work. Which misses that a lot of working people have to claim benefits since their wages arent sufficient and rents are extremely high. Now who is actually really benefiting there?
So pay better wages and put in controls around rent prices. I know some people who are not going to like that and they are the people running the country...
So pay better wages
Some beefing up of equal pay regs, so that disabled people can’t be paid less… while also doing more to prevent discrimination in recruitment. That’s what I’d like to see.
but they need to do it with support and incentives
Agree 100%, Just cutting peoples benefits and sitting back thinking "job's done" is a waste of time for everyone. TBH though, given this govt's track record, I'm not optimistic
Which misses that a lot of working people have to claim benefits since their wages arent sufficient and rents are extremely high
Again don't disagree, but the rise in wages cost for our GP practice has meant that we can't realistically pay our Salaried GP for any more sessions, or employ another (badly needed) admin staff. We pay over min wages but we've had to make pretty hard decisions to make sure we can, and again its worth keeping in mind that the vast majority of businesses in the UK employ less than 5 people, the Amazons of the world are the exception, not the rule.
Fantasy economics aside, if we want to have more money for these things, we tax ourselves more (and this govt particularly hasn't stored enough political capital to do that)
Meanwhile, HM opposition are using the opportunity of everyone talking about the benefits bill to make some major policy announcements…
So they’ve just let voters know, ahead of the local elections, that the Tory’s will no longer be having anything to do with any of that woke, climate-change nonsense and the world can just burn for all they care. Not that anyone will notice, of course, as Kemi carries on trying to out-Reform Reform
The real discussions is what are the underlying problems that is causing a much of this. Especially with mental illness - me thinks post-pandemic and a whole shed load of neoliberalism pushed people into hell in some cases.
Labour won't go there will they - because that would require half a brain; some support and investment - and Wes Streeting not being an utter prick.
What we have is the current Labour party trashing the Labour brand in the hope that some numbers magically appear out of this right-wing mess.
Either way yet more evidence of Labour borrowing the Tories' way of dealing with benefits. Didn't work. Won't work.
On top of this Reeves is about to unleash a whole load economic mis-handling on the economy. What with money being taken out of the economy - less consumption - nothing but a massive economic disaster heading our way this year.
Hold on to your bullshit Centrist seat belt - 'cos it's not holding you in any longer.
I swear Labour are trying as hard as they can to run a red carpet for Reform.
I can't help but currently think that once again, government policy (this time on welfare) is being driven by keeping the pension age, often voting population, happy.
The state pension, included in the welfare budget, has increased from ~£175 in April '20 to ~£230 in April '25.
Besides the blip for covid before vaccination kicked in, the UK pension age population is rising.
~55% of the welfare budget goes on the state pension. It was under 50% just a few years ago.
Over the last 70 years, on average, the age at death has increased from ~70 to ~81.
Living longer means typically, more use of the NHS.
Why isn't the state pension means tested, so those with amazing private pensions and/or other income, have their state pension capped to something like ~25%?
Use the saved welfare budget money to help those younger, who really need their benefits to barely get by (so many affected long term by long covid in recent years), plus improve the NHS in ways such as a massive drive to train more UK citizens to enter the care service.
The state pension isn't means-tested because people of my age paid NI contributions for over 50 years, that's why. Far from means testing the state pension, I think that the personal tax allowance should be increased for pensioners to, say, £15,000 so that those of us who rely on the state pension don't have to give some of it back in tax.
The NI payments I make today in theory go toward paying pensioners their benefits today. It is not being save up for when I retire, when I get the state pension it will be paid for by those working and paying their NI.
Best thing to do would just get rid of NI all together and increase tax by the respective amount to remove any doubt of how it really works. It is pretty simple to see why the costs have gone up, people living on average 13 years past retirement rather than 5 and in this 13 years becoming a lot more dependent on the NHS. Just need to accept that and pay for it as we will be in same position in future (assuming we live to see it)
The non-means tested state pension combined with the "triple lock" policy since 2010(?), besides one year during ther covid pandemic ('22?), has a lot to answer for.
Come April, the state pension will have increased ~31% over the last five years from ~£175 to ~£230 (unless I'ver had a maths fail, which is entirely possible).
Now show me a long list of other benefits, that also come from the welfare budget, that have had anything like that % increase since April 2020.
I can't help but feel - in this age of a Labour government whipping away walking sticks to see if people fall over and telling potentially suicidal people to "pull themselves together and get to work" to save £5bn in 3 years time...
That extra £100bn of GDP we could be getting per annum by being in the SM & CU might come in handy.
But then, I'm not a politician and I'm sure there are much more qualified people in government who know why this is impossible.
🤔
So, you state pension haters, what do you propose? Reduce it? Tax it more?
I can't help but currently think that once again, government policy (this time on welfare) is being driven by keeping the pension age, often voting population, happy.
And
Why isn't the state pension means tested
I think you've answered your own question.
Changes aimed to save 5Bn by 2030...
Isn't that less than the typical increase in state pension for one tax year under the triple lock, in the last five years?
Well I for one am rubbing my hands at the thoughts of receiving my supremely generous state pension riches in 10 years time.
Round the world cruises here I come!!
So, you state pension haters, what do you propose? Reduce it? Tax it more?
At the % increase rate over the last five years, by ten years time the state pension under triple lock could be ~£395 per week per individual.
Why stop at world cruises? Why not space tours? 😉
Why not space tours? 😉
...I'll keep an eye on the cost - Bezos may have made them cheap enough by then! 🚀
So, you state pension haters, what do you propose? Reduce it? Tax it more?
It should be means-tested, I don't see a reason to tax it more than any other source of income.
The state pension itself isn't very generous for people who have nothing more than that to survive on. However, about a quarter of pensioners are absurdly rich (household assets of over a million pounds is the standard ONS statistic), they could certainly contribute a lot more to the upkeep of the state that has supported and helped them out so generously through their lives.
Even if it was means-tested do honestly think those in greater need will received a higher pension? Or will it just be the better off who end up with nothing.
My parents receive pension credits which brings them up to a comfortable amount to live off. And of course pension credits are means-tested.
stricter entrance criteria for PIP - good
same savings enforeced in scotland - good
most serious disabilities not requiring reassessment - good
single capability assessment (no duplication) - good
Permanent above inflation rise to universal credit
i missed the bit about stealing pensioners walking sticks?
i missed the bit about stealing pensioners walking sticks?
I was being silly for effect/emphasis.
But my point remains:
Why the **** are we scrapping around, likely creating new victims, to save £5bn in 5 years time - when we're actively turning our backs on a probable extra £100bn per year in GDP? Simply by rejoining the European Single Market and Customs Union.
It all seems a bit daft to me, but then I'm no political genius like our current ministers and MPs.
The state pension itself isn't very generous for people who have nothing more than that to survive on. However, about a quarter of pensioners are absurdly rich (household assets of over a million pounds is the standard ONS statistic), they could certainly contribute a lot more to the upkeep of the state that has supported and helped them out so generously through their lives.
A million pounds seems like a lot of money to someone working, and in good health, but if it's all you've got to buy food, care and a new hip the perspective changes a bit. Maybe I'd be happier to put my hand in my pocket if the government had been a bit less happy to stuff cash into the bank accounts of Thames Water shareholders and the like.
Meanwhile, HM opposition are using the opportunity of everyone talking about the benefits bill to make some major policy announcements…
So they’ve just let voters know, ahead of the local elections, that the Tory’s will no longer be having anything to do with any of that woke, climate-change nonsense and the world can just burn for all they care. Not that anyone will notice, of course, as Kemi carries on trying to out-Reform Reform
You can't expect the Tories to oppose benefits cuts can you? Starmer-Reeves are carrying out the sort of austerity policies which the Tories would never have got away with - the outcry from the Labour benches would have been so great with accusations of Tory callous cruelty.
So focussing on daft environmental issues seems a reasonable tactic for the Tories. Although "Labour" are already on the case.
More Tory policies from Starmer's government :
about a quarter of pensioners are absurdly rich (household assets of over a million pounds is the standard ONS statistic), they could certainly contribute a lot more to the upkeep of the state that has supported and helped them out so generously through their lives.
a million quid in assets certainly sounds like a lot (and let's be clear - it's definitely better to have it than not have it!) but if £900,000 of that is the home you live in, it's not so clear cut.
House price increases don't always add a lot to real wealth (in the sense of money you can actually spend) because you always have to live somewhere. You can only "cash in" that increase if you can downgrade (by moving somewhere significantly smaller or moving to a town that's much cheaper) or if you don't need a house any more (mostly because you're dead). For everyone else a doubling of house prices doesn't actually help much because you get twice as much when you sell and pay twice as much to get into the new place...
Also, the pensioners who have a million quid in assets are probably the ones who paid in more in tax than they received in upkeep from the state across their working lives, for obvious reasons...
I have no fing idea how to fix any of this.
Although Labour's attack on bats actually has much more in common with Donald Trump :
Bats in the UK were safer under a Tory government than they will be under "Labour"
Sod the environment eh? The environment is part of the anti-growth coalition!!
Starmer-Reeves are carrying out the sort of austerity policies which the Tories would never have got away with
i dont see it, actually im seeing a much more measured approach, apart from, of course the innumerable folk who died in the last six months due to the cut of WFA.
the SM/CU comment above, regardless of how the numbers stack up, no PM is going to go near that, with that as the title...
What? No politician will say "we wouldn't have to be making as many of these tough decisions if we had an extra £100bn in annual GDP by simply restoring our EU membership"?
It seems quite an obvious point to make to me. What with the view that a government should act in the best interests of its citizens and all that.
🤷♂️
a million quid in assets certainly sounds like a lot (and let's be clear - it's definitely better to have it than not have it!) but if £900,000 of that is the home you live in, it's not so clear cut.
House price increases don't always add a lot to real wealth (in the sense of money you can actually spend) because you always have to live somewhere.
Yes you do have to live somewhere, a £250K flat for example, leaving you £750K in cash which should do nicely to see you through to your death (£37K per year if live for 20 years, ignoring any interest on top of state pension). Or you could just drawdown against it which although not that cleaver gets you money you need without moving.
Having a £1MM house and saying you are not wealthy is a but ridiculous.
Changes aimed to save 5Bn by 2030...
Be nice if Labour took one of the few sensible reform policies and stopped paying interest to the banks on central bank reserves (including the rather large sum creating by quantative easing).
Whilst the reform figures of 35 billion a year seem to be rubbish the more serious people (including the FT) proposing that interest is only paid on some of it (bringing us in line with the EU and Japan) would in a worse case scenario save 5 billion a year immediately.
Said it before, as a small business person with a team of 12 the collective amount of tax from Corp Tax, PAYE, NI, Dividends, VAT, BIK then community charge, vat on fuel and so on the amount of tax we collectively pay is staggering
My community charge is £400 a month i have to earn about 7k a year to pay just that. So my actual charge is 585 a month.
More than half of everything this business produces is taxed probably 60% that's £500k
I have no problem paying tax but not sure where it all goes?
It’s paying pensions in large part. There’s lots of other stuff as well.
I have no problem paying tax but not sure where it all goes?
I have no problem paying tax, I'm not sure where it all goes and yet I don't feel the need to ask a rhetorical question about it to make a point either.
Meanwhile, HM opposition are using the opportunity of everyone talking about the benefits bill to make some major policy announcements…
So they’ve just let voters know, ahead of the local elections, that the Tory’s will no longer be having anything to do with any of that woke, climate-change nonsense and the world can just burn for all they care. Not that anyone will notice, of course, as Kemi carries on trying to out-Reform Reform
So ****ing what?
Badenoch is an irrelevant **** unless she takes the Tories into a merger with Reform. When the result will out-nasty anything in any case.
Her position on anything has no meaning, no relevance, no nothing.
They're dealing with the cost of the state pension by increasing the access age. They can get away with that because it 'only' affects younger people. It's on its way up to 70 and probably beyond. There are sections of society who don't live far beyond 70 on average, so once the boomers have enjoyed their lengthy state funded retirements, the days of being expected to work until you die will soon be upon us.
The retirement outlook for millennials and younger generations is already seriously grim. Means testing on top would be diabolical. Any party enacting that would surely never be elected again.
I have no problem paying tax but not sure where it all goes?
We used to get an annual record of the tax we paid and exactly how it was split across government spending. Not sure that's still done.
So ****ing what?
Her position on anything has no meaning, no relevance, no nothing.
It does though, doesn't it? Because democracy doesn't work unless you have an effective opposition. And reform just lobbing hand grenades from the sidelines isn't an effective opposition, no matter what they'd like people to believe.
It was the same when Magic Grandad accidentally became leader of the labour party.... the Tories had a free pass and could do whatever the hell they liked because they knew the opposition was an unelectable joke. And just look where that got us?
Did you see Helen Whately this afternoon? Dear god! To quote Malcolm Tucker - a woman so dense that light bends around her. Thats literally all they've got left. An idiot in search of a village. And I highlighted Badanochs statement this afternoon to prove exactly your point... the Tory party is now so detatched from reality that they are a complete irrelevence.
So, much as I'm enjoying the Tories disappear up their own firmaments, chasing Nige and Reform off to the right like headless chickens, I can't help the feeling that its hardly going to end up being healthy for our democracy
Said it before, as a small business person with a team of 12 the collective amount of tax from Corp Tax, PAYE, NI, Dividends, VAT, BIK then community charge, vat on fuel and so on the amount of tax we collectively pay is staggering
My community charge is £400 a month i have to earn about 7k a year to pay just that. So my actual charge is 585 a month.
More than half of everything this business produces is taxed probably 60% that's £500k
I have no problem paying tax but not sure where it all goes?
I know the feeling. As a worker being hit for an effective graduate tax, national insurance, income tax and then VAT amounts to about 70% taxation.
Then to see the huge profits some big businesses make without paying any tax and no real attempts being made to tax unearned wealth, it's all a bit sickening.
The people who actually do the work in this country have been properly screwed over and I'm not surprised more of them are apparently deciding that a life on benefits is preferable.
We desperately need to redress the balance back towards workers primarily, and then also help out smaller businesses.
So ****ing what?
Her position on anything has no meaning, no relevance, no nothing.
It does though, doesn't it? Because democracy doesn't work unless you have an effective opposition. And reform just lobbing hand grenades from the sidelines isn't an effective opposition, no matter what they'd like people to believe.
It was the same when Magic Grandad accidentally became leader of the labour party.... the Tories had a free pass and could do whatever the hell they liked because they knew the opposition was an unelectable joke. And just look where that got us?
Did you see Helen Whately this afternoon? Dear god! To quote Malcolm Tucker - a woman so dense that light bends around her. Thats literally all they've got left. An idiot in search of a village. And I highlighted Badanochs statement this afternoon to prove exactly your point... the Tory party is now so detatched from reality that they are a complete irrelevence.
So, much as I'm enjoying the Tories disappear up their own firmaments, chasing Nige and Reform off to the right like headless chickens, I can't help the feeling that its hardly going to end up being healthy for our democracy
So from attacking Tory governments to attacking Tory opposition, to paraphrase you it's literally all that you have left.
And it's absolutely classic whataboutry ........ never mind how shite the current Labour government are just look how shite the Tory opposition is. And for good measure blame Jeremy Corbyn as well.
Blame everyone except St Starmer.
Remind me again why you hated the last Tory government so much binners I can't remember. It obviously had nothing to do with their right-wing policies was it their incompetence or something else, what exactly?
And it's absolutely classic whataboutry
Its also about as accurate as binners knowledge of charity funding.
For both May and Johnson the tories did respond to an opposition which actually offered an alternative by offering a broader mix of policies including Johnsons levelling up and there were the "Red May" comments with analysis of the tory offering showing it was the most left wing in decades.
Now, obviously, they were mostly lying about them but they did respond because there was actually an opposition offering policies different to the ongoing thatcherite fantasy which had already started running into the problem that asset stripping the country is great until you run out of assets to give away cheap and the rent comes due.
If we take the tories now, exactly what are they supposed to do? Labour are offering austerity on steroids so they can either go for the radical option of moving to the left of them, very risky, or move further rightwards to try and keep their differences. At which point they run into the farage issue.
Head above the parapet time for me.
Labour? No. No. No.
Just off the phone from a friend of near 30 years. A friend I admire immensely.
She has always worked, including as a single parent after her husband left her and their children behind to be with a string of other women.
Worked in retail, a care home, you name it, she did anything it took to find her kids the best chance she could in life. She's done everything she can for her children to the point where I just don't know how she held herself together at times.
She went through a no fault eviction a few years back and now, finally, has a place she can call her "own" again rather than knowing she can be moved from the temporary accommodation at the drop of a hat.
This all going on whilst dealing with MS, gradually eroding her physically and mentally.
She is in tears tonight. As it stands she will lose the daily living component of her PIP, some £100 a week. She has more than enough points to qualify for the higher rate as the rules stand but hasn't got 4 points in any one descriptor. Getting 4 points+ in any of the descriptors is incredibly difficult as the DWP and government know.
This is a terrible decision and it's completely contrary to saving money in the long term. There must be a lot of people feeling just as worried and betrayed as her tonight.
She said, "they (politicians) are all the f****** same" and I couldn't bring myself to disagree with her.
What a mess.
Yesterday we had complaints about speculation from the usual suspects, so it's curious that they've gone quiet now details have been confirmed.
If we take the tories now, exactly what are they supposed to do? Labour are offering austerity on steroids so they can either go for the radical option of moving to the left of them, very risky, or move further rightwards to try and keep their differences. At which point they run into the farage issue.
Yup, obviously it can't happen under Badenoch (although Runcorn might finish her off) but the sensible thing for the Tories imo would be to move just slightly to the left of Labour, something which wouldn't be massively difficult!
That niche in the UK political spectrum is mostly underoccupied with the LibDems still making no significant progress following the long-term damage caused by Nick Clegg.
Moving further to the right would be pointless for the Tories because as you suggest that niche is now firmly in the hands of Reform. Besides Badenoch has done precisely that and it has done the Tories no favours at all.
The main changes in support for UK political parties since the general election last July is a very significant collapse in support for Labour and Reform support almost doubling, support for other parties, including the Tories, hasn't changed that significantly.
However as I understand it it is not simply a case of Labour losing support to Reform, in fact far from it. It would appear that Labour have mostly lost support to the Tories and in turn the Tories have lost support to Reform.
So the Tories are actually benefiting from Labour's lack of popularity it's just not obvious because they are losing at least as much support to Reform.
The benefits to the Tories if they moved very slightly to the left would be twofold imo. Firstly an greater likelihood of winning over Labour voters. And secondly it would likely take some of the wind out of Reform's sails.
Right now Badenoch making the case for hard-right policies is simply helping Reform because she is doing their work for them. What the Tories need is a leader who denounces hard-right policies and convinces potential Tory voters that Reform has no answer and nothing to offer, instead of doing the opposite and agreeing with them.
Having said all that if I was a half sensible Tory Party member I wouldn't worry with any of that and I would simply join the Labour Party.
Because democracy doesn't work unless you have an effective opposition
The main problem is that there are no differences between the 2 parties.
Labour are just implementing Tory policies.
Instead of tacking the real issues around increasing inequality and taxing the rich, its all about punching down on the less fortunate people in society who cant fight back (Disabled/Unemployed/Immigrants)
The £5bn quoted from the reforms could easily be recovered, by making those who have >£100m of assets pay the same amount of tax as the rest of us.
Yesterday we had complaints about speculation from the usual suspects, so it's curious that they've gone quiet now details have been confirmed.
Been a bit of a constant theme now hasn't it?
Hopefully this will solidify that when Reeves and Kendall said they would be tough on benefits before they were elected - they weren't lying.
It's so dumb-ass.
The *saving of 5bn will give nothing back but take so much from people.
*Government's can't save obviously. Everything is done on new spending (adding to the economy) and taxation (taking away.)
Worth remembering that when a government removes money from the economy it likely contracts.
So no GDP increase either.
Callous, dumb Tory thinking - ideological purity in wide-screen.
Yesterday we had complaints about speculation from the usual suspects, so it's curious that they've gone quiet now details have been confirmed.
Been a bit of a constant theme now hasn't it?
Hopefully this will solidify that when Reeves and Kendall said they would be tough on benefits before they were elected - they weren't lying.
It's so dumb-ass.
The *saving of 5bn will give nothing back but take so much from people.
*Government's can't save obviously. Everything is done on new spending (adding to the economy) and taxation (taking away.)
Worth remembering that when a government removes money from the economy it likely contracts.
So no GDP increase either.
Callous, dumb Tory thinking - ideological purity in wide-screen.
The £5bn quoted from the reforms could easily be recovered, by making those who have >£100m of assets pay the same amount of tax as the rest of us
They don't need to recover anything. There is no capacity to save at all. They are simply removing money from the economy.
(For sure tax wealth as always.)
It's all being done under the notion that Thatcher's model was accurate on the economy.
It's not.
Yesterday we had complaints about speculation from the usual suspects, so it's curious that they've gone quiet now details have been confirmed.
You mean this?
binners
Full Member
I’ll reserve judgement until I’ve seen what it is they’re actually proposing.
I suspect that the jury is still out as far as binners is concerned and he is thinking long and hard about the issue.
Binners is never in a rush to be judgemental when it comes to politics. No wait, he is. Maybe he can't make up his mind what pictures to post?
I suspect that the jury is still out as far as binners is concerned and he is thinking long and hard about the issue.
Studying all the Toynbee columns for something along the lines of reform of traffic lights so the sick can get to work faster.
Also, the pensioners who have a million quid in assets are probably the ones who paid in more in tax than they received in upkeep from the state across their working lives
I hope most of that tax went on defence, education, health, infrastructure and all the other things our tax pays that we benefit from. To get back more than you pay in you have to seriously **** up and spend most of your life in prison. 🙂
Only a tiny part of the tax you ever pay is ever going to come back in "upkeep".
Those pensioners living in million plus houses should be taxed on the wealth and income - they should be encourage by the tax system and market forces to downsize and move to a less economically active area where it's cheaper and they won't be excluding the more productive age groups from somewhere convenient and suitable to live. Single pensioners occupying a million plus family sized home in London isn't good for the economy, or even for them.
If surviving on a million quid is such a hardship, surely those with more should be willing to support the miserable poverty-stricken wretches who haven't managed to amass such a modest sum.
Studying all the Toynbee columns
Even she is struggling now.
The last paragraph is a truly plaintive cry
"If spending cuts will be as deep as predicted, that demands a strong act of faith from Labour supporters that things will eventually get better. But remember this: every Labour government always improves the living standards of those with least, lifts more children out of poverty, revives the NHS, schools and local councils. In this dark economic moment, it takes trust to believe Starmer and Reeves too will, in the end, do as Labour always does."
Also, the pensioners who have a million quid in assets are probably the ones who paid in more in tax than they received in upkeep from the state across their working lives
Ithey should be encourage by the tax system and market forces to downsize and move to a less economically active area where it's cheaper and they won't be excluding the more productive age groups from somewhere convenient and suitable to live. Single pensioners occupying a million plus family sized home in London isn't good for the economy, or even for them.
There's already a massive incentive for people to move to a smaller house in cheap towns. That's why we already have so many clapped out seaside towns where only wrinklies and junkies live! If despite that incentive large groups of retired people want to stay in their communities close to their friends, families and support networks, then that seems fair enough.
Of course, if you want to pursue the line that benefits claimants shouldn't live in expensive towns and balanced communities don't matter, then presumably you'd also be in favour of stopping Housing Benefit in those same markets?
Besides, if you're really concerned about tax revenue, why are you lot so keen to force oldies to sell up? They'll only go and spend the money, mostly on the Algarve. Wait a few years and the state can have a big whack of that money through inheritance tax...