Brian: You are all individuals.
Crowd: We are all individuals.
Lone voice in the crowd: I'm not.
Election 2024
- Thread starter brb
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Brian: You are all individuals.
Crowd: We are all individuals.
Lone voice in the crowd: I'm not.
The British economy has been flatlining for 14 years but for some reason that never got much attention in the news until this autumn. I wonder why?
So why make a budget that was obviously going to make matters worse, small businesses were running on empty for a while, lots of final nails in coffins now, that's not from news outlets that's from what I see and hear in my area.
The great British public will not vote into power anyone who says they will raise the main taxes and the Tories got Labour to commit to this so as is normally the case far more damaging and unfair forms of taxation are used . I fully agree the rise in employer NI is a dreadful idea as it is literally taxing jobs but would people have voted for them if they had said income tax will rise i seriously doubt it .
Obviously not but it's too much too soon, the NI and minimum wage increases were obviously going to add to small businesses burden, the only way to counter is redundancies, price rises or companies not employing more staff, I honestly believe we will see record amounts of small businesses go out of business this next 12 months, already seeing it now. We have pubs and restaurants saying that booking and takings are down in a month they have to make hay, if they have bad January's, they won't survive and that's just one trade
It’s far too early to tell what the long term effects of Labour’s economic policy will be, but something radical needed to be done to address the state of the country’s finances. The clowns in power since 2010 left an absolute ****ty mess which there is no easy way to clean up, but at least we now have a government willing to make decisions regardless of how popular those decisions are in some quarters.
I can see the arguments from all sides, so I think what I saw on sky news best sums it up for me, we have a lifestyle we are not willing to pay for...
So in short something has to give and it's going to upset someone.
The easy target seems to be the pensioners from stuff I've read, and the solution is you either get rid of the triple lock OR you raise the retirement age again. The trouble is if you raise the retirement age there will be some people who simply cannot carry on, and we are already seeing some of the after effects of that - so my answer as someone that is nearing retirement is to get rid of the triple lock - the pensioners or future retirees are not going to vote Labour again anyway, so it's an easy bullseye for them.
I think it's a reasonable state pension anyway, and the triple lock can always be implemented again in the future, when we can afford it as a nation. All Labour need to do is protect those via benefits, much as they are doing with the removal of the winter fuel allowance.
Under this parliament the retirement age will raise again to 67 from 2026, I'm caught in that uplift, as is Archers, and Reeves will have no choice but to ensure that age lift goes ahead in our current climate.
Sadly I don't have any different answers to Labour's way, we'll just going to have to suck it up folks. Well that's not quite true, I would have raised the lower rate of income tax back to 25% as it used to be, but that will just piss off a load more people, so either way you are fooked, but it's what I would do, but thankfully for the nation I'll never get anywhere near the inside of parliament.
So in short something has to give and it's going to upset someone.
The easy target seems to be the pensioners from stuff I've read, and the solution is you either get rid of the triple lock OR you raise the retirement age again. The trouble is if you raise the retirement age there will be some people who simply cannot carry on, and we are already seeing some of the after effects of that - so my answer as someone that is nearing retirement is to get rid of the triple lock - the pensioners or future retirees are not going to vote Labour again anyway, so it's an easy bullseye for them.
I think it's a reasonable state pension anyway, and the triple lock can always be implemented again in the future, when we can afford it as a nation. All Labour need to do is protect those via benefits, much as they are doing with the removal of the winter fuel allowance.
Under this parliament the retirement age will raise again to 67 from 2026, I'm caught in that uplift, as is Archers, and Reeves will have no choice but to ensure that age lift goes ahead in our current climate.
Sadly I don't have any different answers to Labour's way, we'll just going to have to suck it up folks. Well that's not quite true, I would have raised the lower rate of income tax back to 25% as it used to be, but that will just piss off a load more people, so either way you are fooked, but it's what I would do, but thankfully for the nation I'll never get anywhere near the inside of parliament.
The 'difference' with 'Labour's way' is that the burden of taxation lodges with the more wealthy in our society ... and that surely has to be the most equitable position? ... the rich will still find taxation loopholes for sure - but not anywhere near as easily as under the Tories who were happy to facilitate particular ones knowing that the return would be substantial political donations ...
I don't think that's true in the short term, because some will not be implemented until April 2026, but the pensioners will be. This is probably why some people have got the hump, not me because it don't affect me yet. Ask the same questions in 2 years time you may well get different answers. It just seems to everyone I know and speak to that Labour have gone straight for the old folk, they will have already lost the pensioner vote anyway, will that cost them at the next election, well it depends if things improve, I think they will and this is just the hard part. I think the more concerning part is businesses and growth, but I'm bored already.
The triple lock is and never was affordable it was a bribe to get pensioners to vote Tory .
I'm sure Fosse will happily give his triple-lock excess to charity.
Charity begins at home ...
so you're not going to tell them where you live . Difficult to see your application for RP being accepted then
Not sure that's necessarily true, both parties hit whats known as middle England hardest, folk who have taken risks to make a good life for themselves but aren't actually millionaires, who as you say are rich enough to find loopholes to pay lower tax, as are a lot of politicians themselves. What still baffles me is why either party are so reluctant to tighten up these loopholes, especially for the Amazon's,Starbucks of this world, I presume , if they do tighten up on them, it will affect them and they won't do that.
all revenue from the likes of them is normally transferred to a country with a compliant tax system (hello Ireland) which is where the majority of company taxation will be paid .
have vague memories that Starbucks were "based" in Switzerland .
This is true, but there is no reason why every cup of coffee served, and every piece of Chinese made consumer crap delivered in the U.K., can’t be taxed in the U.K. Gordon Brown showed how this can be done with the betting industry when the likes of Ladbrokes, William Hills etc all moved offshore to Malta, Gibraltar etc.
Knew a fella that paid his tax in Malta, at a 14% rate, he only had to be there 2 weeks a year to qualify, nice little holiday each year.
Starbuck's was Holland, not sure if it still is but my opinion is, if you make profit in a country, then you pay the tax on it in that country, surely they could make that law work.