Labour Party politics

silvertop said:
Not the electoral puff, but what the next government will deliver?

Unless there is a significant upturn in the economy (factors almost entirely out of any government's control) the successor will inherit the same debt, fiscal squeeze and tough choices.

If they come in on a platform of reduced taxes, that will impact directly on public services.

After they have sacked police commissioners, stopped unpopular "woke" stuff, and a whole draft of other populist savings that got them voted in, that will not even come close to covering the increased pension, health and care costs of our irreversibly ageing population.

They are the real costs that must be cut to pay for the tax reduction but will not be as the recipients of that largesse are the ones who did the voting in. Thus...

New broom, same sweep.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree; I wouldn't trust any of the parties to do anything major without a restructure of the entire government system. Or some major rethink of society. Which isn't going to happen.
 
So all of a sudden Paye who have a work van are being taxed for private use. Even when it isn’t being used privately.
Hmg stealth tax putting the aggro firmly at the feet of employers. This lot make me want to vomit. f***ing wankers
 
cryrst said:
So all of a sudden Paye who have a work van are being taxed for private use. Even when it isn’t being used privately.
Hmg stealth tax putting the aggro firmly at the feet of employers. This lot make me want to vomit. f***ing wankers
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? The rules haven’t changed.
 
DanH said:
What on earth are you talking about? The rules haven’t changed.
Click to expand...
They have changed behind the scenes as it was only taxed if declared by the employer. This is now a presumption that everyone does so it has changed, and just a “ I don’t think the rules have changed” would’ve been better that your first 7 words. You do come across as a smug dork sometimes.
 
cryrst said:
They have changed behind the scenes as it was only taxed if declared by the employer. This is now a presumption that everyone does so it has changed, and just a “ I don’t think the rules have changed” would’ve been better that your first 7 words. You do come across as a smug dork sometimes.
Click to expand...

Literally nothing has changed. Find what you think has changed and I’m pretty sure you’ll see no rules have changed.
 
DanH said:
Literally nothing has changed. Find what you think has changed and I’m pretty sure you’ll see no rules have changed.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying the tax wasn’t a thing. My point is three people I know on different firms inc the company I’m on have suddenly had to pay it. From this month so something has changed for them. About 2k a year out of their pocket. Not off the tax code literally green backs. Still they earn over 45 k so clearly minted and can afford it. Yeah right!
 
cryrst said:
I’m not saying the tax wasn’t a thing. My point is three people I know on different firms inc the company I’m on have suddenly had to pay it. From this month so something has changed for them. About 2k a year out of their pocket. Not off the tax code literally green backs. Still they earn over 45 k so clearly minted and can afford it. Yeah right!
Click to expand...

You should probably find these rules and try and understand them.
 
cryrst said:
Are you hard of reading or something.
I know the rules, I know why they are implemented and I know it’s a benefit in kind.
My point I explained above so read it again and again and again until you get it danh. Geez 🤦
Click to expand...

What you have said literally makes no sense.
 
www.dailymail.com

Burnham raises fears of higher council tax for homeowners in the South

The Prime Minister said ex-Chancellor Rachel Reeves was 'right to start' reforming council tax after she introduced a surcharge for higher-value homes - dubbed a 'mansion tax'.
www.dailymail.com www.dailymail.com

An interesting point.

Burnham claims that that some parts of Manchester pay more council tax than London but he doesn't back this up with figures.

Which areas of Manchester? There are some nice expensive parts just ask the footballers and BBC staff. Does he mean that if so why is that unfair?

Poorer parts of the country already receive more money than the richer ones which is only fair. In Bromley this year our council was told the government grant has been reduced by £28m as we are "wealthy".

The whole council tax issue brings to mind what is the purpose of the tax? Is it to pay for the essential services in which case why should I have to subsidise the councils of the north? Isn't that what general taxation is supposed to do. And what incentive is there for a council to be fiscally responsible if it knows that the rich southerners will bail them out.

Andy Burnham's Manchester City council owes 1.6bn which makes it one of the most indebted councils in the country. Meanwhile frugal Bromley is debt free but never mind we can afford to pay for others....

It strikes me this is just another general stealth tax rather than a council tax paying for your local services.
 
Badger11 said:
www.dailymail.com

Burnham raises fears of higher council tax for homeowners in the South

The Prime Minister said ex-Chancellor Rachel Reeves was 'right to start' reforming council tax after she introduced a surcharge for higher-value homes - dubbed a 'mansion tax'.
www.dailymail.com www.dailymail.com

An interesting point.

Burnham claims that that some parts of Manchester pay more council tax than London but he doesn't back this up with figures.

Which areas of Manchester? There are some nice expensive parts just ask the footballers and BBC staff. Does he mean that if so why is that unfair?

Poorer parts of the country already receive more money than the richer ones which is only fair. In Bromley this year our council was told the government grant has been reduced by £28m as we are "wealthy".

The whole council tax issue brings to mind what is the purpose of the tax? Is it to pay for the essential services in which case why should I have to subsidise the councils of the north? Isn't that what general taxation is supposed to do. And what incentive is there for a council to be fiscally responsible if it knows that the rich southerners will bail them out.

Andy Burnham's Manchester City council owes 1.6bn which makes it one of the most indebted councils in the country. Meanwhile frugal Bromley is debt free but never mind we can afford to pay for others....

It strikes me this is just another general stealth tax rather than a council tax paying for your local services.
Click to expand...
Going to have to work out how to charge higher taxes without pissing off the Labour supporters. Bromley an obvious target.
There would be no point raising it in Croydon, so they will have to work that out too.
Should just say he's going to tax nice areas to pay for s*** areas. It's not like any of the people in those areas need to take any personal responsibility.
God forbid. They need to continue to suck on the teats of everyone else or he might lose their vote.
 
Agreed.

The local rates / Council Tax was always designed so that voters paid for the local services they wanted. Councils have always fought for this because they felt if there was no direct link between what their local people paid and the council spent then nobody would vote. Its why the Council Tax is linked to your postcode.

If Labour are now saying that how your local council performs is irrelevant and that people who live in rich areas must pay more than people who live in poorer areas for the same service then why not go full on.

If Labour want to save money then abolish local councils and elections they will save a fortunate. Instead just setup up min local government civil servant areas e.g. North London, South London etc. They can save a fortune that way.

Of course some areas of the country are poor so the local council does not raise as much as say Bromley, that has always been the case, which is why central government has funded the difference through general taxation.

Labour's plans appear to be they don't want to do that so push it onto the council tax. Personally I would rather abolish local taxation completely and fund it through Income Tax surely a fairer tax system.

I don't see the point in local elections or even local councils.
 
Burnham is looking at ways to fund a National Social Care system, one option is a 10% estate duty tax.

First off let me say that Social Care is a real problem and needs to be funded. Both Tory and Labour governments have looked at this in the past and kicked the can down the road.

The way older people are being treated especially if they have no money is often appalling and largely due to lack of provision.

The NHS takes the brunt as we have bed blockers due to nowhere for these people to be discharged to and of course the rubber band patients (People who are in out out of hospital on a regular basis).

Often these patients just need a bit of TLC and feeding up, the NHS should not be doing this and should be focusing on more critical stuff.

So we need nursing homes which will take patients discharged from hospital on a short term basis and of course care homes properly funded for long term care and also more care workers to help people stay in their homes.

So who pays? Currently if you have any wealth the government can grab the lot if you are in a care home, which does seem rather unfair.

A 10% death tax at least puts a limit on what people will pay and allow estate planners to factor this in regarding wills and who gets what. It provides certainty.

Except I know plenty of ne-er do wells who never save and never own anything (I don't mean poor). So I will take the hit whilst they get it for free. If Burnham can sort that out he gets my vote.
 
Badger11 said:
Burnham is looking at ways to fund a National Social Care system, one option is a 10% estate duty tax.

First off let me say that Social Care is a real problem and needs to be funded. Both Tory and Labour governments have looked at this in the past and kicked the can down the road.

The way older people are being treated especially if they have no money is often appalling and largely due to lack of provision.

The NHS takes the brunt as we have bed blockers due to nowhere for these people to be discharged to and of course the rubber band patients (People who are in out out of hospital on a regular basis).

Often these patients just need a bit of TLC and feeding up, the NHS should not be doing this and should be focusing on more critical stuff.

So we need nursing homes which will take patients discharged from hospital on a short term basis and of course care homes properly funded for long term care and also more care workers to help people stay in their homes.

So who pays? Currently if you have any wealth the government can grab the lot if you are in a care home, which does seem rather unfair.

A 10% death tax at least puts a limit on what people will pay and allow estate planners to factor this in regarding wills and who gets what. It provides certainty.

Except I know plenty of ne-er do wells who never save and never own anything (I don't mean poor). So I will take the hit whilst they get it for free. If Burnham can sort that out he gets my vote.
Click to expand...
Could not agree more.

It would partly be funded by the policy itself. Care is cheaper than health.

Trouble is, the demographic trend presents this as a certain catastrophe in our lifetime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top