Rachel Reeves

Badger11 said:
My point still stands. She has not been truthful. It's one thing to say we are raising taxes because we want to sort these problems out. It's quite another to mislead the house over the budget numbers.
Click to expand...
If you are desperate for truth by now you should know that politics is the wrong place to look, It is similar to saying all church goers and dog owners are nice people, meanwhile in the real world.....
 
beak said:
I'm nearly in tears here for people with a mansion worth over £2 million please get real !
Click to expand...
Such compassion for anyone who bought a crappy house in somewhere like Notting Hill when no one else chose to live there which has now vastly increased in value.
Isn't that the working class dream?
 
Even RR's uncle has opined that she isn't qualified to be Chancellor !

As if the decisions this Government are making aren't bad enough, it's also the way they are making them.

She's delivered a budget that is in the best interests of.....Rachel Reeves. Keeps her and that hopeless ' Leader ' Starmer in their jobs for a bit longer.

The only Economic thing about Reeves is her version of the truth.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Such compassion for anyone who bought a crappy house in somewhere like Notting Hill when no one else chose to live there which has now vastly increased in value.
Isn't that the working class dream?
Click to expand...
No not really ending child poverty and gaining better paid jobs are most important , the "The working class can kiss my hacienda,i've got the foreman's job at last " attitude has never particularly been appreciated. I was in a union meeting several years ago and there was a proposal as to how management wanted to choose promotions there were twelve delegates voting and i was not surprised that all twelve abstained.
 
beak said:
No not really ending child poverty and gaining better paid jobs are most important , the "The working class can kiss my hacienda,i've got the foreman's job at last " attitude has never particularly been appreciated. I was in a union meeting several years ago and there was a proposal as to how management wanted to choose promotions there were twelve delegates voting and i was not surprised that all twelve abstained.
Click to expand...
Like salt of the earth son of a toolmaker Sir Keir.

www.standard.co.uk

Sir Keir Starmer pays off mortgage on his £2million London townhouse

Sir Keir and Lady Starmer bought the four-bed home for £650,000 in 2004
www.standard.co.uk www.standard.co.uk
 
beak said:
No not really ending child poverty and gaining better paid jobs are most important , the "The working class can kiss my hacienda,i've got the foreman's job at last " attitude has never particularly been appreciated. I was in a union meeting several years ago and there was a proposal as to how management wanted to choose promotions there were twelve delegates voting and i was not surprised that all twelve abstained.
Click to expand...
You won't end child poverty when statistically speaking it's families with low or no incomes with 3+ children that make of the majority. In other words, people having children that they are unable to support. And then expecting the tax payer to bail them out.


commonslibrary.parliament.uk

In the three-year period 2021/22 to 2023/24, child poverty rates were highest among Bangladeshi (65%) and Pakistani (59%) ethnic groups and lowest among White (24%) and Indian (30%) ethnic groups.

A solution is to get the unemployed working. Easier said than done. Government policies that are loading increased employment costs onto Business has resulted in higher unemployment rates. The further knock on effect is that companies are looking at cutting costs, so wage stagnation and tighter cost controls follow. So if you are in a low paying job, your prospects of improving your lot are diminished.

Food inflation, together with the above, means that those with no/low incomes are of course becoming even more financially vulnerable. I think we are all being impacted by that to varying degrees.

Nobody wants to see children growing up in poverty. But I'm struggling to reconcile how penalising those that manage their lives responsibly should then subsidise those who don't.
 
NEILLO said:
You won't end child poverty when statistically speaking it's families with low or no incomes with 3+ children that make of the majority. In other words, people having children that they are unable to support. And then expecting the tax payer to bail them out.


commonslibrary.parliament.uk

In the three-year period 2021/22 to 2023/24, child poverty rates were highest among Bangladeshi (65%) and Pakistani (59%) ethnic groups and lowest among White (24%) and Indian (30%) ethnic groups.

A solution is to get the unemployed working. Easier said than done. Government policies that are loading increased employment costs onto Business has resulted in higher unemployment rates. The further knock on effect is that companies are looking at cutting costs, so wage stagnation and tighter cost controls follow. So if you are in a low paying job, your prospects of improving your lot are diminished.

Food inflation, together with the above, means that those with no/low incomes are of course becoming even more financially vulnerable. I think we are all being impacted by that to varying degrees.

Nobody wants to see children growing up in poverty. But I'm struggling to reconcile how penalising those that manage their lives responsibly should then subsidise those who don't.
Click to expand...
I think it’s called socialism
 
The Rachel Reeves interview with Charlie Stayt on BBC Breakfast, was a belter.

Stayt asked a perfectly basic question: how will the government record EV mileage for the new road-pricing scheme?

Reeves’ response?
“Cars have to have an MOT.” - in a really arrogant tone.

Charlie quite rightly pointed out that new cars don’t, so her answer fell apart immediately.

She then tried:
“Well, it’s easy to read the mileage.”

Which, again, didn’t answer the question.
So he asked her directly how the system would actually work.


Her final line - “it’s not coming in until 2028” basically translated to: we haven’t thought about it, but hopefully we’ll have a clue by then.

At this point, I’m pretty sure the Treasury could send her out to look for a tub of rainbow paint, or a spare fallopian tube for storage, and she’d trot off without blinking. It’s brutal to watch. And the logic behind the policies seems to be written on the back of a napkin five minutes before airtime.

I run a small business. She clearly hasn’t got the slightest idea how business actually works.
To be fair, the last government weren’t exactly titans of economic insight either, but this is somehow worse. The blind leading the blind, except now the blind person is reading from a script drafted by someone who’s never met a business owner in their life.

What really grates is the narrative around dividends.

I take income from my own company - the business I run, the risk I carry, the hours I put in -if I want to take my income from £50k to £60k I’m currently taxed at 60% overall by the time you include corporation tax and the current dividend rate. thats before the 2% rise

So where exactly is the incentive to push on and grow?

Because here’s the part politicians never acknowledge:

Dividends for owners of small companies are not the same as dividends paid to wealthy investors.
In the basic rate you pay 19% corporation tax and 8.75% dividend tax - same as an employee give or take.
At higher rate you paid corporation tax at 25% and then we get hit again at 33.75% or now 35.75% at higher rate.
There is no “loophole”. There is no magical special treatment. It’s double taxation, plain and simple.

Owner-managed businesses are not millionaires harvesting passive income. Most of us are working more hours than is healthy.

Somehow, though, we’re being treated as if we’re the ones who need reining in, while the government still can’t explain how EV mileage is supposed to be measured.

If this is the level of competence going into future tax design, God help anyone trying to run an actual company under it.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
A politician claiming more money than he should? Well, it could happen I suppose.
Click to expand...
To be honest like the French we should have paid parents a bonus to produce kids after World War 2 in order to replace our sad loses in population so I think child allowance is late in arriving and desperately inadequate.
 
beak said:
To be honest like the French we should have paid parents a bonus to produce kids after World War 2 in order to replace our sad loses in population so I think child allowance is late in arriving and desperately inadequate.
Click to expand...
Rationing ended 5 years earlier in France. Everyone here was too hungry to knock out a bunch of kids.
 
I'm very proud that Labour are not playing musical chairs with the Prime Ministers or the Chancellors jobs the way the Tories did. Whose turn is it now? Lets give Liz a few weeks in the job etc etc unprofessional lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top