UK Politics General Discussion

[BarryZola]

The point is, we need to cut the deficit somehow and that means savings or generating more taxes from somewhere. The OBR, the government or whoever change their minds about how big our black hole is every few weeks it seems. The fact is we're massively in a hole. Where is the money going to come from to run the country without getting into more of a hole? I shall look forward to the budget to see how they're going to raise money.

 

[pluk]

The OBR, the government or whoever change their minds about how big our black hole is every few weeks it seems.

It is all forward facing, and that is the very nature of forecasts, it will always be so. I also got wet last night when the weatherman said it wouldn't rain until this morning.

Not to react to a change in a forecast would, of course, be dumb. If the forecast had changed sooner yesterday I'd have taken a brolly with me.

 

[Hid]

No, it was another thing that they clearly wanted to do as they'd been softening the public up for a massive U-turn for weeks (not testing the water). This is another big money making/saving scheme that they've chickened out on due to pressure from back-benchers (the benefits savings was the first one). I'll say it again, there's literally no point to Starmer and Reeves. They're just front-people who do what they're told. There is no point to them at all. Extending that, there was no point in Labour getting into power because the party is clearly too split in its beliefs to get anything genuinely worthwhile done. All they've managed to do is increase expenditure as far as I can see.

They did not announce they were raising income tax so it was not a U Turn as it was only speculation

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

They did not announce they were raising income tax so it was not a U Turn as it was only speculation

They just organised an unprecedented 8am public broadcast on national television where Rachel Reeves stated that "easy answers" to fix the economy would be "irresponsible" and refused to rule out rises to income tax, VAT, or National Insurance, suggesting that sticking to all manifesto commitments could require "deep cuts" to public investment.

The speculation which followed was entirely of their own creation. It wasn't a U turn, it was a full 360° O turn. They are back to their original position after briefing out a different one.

 

[rob666]

Just to make a massive point here...

Have we all started believing what we read in the great british press all of a sudden???

The budget is still a couple of weeks away.

Downing Street is desperate to turn the focus away from its own internal struggles.

Whatever else is being reported, they are the only facts.

Nothing is yet decided, numbers are still being crunched.


And police crime commissioners, I had need to contact mine once...absolutely useless, and gave me factually incorrect information...three weeks late.

Bye fella.

 

[BarryZola]

They did not announce they were raising income tax so it was not a U Turn as it was only speculation

She all but confirmed it in an interview only in the last couple of days. In another interview she was talking about how she's being brave making the decision that other chancellors hadn't had the guts to do. She may not have literally said the exact words that she was definitely going to do it but it was clear that this was her plan.

 

[BarryZola]

It is all forward facing, and that is the very nature of forecasts, it will always be so. I also got wet last night when the weatherman said it wouldn't rain until this morning.

Not to react to a change in a forecast would, of course, be dumb. If the forecast had changed sooner yesterday I'd have taken a brolly with me.

In my opinion the talk of the OBR forecast that suddenly came to light is a convenient excuse for another U-turn caused by pressure from her back-benchers. I predict that they'll be talking about a bigger black hole in only a month or two. We shall see.

 

[Smiley]

I wonder if the 2 child benefit cap will also now be a massive O-turn, given it will cost £3.5bn (I think).

Or perhaps it's more palatable just to drop the self-imposed rule of not borrowing for day-to-day, and instead pretend it doesn't matter as AI will make us all super-productive next year :-D Better she does it now rather than nearer to an election...

 

[BarryZola]

The latest rumblings are that instead of raising income taxes by a couple of pence, they're going to freeze the threshold on where people start paying tax (which is currently £12,570).

Isn't this going to get more of the poorest in society caught paying tax instead of putting more of a burden on the richest?

I thought they wanted the wealthy to start paying more of a share (than they already are)?

By the way, I heard the most brilliant suggestion by someone on the radio last night who used to work in the bond market. At the last count it's reckoned that around £4.2 trillion is held in private pensions in the uk in total. The suggestion was that we just tax private pensions for everyone by 1% for as many years as it takes to sort our finances out. That would raise £42 billion each year at the swipe of a pen. No need then for all of the other 50 stupid taxes that she's probably just going to put on everything and upset everyone. I know I wouldn't mind a 1% tax on my pension for several years until we sort ourselves out. It's amazing that you never hear of them floating things like this. I think it's an absolutely amazing idea.

 

[Smiley]

The latest rumblings are that instead of raising income taxes by a couple of pence, they're going to freeze the threshold on where people start paying tax (which is currently £12,570).

They're already frozen until 2028 (all tax bands), so people also get dragged into the upper tax brackets earlier. The rumour is that they won't be un-frozen in 2028 as was originally planned. As for taxing pensions, income from pensions are taxed in the same way as income from work. Why taxing people for being sensible and saving for their retirement would be an odd choice...?

 

[BarryZola]

Thanks for clarifying that about the tax threshold thing, I hadn't realized that. But yeah, on the pensions thing, not many people would massively miss 1% on their pension pots as if 1% is going to be a massive amount of money from people's pots then they'll have ginormous amounts in there anyway. They're already tax efficient and usually topped up massively by employers anyway. If they don't get you on the pension they'll get you somewhere else anyway. Labour have said that those with the broadest shoulders should carry the biggest burden so this would be a good way of doing that also. If you had a million quid in a pension you'd only be paying £10,000. Not really the end of the world. If you did this you could probably get rid of inheritance tax completely and stuff like that.

 

[pluk]

Compound interest does not agree with 1% of your pension pot being taken each year being something you wouldn’t massively miss. It'd be hugely impactive to your pensions final value and the amount you'd be living off in retirement.

 

[Benzin]

Compound interest does not agree with 1% of your pension pot being taken each year being something you wouldn’t massively miss. It'd be hugely impactive to your pensions final value and the amount you'd be living off in retirement.

Assuming that some of us ever get to retire or the world hasn't blown up by then.

 

[BarryZola]

Compound interest does not agree with 1% of your pension pot being taken each year being something you wouldn’t massively miss. It'd be hugely impactive to your pensions final value and the amount you'd be living off in retirement.

In the past 20 years the FTSE 100 has averaged around 6% a year in returns. The S&P500 has returned around 10% (if anyone is tuned in enough to change where their pension pot is invested - if they have a choice). Your pension is still going to grow. It'll mainly grow due to your actual contributions anyway, not the interest. And don't forget that your employer has probably been at least matching your contributions anyway so half of it is free money, and the fact that it's protected from tax when it goes in in the first place (I'm pretty sure).

Has anyone got any better ideas that will actually make an actual difference in the next couple of years? Something that is actually achievable? There's no way that you're suddenly going to get all of the workshy people suddenly off their ar**s and looking for work. Labour have refused to sort out the benefits situation. They're obviously not going after the banks and other massive companies for windfall taxes or whatever (let's be honest, business runs the government now).

So what, things like 1% tax on a pension for a few years until we get ourselves into a better place financially are so offensive that you're happy to just see the status quo? Because that's pretty much what you're getting.

Or, you could have one simple additional tax that's easy for everyone to understand on your pension for several years which relaxes a load of other measures that would be brought in otherwise. Honestly, I don't know what people 'realistically' want.

 

[rob666]

We could always start putting VAT on air fuel...like car users have to pay.
Most flights are luxury trips lets face it, not essential journeys.
Most business communication can be done online and not face to face.

That nice Mr Blair talked about bringing it in, didn't he?
All those years ago.
Reduce pollution, raise taxes, double winner.

 

[BarryZola]

Bring it on. However, from what I've just read it would 'only' bring in between £800 million and £6 billion a year, depending on how much vat you put on the fuel. The treasury already gets a few billion quid from the industry through 'air passenger duty' too. But yes, I wouldn't be against it at all. The motorist gets taxed on fuel and then gets taxed for emissions so there's a precedent there already. Add this to the 1% tax on private pensions and we'll be loaded

Jet fuel tax could raise £6bn a year in the UK, says thinktank

Experts say ‘baffling’ lack of equivalent to fuel duty means motorists are more strongly taxed than private jet owners

www.theguardian.com

 

[Smiley]

A 1% pension tax would send all the wrong messages, and seriously hit people's pensions. As for raising jet fuel, you'd make the UK market seriously uncompetitive vs the rest of the world, given that fuel represents around 30% of an airline's costs!

Getting the welfare bill under control is what should have happened, but spineless Kier couldn't do it. As a start, no-one should be getting more than the minimum wage on benefits, and housing benefits should be capped at a much lower level (like the rest of us do, of you can't afford to live somewhere you move to where you can afford it).

Taxation is already very high - a lot of take for very little give IMHO.

 

[BarryZola]

Keep dreaming that they'll sort the benefits bill out then, like for the past 30 years. It's not going to happen. They're about to lift the 2 child cap so that'll cost even more, and they'll be coming for that money by putting up your costs of fuel, booze or whatever and twenty other things that'll effect you negatively almost immediately.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Getting the welfare bill under control is what should have happened, but spineless Kier couldn't do it

55% of the benefits bill goes to paying pensions, but you've already stated that you're opposed to any additional tax measures or restrictions against that. "Spineless Kier" hasn't said that, you have.

As a start, no-one should be getting more than the minimum wage on benefits

No one is. Universal Credit is currently £400.14 per month, if you are single and over the age of 25. You are expected to spend 35 hours per week looking for work at this rate, equating to roughly £2.60 per hour... Well under the national minimum wage of £12.21 per hour.

If you are working, and claiming universal credit. Your payment is docked 55p for every £1.00 you earn.

and housing benefits should be capped at a much lower level (like the rest of us do, of you can't afford to live somewhere you move to where you can afford it)

Housing Benefit is now paid by Universal Credit, it is capped at your local authority housing allowance rate. In Camden this is £331.39 per week. In the bellwether city of Worcester, this is capped at £130.95 per week. Both of these are for a single occupancy and are well under the private market rate for a single bedroom property in either of these areas.

If you would like to check what your local authority housing allowance is, in your area, please use this online tool:

Local Housing Allowance Rates for postcode WR5 1EE : DirectGov - LHA Rates

Nobody, absolutely nobody, in this country has a better time on benefits than they would do if they were working.

If you would like a quick and easy cash injection, freeze the increase to state pension for a year. No triple lock, no increase with inflation, you would save roughly £9 billion - 10 billion for the year. The problem is that this will also push some people into worse conditions than they already are.

If you want the system to be fair, we need to have an honest conversation about income tax. We need to change the thresholds, we need to increase the amount that we pay. We need to revisit VAT and consistently apply it across the board. There are plenty of things we could do, that we haven't yet tried or revisited for a long time. We could quite easily shut down plenty of tax loopholes for corporations or wealthy individuals. We do not need to take a cutting knife to our social safety net again, for the umpteenth time.

If we would like nice things, we have to pay for them. The British economy no longer runs on slavery, or the indentured servitude of what ought to be sovereign nations under our rule. We are not exceptional, we need to adjust.

 

[rob666]

... As for raising jet fuel, you'd make the UK market seriously uncompetitive vs the rest of the world, given that fuel represents around 30% of an airline's costs!...

Simple, add vat on all international flights, and double that rate for domestic flights, on top of the APD.
No right to claw back the VAT for businesses.
That would work.

Cheap flights have increased long distance travel massively, at a very low cost to the consumer, in a generation.
Didn't used to be a thing, long weekends away from Britain.
Polluter pays.
Again, would kill two birds with one stone.

Why should my short train ride to Manchester airport cost as much as the air fair to Spain or Poland?
Anyone want to try to explain the sensible reasoning to me?
No logic here at all on a polluted planet.