Do you want to discuss boring politics? (22 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Nor do I but needing to pay for care isn't something that they've suddenly discovered so why the manifesto promises? And of course they've picked the tax that means those earning about £50K aren't hit as hard as those on lower wages.
Sadly having once again been presented with an open goal by the government Labour have failed to score as they couldn't offer any alternative and just gave some waffle about having an alternative plan ready for the next election.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Boris was also saying he had a plan for mental healthcare during the election campaign which would be implemented as soon as they’re re-elected. So again not an excuse.
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
Should scrap the rather stupid & outdated triple lock pension promise before rasing NI.......
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I think they have or are going to.
But we already have one of the lowest state pensions in Europe.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Don't worry, that's another manifesto promise they're planning to break.
Pensions triple lock for 12million Brits 'to be axed next week' to stop 8% rise
Rishi Sunak is widely expected to axe or water down the Tory manifesto pledge, which if not adjusted would hand pensioners a bumper rise in April 2022 due to a statistical quirk
www.mirror.co.uk
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
Don't get me wrong.....It would be lovely to give all pensioners a chunky 8% pay rise.....but keeping in mind that as a group, pensioners hold the most wealth in the country, it would just appear to be a massive slap in the face for the youth & low paid working population.....
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Most of that is asset wealth rather than cash in the bank though ie they’ve paid their mortgage off.
The government also has the luxury of raising minimum wage should they wish. Which incidentally would help raise tax revenue and pay for an increase in pensions.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I think it’s worse than that isn’t it? Worst in the developed world I think.
COV
Well-Known Member
There will no doubt be a few on here that do as well
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Remember when we cut the overseas aid budget to look after our own. NHS staff? No not them. People dependant on benefits? No not them. Pensioners? No not them. Who exactly of our own are we looking after? Doesn’t seem to be the most valuable or vulnerable people in society. Still that VIP lane for cronies paid off. Maybe the best connected elite are our own.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
They were discussing pensions on Sky News the other day and someone referred to a study showing ours to be the third worst in the world behind only Brazil and South Africa. Remember thinking that can't possibly be right but maybe it is.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
How would you implement it? The rich put that wealth in lots of different places and would argue that a lot of it isn't liquid so taxes on it would cause them cashflow issues (whether true or not).
We've got a diverse range of taxes to try and tax wealth via various sources (Income, sales, CGT, dividend, interest, inheritance, import etc) so whether they save it, spend it or whatever it's fair share goes towards helping society overall but they rely on money moving around in some form or another. If they just sit on it it can't be touched. So how do you measure that wealth that is being sat on?
How would you tax someone who owned a Da Vinci for example? Would it be taxed on the value it was bought at? Would it have to be revalued periodically?
What if Banksy did a piece on the wall of your property?
How would you keep track of everything everyone owned and what they were worth? Rely on everyone telling the truth?
Would you force the sale of things like property/land/shares/art if they could not pay the wealth tax on the value of those assets? IMO that'd be more likely to affect the middle class and you'd end up with a lot more property and land ending up in the hands of the wealthy who would likely be more cash rich and able to pay.
If you set a tax whereby a percentage of the balance in a bank account is taken each year then people will just stop keeping money in them. You'd probably have to work it out on a daily basis or people would just move the money/take it out on the day the tax is calculated then put it all back in the day after.
Even if you figure all that out and manage to implement it how do you stop people hiding their wealth offshore or in trusts/charities?
Although not a solution perhaps one thing that could be of use is to add in a sliding scale like we have for income tax into sales tax, so the rich who are likely buying more expensive items pay a larger amount (property would need consideration or possibly exemption). So for example items up to £100 = 10%, £1000 = 20%, £10k = 30%, £100k = 40%, £1m+ = 50%. But even that wouldn't tap into much of the wealth and the truly wealthy could source the most expensive items abroad to avoid the tax in exchange for import tax, unless you did the same with that.
Wealth tax would be the best way but I don't see how to make it work without the rich finding some way to avoid it. Hence why it's never been implemented.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Start with land and stocks, work from there.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
They do not need to put up taxes to pay for anything. How do taxes pay for services already delivered?
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
They do, ultimately. Else we end up Zimbabwe.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I think fuel duty is set to go up as part of the budget. Certainly rumoured.Also
What the actual fuck are these petrol prices
1.36 I paid today
Evo1883
Well-Known Member
Crazy prices
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Anything that goes against a manifesto promise should automatically trigger a general election.
The argument against is that the situation has changed but if it's changed that much then we should have the opportunity to say how we want our government to tackle it.
Tories would still win of course but it makes it more democratic than puling the old Clegg at any opportunity.
The argument against is that the situation has changed but if it's changed that much then we should have the opportunity to say how we want our government to tackle it.
Tories would still win of course but it makes it more democratic than puling the old Clegg at any opportunity.
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
Also
What the actual fuck are these petrol prices
1.36 I paid today
Yep...the cheeky fuckers.....its over £100 to fll up my van now.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
It really isn't! What's nonsense is assuming in the current system, you can pay for whatever you feel like without taxation.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The government creates via the Bank of England the money, it does not need tax to do that. Taxes have other functions but they do not fund public spending.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Well... they do. I just read the prelude to the book you recommended. There's a very big difference between not being scared of a budget deficit, and letting a deficit be whatever you want it to be.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Manifesto's would change to be even more vague and carefully worded so as to not fall foul of it.
Things like
'we do not intend to raise taxes'
'we will not raise taxes immediately'
'pensions will have increased by the end of the parliament'
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
At that would provide an opportunity for another party to pledge and promise stuff and call the other out on being non-comital and wanting to swindle the country
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
They do not. The treasury doesn't get on the phone to HMRC to ask them to transfer across tax receipts before issuing a department with a budget.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I thought quite a few schools didn't have uniforms now?
The argument is that it makes everyone equal. What you're wearing becomes another potential bullying tool. Kids being made fun of because they don't have the £100 trainers or the right brands. Puts even more pressure on parents to get that stuff because the kids want to fit in, or at least not be teased.
It's an extra expense on top of normal clothing though. Ideally they'd be provided by the school for free (or at least heavily subsidised) if it were considered that important. In these days of be whoever you want to be I'm surprised someone hasn't challenged uniforms as a restriction of freedom of self expression.
If every school wore the same colour trousers/jumpers/blazers etc and only the badge and tie changed they should be able to be mass produced cheaply but if it was done via a centralised contract undoubtedly some mate of a minister's company would get it and each pair of trousers would end up costing £100.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
It’s nonsense though isn’t it. Every uniformed school I’ve been at every kid knew who the rich and poor kids were and were never short of things to bully each other about.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Maybe. But I still reckon they'd give themselves as much leeway and wriggle room as possible. You'd just set every target over the course of the parliament to render the entire thing null and void.
One thing that I think would be useful is that after parliament has been dissolved for the GE every household should be sent a leaflet listing the outgoing parliament's manifesto promises and whether they've been kept or not, like an end of term report. Would make them loath to break any as it would be fresh in the minds of the electorate at the ballot box.
You'd have thought that maybe the opposition would do it already, but I imagine it'd be a bit expensive and if it had Labour/Conservatives written on supporters of the other party would just ignore it.
richnrg
Well-Known Member
The price of a gallon of petrol doesn't affect me, as I alway put a tenners worth in each time.Also
What the actual fuck are these petrol prices
1.36 I paid today
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Yeah, at school it was pretty clear who were the haves and have nots.
Thing is with your own clothes if you wear something decent someone may well try and nick it. When I was at school a kid came into school once with a brand new pair of Air Jordan's cos he wanted to show off. Someone jumped him on the way home and nicked them.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Thats going to happen wherever they are thiugh. Every kid brings £500+ of electronics with them these days.
Im actually a fan of uniform generally but the new “buy this specific overpriced thing from one specific store” can get bent.
I’ve said before but my ideal system would have three schools: primary (Y1-5), middle (6-9) and secondary (10-13) and I feel then you could do away with uniform in secondary.
Last edited:
