Do you want to discuss boring politics? (69 Viewers)

[wingy]

And now it's all apps and remote fucking useless!

 

---

[fatso]

So if they do less hours those hours become available and we have more people in work do we not?

People from where?

 

[shmmeee]

Genuinely not being nasty but you and shmmeee are deluded if you think the big Uk banks could’ve been allowed to fail. There would’ve runs on banks (see what happened to northern rock and Icelandic banks - small in the grand scheme of things in terms of Uk).

Have a look into fractional banking. The banks don’t hold everyone’s cash and there would’ve been a unravelling of the financial system, the economy and civil unrest before the government would’ve been able to get control of the situation.

Gordon brown, whilst a flawed character, is not some capitalist idiot. He wouldn’t have taken that decision lightly

The bigger issue, as mentioned previously, is nobody seemed to pay the price for the damage done…bit like China with Covid…the culprit(s) gets away with it and the rest of us pay the price

Either way, what’s done is done

I’ve not said anywhere allow big banks to fail, I’ve said rather than give bank cash directly funnel it through people in debt. The banks would end up with similar amounts, they’d just have a less restrained economy to recover in.

 

[shmmeee]

People from where?

elsewhere in the economy. Better people from abroad, whatever we want. So what if people want to work 3 or 4 days because they’ve got health issues or care responsibilities? That’s one fewer carer needed maybe, or one more person off disability/SAHM and into work.

 

[wingy]

I’ve not said anywhere allow big banks to fail, I’ve said rather than give bank cash directly funnel it through people in debt. The banks would end up with similar amounts, they’d just have a less restrained economy to recover in.

Exactly what I suggested at the time, trust,ha,.
You'd have to make sure that the money ended up with them of course and some way of securing it back from them when all has settled down?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I’ve not said anywhere allow big banks to fail, I’ve said rather than give bank cash directly funnel it through people in debt. The banks would end up with similar amounts, they’d just have a less restrained economy to recover in.

This was my point.

It wasn't about letting them fail, it was about making sure they had to a lot more to get it. I'm just advocating we should have used the system they are so keen to laud when it suits them. If you're in the shit and need help, we get to dictate the terms of it.

The banks would have had the choice - take the deal, find a better one or fail. Had they failed it would have been their own choice.

 

[Captain Dart]

We knew this was coming, don't know WTF the Russian Imperial Legion, the Russian Imperial Movement and the Maniacs Murder Cult are.

 

[CCFCSteve]

I’ve not said anywhere allow big banks to fail, I’ve said rather than give bank cash directly funnel it through people in debt. The banks would end up with similar amounts, they’d just have a less restrained economy to recover in.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you, SBD and wingy are saying (or you’re misunderstanding what happened) but RBS and Northern Rock were effectively nationalised and Lloyds were strong armed into taking on HBoS and government took 40% share. They were all provided with significant liquidity to support businesses and continue to loan to businesses and individuals.

Thats probably the strongest actions the government could take without allowing them to fail ie nationalising/semi nationalising certain ones. Influencing lending policy in exchange for liquidity

From bbc ‘At the time, RBS's balance sheet (outstanding loans) was bigger than the entire UK economy’. - how do you try to deal with that amount of cash/clients directly ? You still need the banks to manage the debt/clients

 

[Captain Dart]

Another fuck you. I guess Labour are not intending to contest the next General Election in any meaningful way.

 

[chiefdave]

Another fuck you. I guess Labour are not intending to contest the next General Election in any meaningful way.

This is going to be something else that goes down like a lead ballon. How long before the backbenchers are getting it in the ear from their constituents and pressuring for yet another u-turn.

At this point I'm starting to wonder if Labours policy chief is a plant from the tories or reform because they seem to keep handing them absolute gifts.

 

[Nick]

Another fuck you. I guess Labour are not intending to contest the next General Election in any meaningful way.

Why are they doing that? Do they just want to tax people saving?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

This is going to be something else that goes down like a lead ballon. How long before the backbenchers are getting it in the ear from their constituents and pressuring for yet another u-turn.

At this point I'm starting to wonder if Labours policy chief is a plant from the tories or reform because they seem to keep handing them absolute gifts.

I've wondered since before the election is all the policy wonks that knew the Tories were getting wiped out jumped ship to save their own ass. Policy definitely started to become more right led leading up to the election and the manifesto certainly came across as something that had been written for a moderate Tory party.

Not sure what Starmer stands for anymore, but Reeves has always been soft right economically and for me is far more suited to being a moderate Tory.

 

[CCFCSteve]

I've wondered since before the election is all the policy wonks that knew the Tories were getting wiped out jumped ship to save their own ass. Policy definitely started to become more right led leading up to the election and the manifesto certainly came across as something that had been written for a moderate Tory party.

Not sure what Starmer stands for anymore, but Reeves has always been soft right economically and for me is far more suited to being a moderate Tory.

Can we stop with this soft right nonsense which is what I see on social media with nothing to back it up…other than the fact that they cack handily tried to tweak winter fuel allowance to stop those who don’t need it getting it and stem the flood of money that’s going into welfare by a tiny amount (and it’s still expecting it to go up by billions this parliament).

They are taxing more with probably more to come
They are spending/planning to spend far more



If anything what started to happen under the Tories during Covid and subsequently was a shift to the left in terms of taxing and spending

There seems to be this delusion of infinite money availability and the problem both recent governments seem to have is the endless cash being poured into the public sector just feels like it’s ending up in a black hole at the moment (mainly due to NHS, welfare and debt servicing). Let’s hope that changes and improvements are seen otherwise you really will see a right wing party in charge

 

[shmmeee]

Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you, SBD and wingy are saying (or you’re misunderstanding what happened) but RBS and Northern Rock were effectively nationalised and Lloyds were strong armed into taking on HBoS and government took 40% share. They were all provided with significant liquidity to support businesses and continue to loan to businesses and individuals.

Thats probably the strongest actions the government could take without allowing them to fail ie nationalising/semi nationalising certain ones. Influencing lending policy in exchange for liquidity

From bbc ‘At the time, RBS's balance sheet (outstanding loans) was bigger than the entire UK economy’. - how do you try to deal with that amount of cash/clients directly ? You still need the banks to manage the debt/clients

I just asked a question of why we couldn’t also write off peoples debt. Why that money had to be on top of that.

 

[chiefdave]

Why are they doing that? Do they just want to tax people saving?

Can't get investment into UK businesses so they want people to stick there money in stocks & shares ISAs, which won't be part of the change, rather than savings ISAs.

Of course if people wanted to do that they would do it already. Some people prefer to know their money is safe.

 

[shmmeee]

Can’t believe Labour are raising wealth taxes, no one voted for them to do this

 

[CCFCSteve]

I just asked a question of why we couldn’t also write off peoples debt. Why that money had to be on top of that.

Write off which peoples debts though ? The government basically took control of certain banks to make sure they/banking system could continue to function. This wasn’t a normal recession with some companies going bust, this was banks loose lending and lack of liquidity in the system when under stress, meaning they couldn’t function properly. The whole financial and banking system was unravelling.

Anyway what’s dones done and for all his faults I’m just relieved Brown was in charge at that time

 

[Marty]

Can't get investment into UK businesses so they want people to stick there money in stocks & shares ISAs, which won't be part of the change, rather than savings ISAs.

Of course if people wanted to do that they would do it already. Some people prefer to know their money is safe.

Is any money safe now? The banks can just use customer money if they go bust now. Bail in. That's before you factor in inflation is eating away at that money.

 

[Nick]

Can’t believe Labour are raising wealth taxes, no one voted for them to do this

A wealth tax on people saving money?

 

[SBAndy]

A wealth tax on people saving money?

Well it’s limiting peoples’ ability to earn tax-free interest. I’d imagine the majority of the working class don’t earn enough to be saving £20k a year into an ISA so it will generally target those with higher levels of both savings and disposable income, encouraging them to spend rather than save.

 

[shmmeee]

A wealth tax on people saving money?

Yeah. What do you think wealth is?

 

[shmmeee]

Very much enjoying this thread being where Nick realises he’s rich. “Wait I send my kids to private school and have £20k lying about in cash and they’re taxing me?? They said they’d go after the rich!!”

 

[Grendel]

Very much enjoying this thread being where Nick realises he’s rich. “Wait I send my kids to private school and have £20k lying about in cash and they’re taxing me?? They said they’d go after the rich!!”

Says the guy who started a thread asking for tips on how to avoid paying 40% tax

 

[Nick]

Very much enjoying this thread being where Nick realises he’s rich. “Wait I send my kids to private school and have £20k lying about in cash and they’re taxing me?? They said they’d go after the rich!!”

I don't, although I was looking into how to save best and was putting money in my ISA.

Not sure it makes somebody rich for wanting to put a bit of money aside every month.

 

[Ccfcisparks]

I don't, although I was looking into how to save best and was putting money in my ISA.

Not sure it makes somebody rich for wanting to put a bit of money aside every month.

Bit of a difference putting aside circa £500 and £2k

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I don't, although I was looking into how to save best and was putting money in my ISA.

Not sure it makes somebody rich for wanting to put a bit of money aside every month.

Wanting to and being able to are not quite the same.

 

[PVA]

I don't, although I was looking into how to save best and was putting money in my ISA.

Not sure it makes somebody rich for wanting to put a bit of money aside every month.

They aren't stopping ISAs altogether, you can still put up to 20k in a stocks and shares ISA which gives a better return anyway.

And anyone able to put 20 grand a year away is wealthy and is perfectly able to pay a bit more tax. Whether you agree with the policy or not it is a wealth tax.

 

[Nick]

Wanting to and being able to are not quite the same.

ah OK, I won't save for the future. Hanging my notice in as well, fuck it.

(No, I was not planning to be anywhere near saving 20k a year, would be nice though)

 

[PVA]

ah OK, I won't save for the future. Hanging my notice in as well, fuck it.

(No, I was not planning to be anywhere near saving 20k a year, would be nice though)

You've still got plenty of options. Firstly this isn't even policy yet so you've got lots of time to put it into an ISA if you want.

And if you're not putting 20k a year in then this policy would have a fairly negligible impact for you, you could make use of a regular savings account and the proposed 5k ISA allowance and probably be just as well off as under the current regulations (without knowing your salary or how much you want to save).

 

[Mild-Mannered Janitor]

£20k after tax is a massive amount to save, people who can afford that can still do so with Stocks & Shares ISA, I get that if they are slightly older then they may not want to risk of falls but interest rates after tax in bank accounts are higher now than the last 20 year average so still not bad for those individuals.

 

[Grendel]

Although I don' have too much time for Miss 4% Starmer has made her look stupid. Approving all the Welfare strategy and then failing to quash a rebellion he throws her to the dogs. She should show some pride and quit.

 

[Grendel]

£20k after tax is a massive amount to save, people who can afford that can still do so with Stocks & Shares ISA, I get that if they are slightly older then they may not want to risk of falls but interest rates after tax in bank accounts are higher now than the last 20 year average so still not bad for those individuals.

It seems the belief is Starmer and Reeves have just listened to the investment bankers and ignored objections by the building societies - what a surprise

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

ah OK, I won't save for the future. Hanging my notice in as well, fuck it.

(No, I was not planning to be anywhere near saving 20k a year, would be nice though)

You will apparently still be able to save £5k tax free in an ISA. If you can do that over a 40yr working career that's still 200 grand with tax free interest. Plus other options to invest and save.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Can we stop with this soft right nonsense which is what I see on social media with nothing to back it up…other than the fact that they cack handily tried to tweak winter fuel allowance to stop those who don’t need it getting it and stem the flood of money that’s going into welfare by a tiny amount (and it’s still expecting it to go up by billions this parliament).

They are taxing more with probably more to come
They are spending/planning to spend far more

View attachment 44046

If anything what started to happen under the Tories during Covid and subsequently was a shift to the left in terms of taxing and spending

There seems to be this delusion of infinite money availability and the problem both recent governments seem to have is the endless cash being poured into the public sector just feels like it’s ending up in a black hole at the moment (mainly due to NHS, welfare and debt servicing). Let’s hope that changes and improvements are seen otherwise you really will see a right wing party in charge

No-ones under any delusion of there being infinite money, but let's look at the evidence re Starmer/Reeves

Their manifesto was all about fixing the black hole with growth by reducing regulation and red tape as well as other potential tax incentives.

Since coming in they have consistently gone for welfare and benefits cuts, as well as cuts to other areas and projects rather than increasing tax.

Whether you like it or not those are policies more associated with the right than left.

 

[Nick]

You will apparently still be able to save £5k tax free in an ISA. If you can do that over a 40yr working career that's still 200 grand with tax free interest. Plus other options to invest and save.

I'd bet the people who are going to do that aren't at the start of their working career!

There are stocks ISAs but it isn't a fixed, secure percentage like savings for people who like to play it safe