Calm down it was just a joke!
But yes of course they will be judged independently, doesn't mean we aren't allowed to make comparisons though.
I assume you are aware that it's possible to be judged independently rather than against 'but look how crap they were'?
Calm down it was just a joke!
But yes of course they will be judged independently, doesn't mean we aren't allowed to make comparisons though.
Well we had 5 chancellors in the last parliament, so if she makes it anywhere near the end she'll have done pretty well in comparison!
Tbh I wish they would increase Income Tax, do away with NI and call it one tax on all earnings so people earn more and pay more, without all the hidden taxes - lose vat, lose the level of taxation on fuel and it will immediately make society fairer.True, although the only one that was sacked was Kwarteng and Javid resigned. The rest changed hands with the PM, who were the hunted species over the last 14 years.
The groundwork has been laid for the government to raise ‘working people’s’ tax (NI, income tax or VAT).
Tbh I wish they would increase Income Tax, do away with NI and call it one tax on all earnings so people earn more and pay more, without all the hidden taxes - lose vat, lose the level of taxation on fuel and it will immediately make society fairer..
They're used to increase the efficiency of buying something. Mucca bangs on about productivity but all removing pcards does is increase the processing costs for both sides in a purchase.Quick point on the credit card spending: this is a method of payment. We have no information on what is being paid for on these cards, and I strongly believe they’re being used as a means of earning cashback on purchases which in turn will stretch departmental budgets further.
Relative poverty is defined as having a household income below 60% of the median.The potential impact of these reforms on poverty projections has been estimated using a static microsimulation model. Using this model, we estimate there will be an additional 250,000 people (including 50,000 children) in relative poverty after housing costs in 2029/30 as a result of modelled changes to social security, compared to the baseline projections.
How is that possible?No Austerity here
250,000 more people, including 50,000 more children, will be pushed into relative poverty by benefit cuts, DWP says
The Department for Work and Pensions’ impact assessment of the health and disability benefit cuts also says that will put an extra 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, into relative poverty.
Relative poverty is defined as having a household income below 60% of the median.
Ignore me. Sorry I assume if the median is 30k you mean 60% of 30k (eg 18k) and household incomes below that. Sorry having a thick day!How is that possible?
Tbf I've not done it since school, but the median is the middle value and therefore if it's 60% below it's not the median and whatever the median figure is good or bad you would always expect 50% below and 50% above. Confused
They're used to increase the efficiency of buying something. Mucca bangs on about productivity but all removing pcards does is increase the processing costs for both sides in a purchase.
Productivity in this country is a huge problem, for both the private and public sector. The public sector, as a whole, is getting more money but delivering less. In the long term, this means taxes and spending will grow exponentially until something gives and it won’t be pretty.
If you find that acceptable, cool. I don’t think it is.
Sorry mate. Shame on all the shy Tories on this thread that voted for them. I did say this is what would happen.Having had a review of the PIP announcements, it looks like we stand to lose the £3500 a year Mrs BSB currently gets.
Cheers Labour, thank you very much.
Coinciding with her going on maternity leave later this year this could really hit us hard to the point where I think we’ll have trouble with the mortgage.Sorry mate. Shame on all the shy Tories on this thread that voted for them. I did say this is what would happen.
I think the tax threshold should be set at the average cost of mortgage/rent+energy/utilities+food. These should be the basics needed to survive and so you shouldn't pay income tax if you can't afford these, especially in a system whereby you will be paying some level of VAT on those necessities.I've been waiting for someone to come along with this exact policy for most of my adult life. Have the Living Wage as the tax threshold before you pay anything. Sorted.
I think the tax threshold should be set at the average cost of mortgage/rent+energy/utilities+food. These should be the basics needed to survive and so you shouldn't pay income tax if you can't afford these, especially in a system whereby you will be paying some level of VAT on those necessities.
I also think the bands should be set at 50th, 90th and 99th percentile so it reflects the income level against average and the higher levels of tax should be some form of multiplier based on the income gap between average and higher bands. So higher income inequality = higher bands paying a higher percentage of tax. Less income inequality their tax band comes down. Stops the thing becoming a political football.
Also corporation tax needs fixing. How come businesses get to take their costs into account and base their tax on profit, which doesn't even exist? People can't just spend their money and then pay their tax after that, so why should businesses? And why are businesses allowed to carry forward or back losses? We can't do that, or carry our PA forward/back should we not work for a year. Needs to be consistent (though I expect they'd end up allowing people to take their costs into account rather than charging businesses 1 or 2% on income.
If only there were measurable things to try and work out why this might be.Productivity in this country is a huge problem, for both the private and public sector. The public sector, as a whole, is getting more money but delivering less. In the long term, this means taxes and spending will grow exponentially until something gives and it won’t be pretty.
If you find that acceptable, cool. I don’t think it is.
Why? They could have the equivalent of a PA so no tax paid on say first £100k of revenue and even after that you only need to increase prices by 1 or 2% to allow for the tax.You really are bonkers.
There wouldn’t be any small or medium businesses if you taxed on that basis
Having had a review of the PIP announcements, it looks like we stand to lose the £3500 a year Mrs BSB currently gets.
Cheers Labour, thank you very much.
Bizarrely it’s creating a situation where we might be better off voting TorySome Labour treasury guy was on 5 live earlier.
It’s just odd to hear - effectively young people will only recover from mental health issues by working, it’s cruel to prevent people working by offering cosy benefits.
I’ve fell asleep for 40 years and just had a dream. I’ve just turned 20 and thatcher and tebbit are dishing out tough love everywhere
Why? They could have the equivalent of a PA so no tax paid on say first £100k of revenue and even after that you only need to increase prices by 1 or 2% to allow for the tax.
Plus costs for both the business and authorities go down because it's far more simplified and you don't need to have a mass of auditors checking over the fine small print to make sure they've correctly allocated expenses as being deductible or non-deductible.
Don't bet on it though. Do you really think the Tories will undo public sector cuts made by Labour? If anything they'll get ramp it up even more, cos they'll be listen to the lunatic right for fear of people voting Farage.Bizarrely it’s creating a situation where we might be better off voting Tory
Bizarrely it’s creating a situation where we might be better off voting Tory
Labour are busy knifing the civil service in the back as we speak. I’ll have to hope that science roles in it aren’t culled otherwise that kind of scuppers my career plans.Don't bet on it though. Do you really think the Tories will undo public sector cuts made by Labour? If anything they'll get ramp it up even more, cos they'll be listen to the lunatic right for fear of people voting Farage.
At the moment it seems the Tories are taking the Labour pre-election path - say nothing and just let the government destroy itself.
What’s the odds on them raising VAT next?Unfortunately this is the worst of both worlds. A policy of bashing business and squashing growth to create jobs while at the same time removing benefits to get people into jobs that don’t exist
Profit and cash are completely different. And they can still use their mark-up to do that reinvesting. If they're good enough then they'll make enough sales or a large enough mark-up to do so. If they don't, then maybe that businesses isn't worthy of further investment. And as I said I'd had a tax free amount so small businesses would pay nothing, or next to nothing, anyway.You do realise profit, or effectively cash is retained in most SME’s to actually reinvest in their business? It’s mind blowingly stupid for that to be handed to the taxman.
You will be telling me you are against capital allowances soon as well
Profit and cash are completely different. And they can still use their mark-up to do that reinvesting. If they're good enough then they'll make enough sales or a large enough mark-up to do so. If they don't, then maybe that businesses isn't worthy of further investment. And as I said I'd had a tax free amount so small businesses would pay nothing, or next to nothing, anyway.
Considering what I've seen be allowed to be deductible against tax, there is a hell of a lot that isn't being 'reinvested in the business'.
And if anything it makes it easier to plan for the tax bill because you'll know what sales you've made and can set aside for it. Rather than having to wait until the end of the year to see what arbitrary profit figure comes out that you then need to pay a chunk of.
PVA stick to dreaming about being a soldier
What public sector productivity information are you using? There are many health warnings with the ONS data (which you'll ignore as it doesn't fit your paradigm). For example, it doesn't even consider outcomes.
As I've pointed out on this thread a trillion times, tax does not pay for spending. It does not need to grow to pay for government spending as such.
Unfortunately this is the worst of both worlds. A policy of bashing business and squashing growth to create jobs while at the same time removing benefits to get people into jobs that don’t exist
Thought you were retiring from this thread?
Maybe you should stick to dreaming about terrorist sympathisers
Reading his case I think he would score pretty high on the ‘points’ system so shouldn’t be impacted?Lee you don’t understand. This government respects your desire to work and become self sufficient. Be grateful and welcome to a world of opportunity.
‘I could end up homeless’: weighing the damage after Rachel Reeves’s welfare cuts
A disabled man considers the potential impact that losing disability benefits could have on his lifewww.theguardian.com
Better than voting for an active contributor to a genocide
Bit ironic given your desire to give Putin what he wants.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?