• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

the dza said:
The IFS said that Labour's proposed tax changes could raise £40billion whilst their spending commitments were £49billion.
Click to expand...
From what I remember of that paper, the inference was that if the tax increases didn't lead to avoidance and if none of the other measures damaged the economy, then at £40bn was best case scenario.

I seem to remember there was also a very clear emphasis that the IFS did not consider this a likely scenario.
 
scaramanga said:
From what I remember of that paper, the inference was that if the tax increases didn't lead to avoidance and if none of the other measures damaged the economy, then at £40bn was best case scenario.

I seem to remember there was also a very clear emphasis that the IFS did not consider this a likely scenario.
Click to expand...

Even worse, if the IFS are right and the shortfall is bigger, say they ONLY raise £30billion from the top 5% of earners and a corporation tax rate that would still be the lowest in the G7, then they could still:

Get rid of tuition fees and restore maintenance grants (£11billion), fund free childcare with more money for Sure Start (£5billion), lift the public sector pay cap (£4 billion), increase ESA by £30 per week for those in work related activity group, scrap bedroom tax, implement the PiP legal ruling, restore housing benefit for U21s, scrap Bereavement Support Payment reforms, uprate Carers Allowance to the level of Job Seekers Allowance (£4 billion) and pay for the Barnet Formula consequentials of all this (£6billion) -- total £30 billion (figures from the document Funding Britain's Future that accompanied Labour's manifesto that outlined their spending proposals and costings).

Even if you disagree with those numbers, it has been shown by even the harshest criticisms of organisations such as the IFS that Labour's proposed changes would raise revenue (the only question is exactly how much) and that this revenue could then be spent on things such as those outlined above, making lives better for many people at the expense of a relative few.

The numbers can and will vary, but if the principle and political will is there, then doing things in a different way is entirely possible.
 
the dza said:
Even worse, if the IFS are right and the shortfall is bigger, say they ONLY raise £30billion from the top 5% of earners and a corporation tax rate that would still be the lowest in the G7, then they could still:

Get rid of tuition fees and restore maintenance grants (£11billion), fund free childcare with more money for Sure Start (£5billion), lift the public sector pay cap (£4 billion), increase ESA by £30 per week for those in work related activity group, scrap bedroom tax, implement the PiP legal ruling, restore housing benefit for U21s, scrap Bereavement Support Payment reforms, uprate Carers Allowance to the level of Job Seekers Allowance (£4 billion) and pay for the Barnet Formula consequentials of all this (£6billion) -- total £30 billion (figures from the document Funding Britain's Future that accompanied Labour's manifesto that outlined their spending proposals and costings).

Even if you disagree with those numbers, it has been shown by even the harshest criticisms of organisations such as the IFS that Labour's proposed changes would raise revenue (the only question is exactly how much) and that this revenue could then be spent on things such as those outlined above, making lives better for many people at the expense of a relative few.

The numbers can and will vary, but if the principle and political will is there, then doing things in a different way is entirely possible.
Click to expand...

Certainly think it is time for a different approach, not sure I agree all groups listed deserve extra.

Disgusted that the Royals get an extra amount of money today. Would rather it went to making society better. I like corbyn, think on the whole it would be a better country but also think we would be bust after 5 years.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
Certainly think it is time for a different approach, not sure I agree all groups listed deserve extra.
Click to expand...

That is probably worth a debate. For example, I know that a lot was made of the fact that free tuition benefits students from better off backgrounds than poorer backgrounds and I used to be all for the means testing of any state help. However, I have been sold on the principle of universality (e.g. the NHS can be used by wealthier people if they need it, winter fuel allowance for all pensioners etc.) for one reason: It protects the poorest recipients of that state help. If better off people have skin in the game, they are less likely to vote for cuts to services and help that they also benefit from. Corbyn knows this imo, once you start giving something to everyone then it becomes defended by everyone (or at least the greater majority of people) and the poorest people who need these things the most will see them protected.
 
the dza said:
That is probably worth a debate. For example, I know that a lot was made of the fact that free tuition benefits students from better off backgrounds than poorer backgrounds and I used to be all for the means testing of any state help. However, I have been sold on the principle of universality (e.g. the NHS can be used by wealthier people if they need it, winter fuel allowance for all pensioners etc.) for one reason: It protects the poorest recipients of that state help. If better off people have skin in the game, they are less likely to vote for cuts to services and help that they also benefit from. Corbyn knows this imo, once you start giving something to everyone then it becomes defended by everyone (or at least the greater majority of people) and the poorest people who need these things the most will see them protected.
Click to expand...

And when it becomes available to everyone it becomes financially unrealistic. I agree with the carers receiving pay they are working hard and doing an important job.

My background is someone of low academic level but someone who always worked and worked damn hard and never looked or asked for handouts, while the are some worthwhile people needing help out there the are far to many scroungers who are lazy scum bags who I would not care if they went to a workhouse, think it would be a good thing to bring back to teach people to get off their arse and do some work.

I would rather see any money raised by what I think are some good ideas for cuts but that money should go for infrastructure projects and ideas that would stimulate the economy. I would also tell the Royal family they have to become self financing.

I have always had an interest in building, working as a labourer then a plaster and locksmith. I would love to see a proper house building initiative I think the are lots of things that need changing and I have thought that for some time, I think all properties should have bigger windows to allow in natural light and help fight depression. All developments should have proper sports and garden areas, they should all be energy neutral. The are some good developments but they are to few.

That fire in the tower block feels like a Jamie Bulger situation. Blair used that incident to show Britain had problems and it was one of the reasons for new labour to get into power, I think the fire in the tower block could be the thing that captures the British minds and propels Corbyn into downing street.
 
I also think and said this in UKIP's rise to power that the people of the country may change who they vote for in different elections, but it usually evens itself out. UKIP rise to power because people do not want to be run by an unelected elite who are corrupt gangsters. The Liberals rose up in the 90's because the country wanted a change from the tories. If Labour and Corbyn are rising to power it is because the country thinks the is to much inequality.

Really democracy is a beautiful thing in that sense because a country always gets what it deserves. Also think if the EU termination of contract because that is what it is not a divorce. If it goes bad than UKIP will come back and back strong, democracy the people always get the country they deserve, just look at America right now;)
 
the dza said:
Even worse, if the IFS are right and the shortfall is bigger, say they ONLY raise £30billion from the top 5% of earners and a corporation tax rate that would still be the lowest in the G7, then they could still:

Get rid of tuition fees and restore maintenance grants (£11billion), fund free childcare with more money for Sure Start (£5billion), lift the public sector pay cap (£4 billion), increase ESA by £30 per week for those in work related activity group, scrap bedroom tax, implement the PiP legal ruling, restore housing benefit for U21s, scrap Bereavement Support Payment reforms, uprate Carers Allowance to the level of Job Seekers Allowance (£4 billion) and pay for the Barnet Formula consequentials of all this (£6billion) -- total £30 billion (figures from the document Funding Britain's Future that accompanied Labour's manifesto that outlined their spending proposals and costings).

Even if you disagree with those numbers, it has been shown by even the harshest criticisms of organisations such as the IFS that Labour's proposed changes would raise revenue (the only question is exactly how much) and that this revenue could then be spent on things such as those outlined above, making lives better for many people at the expense of a relative few.

The numbers can and will vary, but if the principle and political will is there, then doing things in a different way is entirely possible.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a safe assumption at all that increasing top end tax and corporation tax leads to a higher tax take.

In fact, the last decrease in top rate tax was entirely revenue neutral (after adjusting for deferral effects), which shows just how flexible taxation is at that end of the scale.

Edit:
There was someone from the IFS on Today just now. He was making the point that you can get a very small increase in tax revenue from the top end, but you have to increase taxes across the board and effect everyone to be able to make any significant spending increases.

I've just checked his figures. He claimed that a large increase like 3% would have to come from across the board, not just the top. 3% on our current take is a little under £20bn. That puts this silly Marxist idea of an extra £40bn into perspective.
 
Last edited:
The Daily Mails headlines replaced by user comments:

DDUN3ReXkAAUiSN.jpg
 
I also thought Lee from Blue was dead.

The Queen though a classy hard working lady does not deserve any extra money, with the money coming from the crown estates they should be self financing I am very strong on this point.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
I also thought Lee from Blue was dead.

The Queen though a classy hard working lady does not deserve any extra money, with the money coming from the crown estates they should be self financing I am very strong on this point.
Click to expand...
Most of the crown estate goes back to the treasury does it not (as it should) -

The £328.8m sum generated in 2016-17 is an 8.1pc rise from last year, meaning the Queen will receive £82.2m to fund her official work in the Sovereign Grant in two years’ time.

The figure will be a year-on-year increase of £6m, under a system which sees the bulk of Crown Estate profits paid to the Treasury.

A quarter is returned to the Queen’s household, two years in arrears, to be spent on official travel, household salaries, and, over the next 10 years, a major refurbishment of Buckingham Palace.

The Crown Estate has now paid more than £2.6bn to the country’s coffers in the last decade, thanks in part to large swathes of valuable London real estate.
 
Gutter Boy said:
This seems to support the narrative that the election wasn't about Brexit, rather Labour simply made gains on domestic policy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40408576
Click to expand...

Well Labour had domestic policies as far as I could tell apart from social care and grammar schools(which I support) that was the extent of the tories policies, that and May saying she thought it was ok for a bunch of tacos to dress up and go and rip a defenceless animal apart.

In the cold light of day if the election was a boxing match you would give it to Labour on points easily. I do not like the support for any group they perceive to me a minority, fine look after Muslim, gays and trannies etc. But when it comes to the lazy thieving gypo scum it is not acceptable to me. So that and I think they would spend more then we as a country will receive are my big reservations about them. That said if the is another election in September I really might go for them, I was close last time.
 
r-u-s-x said:
Most of the crown estate goes back to the treasury does it not (as it should) -

The £328.8m sum generated in 2016-17 is an 8.1pc rise from last year, meaning the Queen will receive £82.2m to fund her official work in the Sovereign Grant in two years’ time.

The figure will be a year-on-year increase of £6m, under a system which sees the bulk of Crown Estate profits paid to the Treasury.

A quarter is returned to the Queen’s household, two years in arrears, to be spent on official travel, household salaries, and, over the next 10 years, a major refurbishment of Buckingham Palace.

The Crown Estate has now paid more than £2.6bn to the country’s coffers in the last decade, thanks in part to large swathes of valuable London real estate.
Click to expand...

The royal family should be like football, completely self financing. The amount of money in football the premier league should be giving more to grass root football and the Royals should be able to live off the money people pay to go into Windsor and Buck House, they can keep their place in Scotland if they so wish but all the other estates round the country should go. Kensington Palace has enough room for the younger Royals and the older ones can all live in Buck House.

Nothing wrong with living there, such a big house if you did not get on with your cousin i am sure you could go days without seeing them, plus they have a lovely garden which is a lot more then a lot of Londoners, nice central location they could get into work a lot quicker then other people.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
The royal family should be like football, completely self financing. The amount of money in football the premier league should be giving more to grass root football and the Royals should be able to live off the money people pay to go into Windsor and Buck House, they can keep their place in Scotland if they so wish but all the other estates round the country should go. Kensington Palace has enough room for the younger Royals and the older ones can all live in Buck House.

Nothing wrong with living there, such a big house if you did not get on with your cousin i am sure you could go days without seeing them, plus they have a lovely garden which is a lot more then a lot of Londoners, nice central location they could get into work a lot quicker then other people.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the crown estate does bring in more than the costs.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
The royal family should be like football, completely self financing. The amount of money in football the premier league should be giving more to grass root football and the Royals should be able to live off the money people pay to go into Windsor and Buck House, they can keep their place in Scotland if they so wish but all the other estates round the country should go. Kensington Palace has enough room for the younger Royals and the older ones can all live in Buck House.

Nothing wrong with living there, such a big house if you did not get on with your cousin i am sure you could go days without seeing them, plus they have a lovely garden which is a lot more then a lot of Londoners, nice central location they could get into work a lot quicker then other people.
Click to expand...
They generated £328.8m and they will receive £82M- I had it in the quote above your comment.

The question then moves to is it really their property or UKs - most of the additional profit is coming from wind farms off the coast - why do they own this etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back