Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[SpiderSpurs]

I wish this plonker Starmer would just answer the questions he gets asked.

 

[scaramanga]

Hmmmm...

I think there's still plenty of poor that can shout 'they don't have enough'

Let's ignore exceptional situations such as children that require huge amounts of care, etc. Those special situations should always be catered for.

But someone earning minimum wage can afford rent, food clothes, etc - there's no need for us to be paying for more.

Hard working people deserves everything they have.
Non- productive assett hoarders are not that.

Those assets were taxed when created though. I pay income and capital gains tax on just about everything I earn. Once I've done so, it should be mine to choose what I do with it - free of the government's sticky fingers. If one of those choices is to give some to my children, then the possibility of getting taxed again shouldn't be part of the equation.

 

[SkipRat]

Massive public spending cuts are the obvious answer to anyone who isn't kidding themselves about the state of the economy.

We've had little to no growth for years, a rapidly inflating population, a workforce that either doesn't want to work or wants to "work" from home and increased expectations of what the state can/will provide.

Public spending has increased year on year to the point where the tax burden is as large as after WWII. Yet people are calling it austerity because the amount spent per person appears to be shrinking.

There needs to be a massive reset on what people expect from the state, on the effort they think they can get away with putting in at work and on how much we can afford to pay immigrant workers in terms of both in and out of work benefits. A good start would be a (taxed) salary that leaves them as net contributors when dependents are calculated in - below that, no free healthcare, no tax credits, etc.

We have had little to no growth, because people are being fleeced over rent and housing costs.

Social housing for a 1 bedroom, £400 a month where I live. Private, £800 to a £1000 a month for a one bed.

That is £400-£600, less per house hold, that is not being spent on in the local area.

Add in, the energy scam where bills have doubled... thats what another £50-£100, maybe more depending on the household and the property they live in.

The no growth is because vaste swathes of working people have been run into the ground and can;t afford brick, just barely covering the basics in many cases.

And look at the state of the country becausse of previous spending cuts, services are being run into the ground.

I agree, somthings can be cut entirely, like child benefit, but the country needs to be run properly first. I mean, how brick does the 5th/6th richest country in the world have to be run that working families require government help to raise their children?

But what usually happens, is that cuts to social services usually target those who need it most.

Like I said before. The rule should be, if the those are at the bottom are doing great, then any one better off must be doing fantastic.

 

[SkipRat]

I wish this plonker Starmer would just answer the questions he gets asked.

I just wish he, and his entire party would just f off.

 

[SkipRat]

Let's ignore exceptional situations such as children that require huge amounts of care, etc. Those special situations should always be catered for.

But someone earning minimum wage can afford rent, food clothes, etc - there's no need for us to be paying for more.


Those assets were taxed when created though. I pay income and capital gains tax on just about everything I earn. Once I've done so, it should be mine to choose what I do with it - free of the government's sticky fingers. If one of those choices is to give some to my children, then the possibility of getting taxed again shouldn't be part of the equation.

No they bloody can't

Especially if they families to pay for. It's pretty clear you are well off and don;t face such struggles... If you did, was probably decades ago when the world was a different place.

 

[scaramanga]

We have had little to no growth, because people are being fleeced over rent and housing costs.

Social housing for a 1 bedroom, £400 a month where I live. Private, £800 to a £1000 a month for a one bed.

That is £400-£600, less per house hold, that is not being spent on in the local area.

Add in, the energy scam where bills have doubled... thats what another £50-£100, maybe more depending on the household and the property they live in.

The no growth is because vaste swathes of working people have been run into the ground and can;t afford brick, just barely covering the basics in many cases.

And look at the state of the country becausse of previous spending cuts, services are being run into the ground.

I agree, somthings can be cut entirely, like child benefit, but the country needs to be run properly first. I mean, how brick does the 5th/6th richest country in the world have to be run that working families require government help to raise their children?

But what usually happens, is that cuts to social services usually target those who need it most.

Like I said before. The rule should be, if the those are at the bottom are doing great, then any one better off must be doing fantastic.

All of the issues you've described are choices.

Where you live is a choice. If you want a 3 bed house for £450 a month they're out there:

Check out this 3 bedroom terraced house for rent on Rightmove

3 bedroom terraced house for rent in Basingstoke Road, Peterlee, SR8 for £450 pcm. Marketed by KDM Estates, Peterlee

www.rightmove.co.uk

Minimum wage take home pay is over £1700 per month. So after rent there's £1250 for food, bills, clothing, etc.

Whilst I come out in hives at the idea of living in the North East and having a clothing budget of £100 or so a month, it's possible, and that includes the choice of a 3 bed house when a 1 bed flat would do just fine.

 

[scaramanga]

No they bloody can't

Especially if they families to pay for. It's pretty clear you are well off and don;t face such struggles... If you did, was probably decades ago when the world was a different place.

See post above. It's all about choices.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

But someone earning minimum wage can afford rent, food clothes, etc - there's no need for us to be paying for more.

These people are probably not in your eyeline tbh...but if you say they can, they can lol.

Those assets were taxed when created though. I pay income and capital gains tax on just about everything I earn. Once I've done so, it should be mine to choose what I do with it - free of the government's sticky fingers. If one of those choices is to give some to my children, then the possibility of getting taxed again shouldn't be part of the equation.

If you've worked hard, been smart, grown a business, paid the taxes required, absolutely (I said so in my previous post).
I'm not sure why you're then talking about IHT?

Tbh I'm not talking about people like you, a few echelons higher. The money gamers.

 

[SkipRat]

All of the issues you've described are choices.

Where you live is a choice. If you want a 3 bed house for £450 a month they're out there:

Check out this 3 bedroom terraced house for rent on Rightmove

3 bedroom terraced house for rent in Basingstoke Road, Peterlee, SR8 for £450 pcm. Marketed by KDM Estates, Peterlee

www.rightmove.co.uk

Minimum wage take home pay is over £1700 per month. So after rent there's £1250 for food, bills, clothing, etc.

Whilst I come out in hives at the idea of living in the North East and having a clothing budget of £100 or so a month, it's possible, and that includes the choice of a 3 bed house when a 1 bed flat would do just fine.

So having a roof over your head is a choice, not a basic human right?

And 3 bed houses are in brick hole areas with zero job prospects.

 

[scaramanga]

So having a roof over your head is a choice, not a basic human right?

And 3 bed houses are in brick hole areas with zero job prospects.

Of course shelter is a basic human right, but not one in London or the South East. That's a choice. There's housing to suit all budgets in the country, it's a matter of choice where we go.

There's probably not a lot of job prospects in the area but bicycles are available - cars are cheap now. You can even buy decent Korean cars nowadays.

 

[scaramanga]

These people are probably not in your eyeline tbh...but if you say they can, they can lol.

If you've worked hard, been smart, grown a business, paid the taxes required, absolutely (I said so in my previous post).
I'm not sure why you're then talking about IHT?

Tbh I'm not talking about people like you, a few echelons higher. The money gamers.

Sorry, thought the comment was about all "unearned" wealth.

I suspect you'll find that those people also pay every penny of tax that they're liable to pay*. Otherwise they'd be in prison.


*Tax liability is, and can only be, measured as what HMRC can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, is due in court proceedings.

 

[Rorschach]

$100m incoming for Reform.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1869034409799950394

This is extraordinarily dangerous.

 

[Kompakted]

Sorry, thought the comment was about all "unearned" wealth.

I suspect you'll find that those people also pay every penny of tax that they're liable to pay*. Otherwise they'd be in prison.


*Tax liability is, and can only be, measured as what HMRC can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, is due in court proceedings.

Worth pointing out as well that anyone with a potential disputed tax liability that is worth investigating and taking to court will have better lawyers than theirs. See exhibit A in Gary Lineker pulling HMRC's pants down recently in court over his £4.5m claimed liability due to "off payroll" avoidance...which the court determined was perfectly legal as per Gary's top city tax lawyers will have argued....and then billed all their costs to HMRC to rub salt into the wound