Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Jockaline]

Starmer has made core policy choices 18 months out then. He's has ruled out the SM/CU. -4% to -5% loss of GDP is at the lower end of estimates for Brexit's damage, some now put it at -6% to -11%. These are not small numbers, and given the nature of the beast it's easier for the damage to increase than the opposite. Starmer thinks people should just accept it, and unlike the Tories he knows all this and understands the damage, but also knows telling the truth will offend people so he doesn't.

I'm weary of a starting point for a political project being this disingenuous, untruthfulness on this subject has already done a lot of damage to the UK. It is a type of moral corruption.
When a polity undergoes the polarisation the UK has, people move away from the centre and towards the extremes each time there's fresh disagreement. Witness the Lib Dems poor polling, when in the past Tory polling being weak and Labour having a leader that isn't threatening to Tory voters guaranteed strong Lib Dem polling. It wouldn't be surprising if the Greens improve their results if Labour disappoint people.

They're telling you what they're going to do, you just don't want to hear it. Blair was just on Peston explaining it all. He wants less tax and less spending (what did Truss want again?), presumably he wants the private sector to do the state's job (what did Truss want again?), which means no new infrastructure and expensive houses. The Tony Blair Institute (known funders include the US state department and the Saudi government) has 100s of employees, they'll be one of the thinktanks competing to write Labour policy and they have far more resources than most. What Blair comes up with is going to be more professional than what Tufton Street could ever dream of, nicer slogans and soundbites and none of the libertarian wild west madness, but it's also going to the same old neoliberal/Thatcherite gruel.

There is a quick way to tax less and spend less. Axe the tax rate to a below 20% flat rate, then kill the NHS and most of the military and anything else until the low taxes cover the spending. Not sure where the growth will come from once the state has removed itself (whilst every other advanced economy has state investment into their economies in various ways, including the US), but "tough choices" and all that. You can best see how ridiculous it is once it's taken to the logical conclusion (Truss's great sin).

The idea that Starmer could go into the next election promising to join the CM, or have a referendum on rejoining the EU, and not destroy his chances of being elected is fantasy. The sort of fantasy politics that lost Labour the election the last time round. Voters, rightly or wrongly are scared of voting for Labour, due in part to having the media and the powerful briefing against them, but also due to lost credibility of their last manifesto that promised all and sundry, It's actually miraculous that they are in with a shout given the size of the defeat the last time around. If they do a good job, and they build trust with the electorate and EU partners, it just might be possible if the demand was, and the conditions were right to lead on that when asking for another term.

I'd rather Starmer didn't fraternise with Blair. However, tax less spend less in itself not a bad outcome if it doesn't harm / disenfranchise section of the populace, particularly the vulnerable. Blair's government targeted unemployment quite successfully, which reduces the burden of tax on an individual level as more pay tax. He also brought in the minimum wage, which may not have been that effective in reducing spending by reducing top up benefits and harms as a result of very low pay, but not a bad idea. The state spends far to much subsidising employers who do not pay a living wage, and who do not pay the costs for the training/education of their employees. You can spend less if you priorities health prevention, sort out the care system, and not rely on agency staff. Even school breakfast clubs can impact spending and tax positively longer term by reducing harms caused by poor nutrition, even if you do have to spend some as investment up front.

[I like neeps]

Labour very clearly are not campaigning yet. Even with your obsessive hatred of Starmer you can't believe Labour would be campaigning without a series of defined policies.

They are campaigning, hence the "look at how fiscally disciplined we are" schtick every two minutes.

[I like neeps]

Starmer has made core policy choices 18 months out then. He's has ruled out the SM/CU. -4% to -5% loss of GDP is at the lower end of estimates for Brexit's damage, some now put it at -6% to -11%. These are not small numbers, and given the nature of the beast it's easier for the damage to increase than the opposite. Starmer thinks people should just accept it, and unlike the Tories he knows all this and understands the damage, but also knows telling the truth will offend people so he doesn't.

I'm weary of a starting point for a political project being this disingenuous, untruthfulness on this subject has already done a lot of damage to the UK. It is a type of moral corruption.
When a polity undergoes the polarisation the UK has, people move away from the centre and towards the extremes each time there's fresh disagreement. Witness the Lib Dems poor polling, when in the past Tory polling being weak and Labour having a leader that isn't threatening to Tory voters guaranteed strong Lib Dem polling. It wouldn't be surprising if the Greens improve their results if Labour disappoint people.

They're telling you what they're going to do, you just don't want to hear it. Blair was just on Peston explaining it all. He wants less tax and less spending (what did Truss want again?), presumably he wants the private sector to do the state's job (what did Truss want again?), which means no new infrastructure and expensive houses. The Tony Blair Institute (known funders include the US state department and the Saudi government) has 100s of employees, they'll be one of the thinktanks competing to write Labour policy and they have far more resources than most. What Blair comes up with is going to be more professional than what Tufton Street could ever dream of, nicer slogans and soundbites and none of the libertarian wild west madness, but it's also going to the same old neoliberal/Thatcherite gruel.

There is a quick way to tax less and spend less. Axe the tax rate to a below 20% flat rate, then kill the NHS and most of the military and anything else until the low taxes cover the spending. Not sure where the growth will come from once the state has removed itself (whilst every other advanced economy has state investment into their economies in various ways, including the US), but "tough choices" and all that. You can best see how ridiculous it is once it's taken to the logical conclusion (Truss's great sin).

The idea that Starmer could go into the next election promising to join the CM, or have a referendum on rejoining the EU, and not destroy his chances of being elected is fantasy. The sort of fantasy politics that lost Labour the election the last time round. Voters, rightly or wrongly are scared of voting for Labour, due in part to having the media and the powerful briefing against them, but also due to lost credibility of their last manifesto that promised all and sundry, It's actually miraculous that they are in with a shout given the size of the defeat the last time around. If they do a good job, and they build trust with the electorate and EU partners, it just might be possible if the demand was, and the conditions were right to lead on that when asking for another term.

I'd rather Starmer didn't fraternise with Blair. However, tax less spend less in itself not a bad outcome if it doesn't harm / disenfranchise section of the populace, particularly the vulnerable. Blair's government targeted unemployment quite successfully, which reduces the burden of tax on an individual level as more pay tax. He also brought in the minimum wage, which may not have been that effective in reducing spending by reducing top up benefits and harms as a result of very low pay, but not a bad idea. The state spends far to much subsidising employers who do not pay a living wage, and who do not pay the costs for the training/education of their employees. You can spend less if you priorities health prevention, sort out the care system, and not rely on agency staff. Even school breakfast clubs can impact spending and tax positively longer term by reducing harms caused by poor nutrition, even if you do have to spend some as investment up front.

School nutrition, social care would require an increase in tax in the immediate term because you have an increase in state spending. There is no "fat to cut", there's no credible reform policy, there's public demand for better services.

Blair is a complete fantasist. His success was built on an economic model that has hugely damaged Britain's and the global economy. Bin.

[JM2K6]

Labour very clearly are not campaigning yet. Even with your obsessive hatred of Starmer you can't believe Labour would be campaigning without a series of defined policies.

They are campaigning, hence the "look at how fiscally disciplined we are" schtick every two minutes.

Yeah no I don't think I'm going to bother trying to explain this any more. If you can't work out the difference between election campaigning and doing the bare minimum as an opposition party trying to regain some credibility then there's zero point to any of this. I do not believe you were born after the last election so I know you know what election campaigning actually looks like.

[Tichtheid]

Today's Monbiot

To understand the right’s climate backlash, look no further than its monstering of Natural England

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nservation

[Margin__Walker]

They're actual children

[sockwithaticket]

The only way tax less works is if we're making a distinction between people and wealth. Tax working people less, but go big time on reclaiming the wealth hoarded by companies and individuals that's sitting there doing nothing but widening inequality.

[JM2K6]

Starmer is not hostile to the EU and would rather the UK was still in the EU. His position is that we're out, fighting that war again in any way is divisive, a huge distraction, and a clear threat to a Labour victory at the next election as it paints a very large target on Labour's back. Is he correct in that calculation? Who knows. Is he removing an avenue of attack a desparate Tory party would weaponise to the fullest extent to cling onto power? Yes.

Starmer has made core policy choices 18 months out then. He's has ruled out the SM/CU. -4% to -5% loss of GDP is at the lower end of estimates for Brexit's damage, some now put it at -6% to -11%. These are not small numbers, and given the nature of the beast it's easier for the damage to increase than the opposite. Starmer thinks people should just accept it, and unlike the Tories he knows all this and understands the damage, but also knows telling the truth will offend people so he doesn't.

I'm weary of a starting point for a political project being this disingenuous, untruthfulness on this subject has already done a lot of damage to the UK. It is a type of moral corruption.

It's a decision they made a lot longer ago than that - over a year ago. It's not untruthful or morally corrupt to refuse to re-fight a war that saw Labour lose in such devastating fashion last time. Unless I am very much mistaken, Starmer isn't out there claiming that the SM/CU are bad actually and that the country is better off not being in them. Starmer and his allies, including some very pro-EU types, instead focused on the damage another public vote would bring, the difficulty involved in dealing with a Europe that we've torched our relationship with, and the risk to the party of reigniting that particular war. None of that is dishonest and it's very strange to see you make this claim.

...the Labour leader argued that the big questions over EU membership, notably over the single market, customs union and free movement of people, were “arguments of the past”, and could not be revisited.

...

The current deal had “created a hulking fatberg of red tape and bureaucracy, one that is hampering the flow of British business”, Starmer said. “We will break that barrier down, unclog the arteries of our economy and allow trade to flourish once more.”

However, he stressed that that any debate on rejoining the EU would be to “look back over our shoulder” and jeopardise public faith in politics, adding: “So let me be very clear: with Labour, Britain will not go back into the EU. We will not be joining the single market. We will not be joining a customs union.”

Ben Bradshaw, the Exeter MP and former minister who is a leading pro-EU voice in the Labour party, said Starmer’s approach was “absolutely right”.

He said: “There is no prospect of us rejoining the EU, single market or customs union anytime soon, not least because [Boris] Johnson has so completely destroyed trust with our European neighbours that any such move would be on far worse terms than those we had before we left.

“There is, however, plenty that we can do to reduce the enormous damage being done to our economy and our relationship with our allies, by fixing the many problems with Johnson’s botched Brexit deal.”

Hilary Benn, who formerly chaired the Brexit Commons committee and was another strong proponent of a second referendum, told BBC Radio 4’s the World at One that even rejoining the single market would require a public vote.

“And I have tell you, in my view there is absolutely no appetite for that whatsoever,” he said.

I will say it's very strange reading smart people acting like rejoining the SM/CU is like flicking a switch. It's an incredibly facile perspective. I want us back in the EU as much as anyone and even those small steps are going to be very difficult currently.

When a polity undergoes the polarisation the UK has, people move away from the centre and towards the extremes each time there's fresh disagreement. Witness the Lib Dems poor polling, when in the past Tory polling being weak and Labour having a leader that isn't threatening to Tory voters guaranteed strong Lib Dem polling. It wouldn't be surprising if the Greens improve their results if Labour disappoint people.

Yes. That does not a) make the Greens a useful vote for anyone, or b) do anything except damage Labour and benefit the Tories. The Tories are at risk of being wiped out. Encouraging people to make protest votes instead is wasting everyone's time. That is the reality of FPTP in the UK. (Also the Greens are a bit of a shitshow and even worse than Labour on some things, e.g. trans rights, but that's another argument entirely)

They're telling you what they're going to do, you just don't want to hear it. Blair was just on Peston explaining it all. He wants less tax and less spending (what did Truss want again?), presumably he wants the private sector to do the state's job (what did Truss want again?), which means no new infrastructure and expensive houses. The Tony Blair Institute (known funders include the US state department and the Saudi government) has 100s of employees, they'll be one of the thinktanks competing to write Labour policy and they have far more resources than most. What Blair comes up with is going to be more professional than what Tufton Street could ever dream of, nicer slogans and soundbites and none of the libertarian wild west madness, but it's also going to the same old neoliberal/Thatcherite gruel.

There is a quick way to tax less and spend less. Axe the tax rate to a below 20% flat rate, then kill the NHS and most of the military and anything else until the low taxes cover the spending. Not sure where the growth will come from once the state has removed itself (whilst every other advanced economy has state investment into their economies in various ways, including the US), but "tough choices" and all that. You can best see how ridiculous it is once it's taken to the logical conclusion (Truss's great sin).

I agree with your concerns on this. I made a comment a few days ago about Labour giving up the right to be called a progressive party. I am not going to assume that actually it's the Big Bad Blair running things, but it is concerning because of his cachet as the man who made Labour a governing party again and his obvious appeal to Starmer, and I'm not going to dismiss it.

[Yeeb]

The only way tax less works is if we're making a distinction between people and wealth. Tax working people less, but go big time on reclaiming the wealth hoarded by companies and individuals that's sitting there doing nothing but widening inequality.

That is not correct , some tax revenues would be higher with higher rates, and some with lower rates.
Typically, consumption based taxes are ones where you raise more with higher rates, because they can’t be circumvented easily (eg duty on fuel or cigarettes ). Eventually once it gets ‘too high’ a black market appears such as in Australia for tobacco.
Non consumption based taxes are more open to loopholes, an example from my professional past was commercial stamp duty : it was 0.5% (I think) and when a office block or shopping centre was bought or sold, it was invariably done within Uk domicile and total revenue raised from this was £10 billion (a made up fogure as I forget the details.)
The then labour govt decided to increase this to 3% and our CEO was one of 25+ property investment management company bigwigs who said this was daft and drive the nominal domicile over shore : labour went ahead and did it anyways, ownership moved abroad via shell companies, i not so indirectly lost my job, and revenue raised per year from commercial stamp fell to £350million.

There is at least one poster who knows I’m sure more about it than me but the gist of it is correct.

Overall I think tax regimes should be set at what generates most revenue , and not what someone seems fair or attractive to particular people. Higher rate taxpayers getting +45 or 40% into the pension pot when a standard rate payer only gets +22% or whatever on contributions, is to me blatantly unfair despite me benefitting from it.

[SaintK]

They're actual children

MP for the constituency where my club is.
Sat next to him at a club lunch, an absolute bellend, tosser of a man!!!

[sockwithaticket]

The only way tax less works is if we're making a distinction between people and wealth. Tax working people less, but go big time on reclaiming the wealth hoarded by companies and individuals that's sitting there doing nothing but widening inequality.

That is not correct , some tax revenues would be higher with higher rates, and some with lower rates.
Typically, consumption based taxes are ones where you raise more with higher rates, because they can’t be circumvented easily (eg duty on fuel or cigarettes ). Eventually once it gets ‘too high’ a black market appears such as in Australia for tobacco.
Non consumption based taxes are more open to loopholes, an example from my professional past was commercial stamp duty : it was 0.5% (I think) and when a office block or shopping centre was bought or sold, it was invariably done within Uk domicile and total revenue raised from this was £10 billion (a made up fogure as I forget the details.)
The then labour govt decided to increase this to 3% and our CEO was one of 25+ property investment management company bigwigs who said this was daft and drive the nominal domicile over shore : labour went ahead and did it anyways, ownership moved abroad via shell companies, i not so indirectly lost my job, and revenue raised per year from commercial stamp fell to £350million.

There is at least one poster who knows I’m sure more about it than me but the gist of it is correct.

Overall I think tax regimes should be set at what generates most revenue , and not what someone seems fair or attractive to particular people. Higher rate taxpayers getting +45 or 40% into the pension pot when a standard rate payer only gets +22% or whatever on contributions, is to me blatantly unfair despite me benefitting from it.

I didn't mean strictly economically. Ideology does matter and voters will be pissed off as fuck if inequality continues to worsen and steps aren't taken. The wealthiest increased their worth by over 3 trillion over the pandemic and continue to funnel more wealth upwards, meanwhile the collective wealth of everyone else went down by a slightly larger amount. People know and feel this and are sick of it. Arguments about guaranteeing the highest take will only go so far to mollify the smouldering anger.

[Yeeb]

The only way tax less works is if we're making a distinction between people and wealth. Tax working people less, but go big time on reclaiming the wealth hoarded by companies and individuals that's sitting there doing nothing but widening inequality.

That is not correct , some tax revenues would be higher with higher rates, and some with lower rates.
Typically, consumption based taxes are ones where you raise more with higher rates, because they can’t be circumvented easily (eg duty on fuel or cigarettes ). Eventually once it gets ‘too high’ a black market appears such as in Australia for tobacco.
Non consumption based taxes are more open to loopholes, an example from my professional past was commercial stamp duty : it was 0.5% (I think) and when a office block or shopping centre was bought or sold, it was invariably done within Uk domicile and total revenue raised from this was £10 billion (a made up fogure as I forget the details.)
The then labour govt decided to increase this to 3% and our CEO was one of 25+ property investment management company bigwigs who said this was daft and drive the nominal domicile over shore : labour went ahead and did it anyways, ownership moved abroad via shell companies, i not so indirectly lost my job, and revenue raised per year from commercial stamp fell to £350million.

There is at least one poster who knows I’m sure more about it than me but the gist of it is correct.

Overall I think tax regimes should be set at what generates most revenue , and not what someone seems fair or attractive to particular people. Higher rate taxpayers getting +45 or 40% into the pension pot when a standard rate payer only gets +22% or whatever on contributions, is to me blatantly unfair despite me benefitting from it.

I didn't mean strictly economically. Ideology does matter and voters will be pissed off as fuck if inequality continues to worsen and steps aren't taken. The wealthiest increased their worth by over 3 trillion over the pandemic and continue to funnel more wealth upwards, meanwhile the collective wealth of everyone else went down by a slightly larger amount. People know and feel this and are sick of it. Arguments about guaranteeing the highest take will only go so far to mollify the smouldering anger.

Do you think people would prefer a ‘fair’ tax system that means their govt gets £1 trillion per year in tax revenue for govt to spend on services, or a tax system that would raise a total of £2 trillion but have loads of wealthy people getting wealthier and widening the gap ?

[sockwithaticket]

That is not correct , some tax revenues would be higher with higher rates, and some with lower rates.
Typically, consumption based taxes are ones where you raise more with higher rates, because they can’t be circumvented easily (eg duty on fuel or cigarettes ). Eventually once it gets ‘too high’ a black market appears such as in Australia for tobacco.
Non consumption based taxes are more open to loopholes, an example from my professional past was commercial stamp duty : it was 0.5% (I think) and when a office block or shopping centre was bought or sold, it was invariably done within Uk domicile and total revenue raised from this was £10 billion (a made up fogure as I forget the details.)
The then labour govt decided to increase this to 3% and our CEO was one of 25+ property investment management company bigwigs who said this was daft and drive the nominal domicile over shore : labour went ahead and did it anyways, ownership moved abroad via shell companies, i not so indirectly lost my job, and revenue raised per year from commercial stamp fell to £350million.

There is at least one poster who knows I’m sure more about it than me but the gist of it is correct.

Overall I think tax regimes should be set at what generates most revenue , and not what someone seems fair or attractive to particular people. Higher rate taxpayers getting +45 or 40% into the pension pot when a standard rate payer only gets +22% or whatever on contributions, is to me blatantly unfair despite me benefitting from it.

I didn't mean strictly economically. Ideology does matter and voters will be pissed off as fuck if inequality continues to worsen and steps aren't taken. The wealthiest increased their worth by over 3 trillion over the pandemic and continue to funnel more wealth upwards, meanwhile the collective wealth of everyone else went down by a slightly larger amount. People know and feel this and are sick of it. Arguments about guaranteeing the highest take will only go so far to mollify the smouldering anger.

Do you think people would prefer a ‘fair’ tax system that means their govt gets £1 trillion per year in tax revenue for govt to spend on services, or a tax system that would raise a total of £2 trillion but have loads of wealthy people getting wealthier and widening the gap ?

In pure hypotheticals, the latter if they actually felt services and quality of life getting better. That's about as likely as me getting a threesome with Ana de Armas and Kathryn Winnick, though. If the wealthy get wind that all forms of taxation have been set up to extract as much as possible from them with ostensibly low rates, they're still going to put the effort in to move and hide their money.

[Yeeb]

I didn't mean strictly economically. Ideology does matter and voters will be pissed off as fuck if inequality continues to worsen and steps aren't taken. The wealthiest increased their worth by over 3 trillion over the pandemic and continue to funnel more wealth upwards, meanwhile the collective wealth of everyone else went down by a slightly larger amount. People know and feel this and are sick of it. Arguments about guaranteeing the highest take will only go so far to mollify the smouldering anger.

Do you think people would prefer a ‘fair’ tax system that means their govt gets £1 trillion per year in tax revenue for govt to spend on services, or a tax system that would raise a total of £2 trillion but have loads of wealthy people getting wealthier and widening the gap ?

In pure hypotheticals, the latter if they actually felt services and quality of life getting better. That's about as likely as me getting a threesome with Ana de Armas and Kathryn Winnick, though. If the wealthy get wind that all forms of taxation have been set up to extract as much as possible from them with ostensibly low rates, they're still going to put the effort in to move and hide their money.

Of course they will do, the Uber rich can afford to pay for the best advice, take the most risk, expose loopholes etc - it’s why pursuing them is a bit of a fools errand really as they will always find gaps to minimise exposure. Companies as well, as my example showed.

It is a shame then that it’s these very companies & Uber wealthy types that control them, that generate so many jobs.

Even at lower levels , there are methods many posters on here I’m sure can use to minimise tax, that are not open to the poorest of UK society , pension contribution example I gave for example, Isa’s, EIS & VCT…

[I like neeps]

Labour very clearly are not campaigning yet. Even with your obsessive hatred of Starmer you can't believe Labour would be campaigning without a series of defined policies.

They are campaigning, hence the "look at how fiscally disciplined we are" schtick every two minutes.

Yeah no I don't think I'm going to bother trying to explain this any more. If you can't work out the difference between election campaigning and doing the bare minimum as an opposition party trying to regain some credibility then there's zero point to any of this. I do not believe you were born after the last election so I know you know what election campaigning actually looks like.

They're 20 points ahead in the polls, we're a bit past establishing credibility and onto what would labour do when they win next year's election.

[I like neeps]

Do you think people would prefer a ‘fair’ tax system that means their govt gets £1 trillion per year in tax revenue for govt to spend on services, or a tax system that would raise a total of £2 trillion but have loads of wealthy people getting wealthier and widening the gap ?

In pure hypotheticals, the latter if they actually felt services and quality of life getting better. That's about as likely as me getting a threesome with Ana de Armas and Kathryn Winnick, though. If the wealthy get wind that all forms of taxation have been set up to extract as much as possible from them with ostensibly low rates, they're still going to put the effort in to move and hide their money.

Of course they will do, the Uber rich can afford to pay for the best advice, take the most risk, expose loopholes etc - it’s why pursuing them is a bit of a fools errand really as they will always find gaps to minimise exposure. Companies as well, as my example showed.

It is a shame then that it’s these very companies & Uber wealthy types that control them, that generate so many jobs.

Even at lower levels , there are methods many posters on here I’m sure can use to minimise tax, that are not open to the poorest of UK society , pension contribution example I gave for example, Isa’s, EIS & VCT…

We don't need to be talking about the uber rich. We should be talking about asset owners who after close to 15 years of the magic money tree turbocharging their asset wealth being taxed on that.

The problem is, those who have had their wealth turbocharged through monetary policy and nothing else are core voting demographics.

[Yeeb]

In pure hypotheticals, the latter if they actually felt services and quality of life getting better. That's about as likely as me getting a threesome with Ana de Armas and Kathryn Winnick, though. If the wealthy get wind that all forms of taxation have been set up to extract as much as possible from them with ostensibly low rates, they're still going to put the effort in to move and hide their money.

Of course they will do, the Uber rich can afford to pay for the best advice, take the most risk, expose loopholes etc - it’s why pursuing them is a bit of a fools errand really as they will always find gaps to minimise exposure. Companies as well, as my example showed.

It is a shame then that it’s these very companies & Uber wealthy types that control them, that generate so many jobs.

Even at lower levels , there are methods many posters on here I’m sure can use to minimise tax, that are not open to the poorest of UK society , pension contribution example I gave for example, Isa’s, EIS & VCT…

We don't need to be talking about the uber rich. We should be talking about asset owners who after close to 15 years of the magic money tree turbocharging their asset wealth being taxed on that.

The problem is, those who have had their wealth turbocharged through monetary policy and nothing else are core voting demographics.

Ah sorry, I thought we precisely were talking about the Uber rich when you went on about the growth by 3 trillion thing.

Are you just against people who vote differently to you then ?

[dpedin]

In pure hypotheticals, the latter if they actually felt services and quality of life getting better. That's about as likely as me getting a threesome with Ana de Armas and Kathryn Winnick, though. If the wealthy get wind that all forms of taxation have been set up to extract as much as possible from them with ostensibly low rates, they're still going to put the effort in to move and hide their money.

Of course they will do, the Uber rich can afford to pay for the best advice, take the most risk, expose loopholes etc - it’s why pursuing them is a bit of a fools errand really as they will always find gaps to minimise exposure. Companies as well, as my example showed.

It is a shame then that it’s these very companies & Uber wealthy types that control them, that generate so many jobs.

Even at lower levels , there are methods many posters on here I’m sure can use to minimise tax, that are not open to the poorest of UK society , pension contribution example I gave for example, Isa’s, EIS & VCT…

We don't need to be talking about the uber rich. We should be talking about asset owners who after close to 15 years of the magic money tree turbocharging their asset wealth being taxed on that.

The problem is, those who have had their wealth turbocharged through monetary policy and nothing else are core voting demographics.

It is interesting how little comment is made about the tax policy in Scotland. I am not sure I have heard anyone I know complain about paying a little extra tax as higher earners. I certainly didn't have a problem with it before I retired. There seems to be a general acceptance that it is worth it to pay for the policies Scotland voted for - free prescriptions, social care for elderly, no bedroom tax, etc. The Westminster Tories tried and failed to make any inroads in tackling out and gave up. Dont get me wrong there are lots of folk who dont like the SNP etc but there is a general acceptance here that we need to pay taxes more fairly in order to get the services we or the more disadvantaged need. However I agree our current UK tax position is very regressive and needs major reform re taxing CGT, dividends, etc.

[SaintK]

Of course they will do, the Uber rich can afford to pay for the best advice, take the most risk, expose loopholes etc - it’s why pursuing them is a bit of a fools errand really as they will always find gaps to minimise exposure. Companies as well, as my example showed.

It is a shame then that it’s these very companies & Uber wealthy types that control them, that generate so many jobs.

Even at lower levels , there are methods many posters on here I’m sure can use to minimise tax, that are not open to the poorest of UK society , pension contribution example I gave for example, Isa’s, EIS & VCT…

We don't need to be talking about the uber rich. We should be talking about asset owners who after close to 15 years of the magic money tree turbocharging their asset wealth being taxed on that.

The problem is, those who have had their wealth turbocharged through monetary policy and nothing else are core voting demographics.

Ah sorry, I thought we precisely were talking about the Uber rich when you went on about the growth by 3 trillion thing.

Are you just against people who vote differently to you then ?

[Yeeb]

Edit - sorry, I got the posters mixed up, but the conversation was clearly about Uber rich

[Slick]

Of course they will do, the Uber rich can afford to pay for the best advice, take the most risk, expose loopholes etc - it’s why pursuing them is a bit of a fools errand really as they will always find gaps to minimise exposure. Companies as well, as my example showed.

It is a shame then that it’s these very companies & Uber wealthy types that control them, that generate so many jobs.

Even at lower levels , there are methods many posters on here I’m sure can use to minimise tax, that are not open to the poorest of UK society , pension contribution example I gave for example, Isa’s, EIS & VCT…

We don't need to be talking about the uber rich. We should be talking about asset owners who after close to 15 years of the magic money tree turbocharging their asset wealth being taxed on that.

The problem is, those who have had their wealth turbocharged through monetary policy and nothing else are core voting demographics.

It is interesting how little comment is made about the tax policy in Scotland. I am not sure I have heard anyone I know complain about paying a little extra tax as higher earners. I certainly didn't have a problem with it before I retired. There seems to be a general acceptance that it is worth it to pay for the policies Scotland voted for - free prescriptions, social care for elderly, no bedroom tax, etc. The Westminster Tories tried and failed to make any inroads in tackling out and gave up. Dont get me wrong there are lots of folk who dont like the SNP etc but there is a general acceptance here that we need to pay taxes more fairly in order to get the services we or the more disadvantaged need. However I agree our current UK tax position is very regressive and needs major reform re taxing CGT, dividends, etc.

That's a very jolly way of looking at it.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

They're actual children

Would he be willing to reciprocate and settle a bill for say climate change?

[tabascoboy]

They're actual children

Would he be willing to reciprocate and settle a bill for say climate change?

Well we'll just ignore all the dubious donations to the Tory Party that come from Russians even since their invasion of Ukraine shall we...? Because if he's going to apply that logic...

[Hal Jordan]

They're actual children

Would he be willing to reciprocate and settle a bill for say climate change?

"Energy Security Department"? Obviously forgot the Net Zero bit, although he wouldn't want to anger the grifters.

I see the noble address of 55 Tufton Street has now had the orange paint treatment. Good.

[_Os_]

This stuff about "you can't tax the ultra wealthy because they'll offshore".

Most of the offshoring locations are ultimately under UK jurisdiction. They are not independent countries, nor can they ever be independent if the UK refuses to grant it. If parliament wanted to end them it could. Which is why the ultra wealthy are so obsessive about influencing UK politics, even when they don't live in the UK and have no connection to the place. The UK is their piggybank.

Yeeb mentioned offshoring of property to skirt transaction taxes, most locations that are used are part of the UK and not independent states: Jersey/Isle of Man/Guernsey/British Virgin Islands. What's actually happening is an alternative tax regime within the UK is being exploited.

Obviously any UK government with a majority has the power to end this, and along with it the majority of the offshoring industry. Two thirds of offshored cash (north of US$30 trillion) is in UK territories. Top of the list are British Virgin Islands/Cayman Islands/Bermuda, all of which are UK territories.

Post-Thatcher the UK has had multiple PMs who say the point of the UK is to tax less and spend less. In other words the point of the UK is for the UK state to not exist. It seems to me this doesn't really work long term with a population of 70 million, eventually a Corbyn gets through and smashes the oligarch piggybank.

Offshoring is viable even for ordinary people, especially if they have online/services income. It's foolish to not look into it when PMs are literally saying the main idea should be paying less tax and reducing the state, as I've said in a previous post you can only go on what the politicians are saying, the 4D chess "they believe the opposite of what they say" is usually bullshit. It's easy to get Estonia e-residency, Estonia bank account, start an Estonian company. You don't even need to go to Estonia and it costs not much. Anyone posting here could do it, and there are other countries with similar too.

Uniquely in the UK there's a dual system, a UK system for ordinary people, and a UK offshore system for the ultra wealthy (also used by corrupt foreigners, it's hard to become a billionaire other than through corruption/crime). The difference now is, that low tax systems are increasingly becoming open to anyone. Going to be hard for a country of 70 million to say it's actually good the UK offshore system exists, but ordinary UK citizens shouldn't be able to access low tax systems and have to pay HMRC.

[Yeeb]

This stuff about "you can't tax the ultra wealthy because they'll offshore".

Most of the offshoring locations are ultimately under UK jurisdiction. They are not independent countries, nor can they ever be independent if the UK refuses to grant it. If parliament wanted to end them it could. Which is why the ultra wealthy are so obsessive about influencing UK politics, even when they don't live in the UK and have no connection to the place. The UK is their piggybank.

Yeeb mentioned offshoring of property to skirt transaction taxes, most locations that are used are part of the UK and not independent states: Jersey/Isle of Man/Guernsey/British Virgin Islands. What's actually happening is an alternative tax regime within the UK is being exploited.

Obviously any UK government with a majority has the power to end this, and along with it the majority of the offshoring industry. Two thirds of offshored cash (north of US$30 trillion) is in UK territories. Top of the list are British Virgin Islands/Cayman Islands/Bermuda, all of which are UK territories.

Post-Thatcher the UK has had multiple PMs who say the point of the UK is to tax less and spend less. In other words the point of the UK is for the UK state to not exist. It seems to me this doesn't really work long term with a population of 70 million, eventually a Corbyn gets through and smashes the oligarch piggybank.

Offshoring is viable even for ordinary people, especially if they have online/services income. It's foolish to not look into it when PMs are literally saying the main idea should be paying less tax and reducing the state, as I've said in a previous post you can only go on what the politicians are saying, the 4D chess "they believe the opposite of what they say" is usually bullshit. It's easy to get Estonia e-residency, Estonia bank account, start an Estonian company. You don't even need to go to Estonia and it costs not much. Anyone posting here could do it, and there are other countries with similar too.

Uniquely in the UK there's a dual system, a UK system for ordinary people, and a UK offshore system for the ultra wealthy (also used by corrupt foreigners, it's hard to become a billionaire other than through corruption/crime). The difference now is, that low tax systems are increasingly becoming open to anyone. Going to be hard for a country of 70 million to say it's actually good the UK offshore system exists, but ordinary UK citizens shouldn't be able to access low tax systems and have to pay HMRC.

You are abit wide of the mark here , if UK plc closed all these former colonies tax advantages then all that money would merely flow elsewhere . Tax differentials are hardly new , US states differ , eu allowed Ireland to undercut and attract certain businesses rapidly , Spain has canaries & ceurta .. it really isn’t a unique to Uk problem, and the 2/3 thing is perhaps down as much to banking culture and power of the city than formal political ties.

See also panama, Liberia as port of convenience, Swiss cantons..

[_Os_]

You are abit wide of the mark here , if UK plc closed all these former colonies tax advantages then all that money would merely flow elsewhere . Tax differentials are hardly new , US states differ , eu allowed Ireland to undercut and attract certain businesses rapidly , Spain has canaries & ceurta .. it really isn’t a unique to Uk problem, and the 2/3 thing is perhaps down as much to banking culture and power of the city than formal political ties.

See also panama, Liberia as port of convenience, Swiss cantons..

It depends what rules were brought in to "end it". The money wouldn't just automatically all go elsewhere, because the jurisdiction needs multiple elements for the money to be safe and usable: rule of law, a banking system, not black listed. The additional benefits are the tax regime, privacy, and things like residency rules. The primary benefit for these people is being able to keep huge amounts of money hidden.

The UK offshore system dwarfs the entire rest of the offshore system, so saying something in the UK has "offshored" when it's usually still inside the UK system, doesn't really work. The comparison to US states doesn't really work either, there's US federal taxes. The comparison to Ireland doesn't work either, because this isn't about some mythical explanation about why companies invest in Ireland that ignores Ireland's EU membership and pretends it's only about tax rules not much different to Estonia or Malta (also EU members) ... this is about where oligarchs park billions upon billions to keep it safe and hidden. A piggybank isn't about setting up a company in Dublin that actually does stuff somewhere in the world.

The UK is such a big player in this, that it is also about setting up an offshore company (usually still inside the UK) that actually does stuff somewhere in the world. But that's peanuts compared to the piggybank.

You would move your piggybank from the UK to fucking Liberia because of some additional tax? Seriously? The Liberian corporate registry is outsourced to America (probably not so private then), the phrase "Liberian banking industry" doesn't inspire confidence, nor does there being a low grade civil war next door in Ivory Coast inspire confidence. It's only used for registering shipping (the admin of that is also outsourced to America) because those are physical movable assets that aren't in Liberia. There are in truth very few places safe enough and with enough scale to move the money to.

If you had 10 ordinary people in the UK working online through an offshore company and not paying HMRC (on the company profits at least, obviously they're living on something so something is coming into the UK), there was a crackdown on that and most of them left the UK, but the minority who remained started paying HMRC on all their company profits. Would you see that as a bad thing and a huge loss?

[_Os_]

The idea that Starmer could go into the next election promising to join the CM, or have a referendum on rejoining the EU, and not destroy his chances of being elected is fantasy. The sort of fantasy politics that lost Labour the election the last time round. Voters, rightly or wrongly are scared of voting for Labour, due in part to having the media and the powerful briefing against them, but also due to lost credibility of their last manifesto that promised all and sundry, It's actually miraculous that they are in with a shout given the size of the defeat the last time around. If they do a good job, and they build trust with the electorate and EU partners, it just might be possible if the demand was, and the conditions were right to lead on that when asking for another term.

How much do you think Labour being back in with a strong chance of a majority after the 2019 election, is due to Tory utter failure and how much is to do with Labour/Starmer brilliance? Which is another way of asking how much of this change of fortunes is due to Brexit becoming a real thing and failing?

Promising to rejoin the SM and expecting to cake walk a majority is fantasy, sure. But then you go and say "if they do a good job", whilst they're committed to carrying a Brexit they do not support and think was a bad idea. They've also committed themselves to lowering debt to GDP over 5 years, they're gearing up for an austerity programme (which actually grew the UK's debt to GDP last time it was tried, but I've posted about that before). Is thinking they're going to "do a good job" given the level of handicaps, a bit of a fantasy? Then if people decide they haven't done well those who quite like Brexit will say they're remainers who never "believed" hard enough, and those who quite liked remain will say they sold out.

I'd rather Starmer didn't fraternise with Blair. However, tax less spend less in itself not a bad outcome if it doesn't harm / disenfranchise section of the populace, particularly the vulnerable. Blair's government targeted unemployment quite successfully, which reduces the burden of tax on an individual level as more pay tax. He also brought in the minimum wage, which may not have been that effective in reducing spending by reducing top up benefits and harms as a result of very low pay, but not a bad idea. The state spends far to much subsidising employers who do not pay a living wage, and who do not pay the costs for the training/education of their employees. You can spend less if you priorities health prevention, sort out the care system, and not rely on agency staff. Even school breakfast clubs can impact spending and tax positively longer term by reducing harms caused by poor nutrition, even if you do have to spend some as investment up front.

Blair was literally saying if you think you have skin issue (skin cancer? just a mole? something else? who knows) don't expect to see a doctor, or have a sample taken for lab testing, just use an app (that he seems to say you'll pay for). He also thought this would all somehow save money, that by adding more technology health costs go down. This in a country with an aging population and where health costs will definitely and unavoidably increase going forward. This is full on "we will use electronic tracking on the NI border" level unicorn thinking.

There's no chance whatever that taxes will decrease and spending will decrease in the UK. It really is a fantasy to think that's going to happen. What this Truss type unreality will do is mean the spending happens anyway, and without higher taxes or growth (but the growth isn't going to happen easily without joining the SM) that means more debt. Blair's plan isn't new, it is the Tory plan, and that meant debt fuelled consumption because the Tories refused to raise taxes. The end result is the worst of everything: taxes not exactly low, debt fueled spending, no spending to help grow the productive economy because the plan is no spending.

Reforming all those things you list - private sector employers, private sector training and education, bad health prevention, care system, agency workers, food and breakfast clubs - doesn't happen for free either. Reform tends to be expensive. You've also radically changed the costs for private businesses, when their business models fail, they close and move elsewhere. No one has to employ British people, and train them after they've already paid them and paid HMRC too.

[_Os_]

It's a decision they made a lot longer ago than that - over a year ago. It's not untruthful or morally corrupt to refuse to re-fight a war that saw Labour lose in such devastating fashion last time. Unless I am very much mistaken, Starmer isn't out there claiming that the SM/CU are bad actually and that the country is better off not being in them. Starmer and his allies, including some very pro-EU types, instead focused on the damage another public vote would bring, the difficulty involved in dealing with a Europe that we've torched our relationship with, and the risk to the party of reigniting that particular war. None of that is dishonest and it's very strange to see you make this claim.

...the Labour leader argued that the big questions over EU membership, notably over the single market, customs union and free movement of people, were “arguments of the past”, and could not be revisited.

...

The current deal had “created a hulking fatberg of red tape and bureaucracy, one that is hampering the flow of British business”, Starmer said. “We will break that barrier down, unclog the arteries of our economy and allow trade to flourish once more.”

However, he stressed that that any debate on rejoining the EU would be to “look back over our shoulder” and jeopardise public faith in politics, adding: “So let me be very clear: with Labour, Britain will not go back into the EU. We will not be joining the single market. We will not be joining a customs union.”

Ben Bradshaw, the Exeter MP and former minister who is a leading pro-EU voice in the Labour party, said Starmer’s approach was “absolutely right”.

He said: “There is no prospect of us rejoining the EU, single market or customs union anytime soon, not least because [Boris] Johnson has so completely destroyed trust with our European neighbours that any such move would be on far worse terms than those we had before we left.

“There is, however, plenty that we can do to reduce the enormous damage being done to our economy and our relationship with our allies, by fixing the many problems with Johnson’s botched Brexit deal.”

Hilary Benn, who formerly chaired the Brexit Commons committee and was another strong proponent of a second referendum, told BBC Radio 4’s the World at One that even rejoining the single market would require a public vote.

“And I have tell you, in my view there is absolutely no appetite for that whatsoever,” he said.

I will say it's very strange reading smart people acting like rejoining the SM/CU is like flicking a switch. It's an incredibly facile perspective. I want us back in the EU as much as anyone and even those small steps are going to be very difficult currently.

Everyone knows they think Brexit is shit. They're choosing not to fight on it because it gives them a stronger chance in an election, nothing more than that, everyone knows that too. But what does that leave them with? Getting rid of SPS checks and regulatory alignment with the EU are left dong a lot of work. Labour are going to try and make a Tory Brexit "work" somehow, there'll be no hiding behind a load of waffle they'll have to make Brexit work for real. They're already building their own form of exceptionalism about it "only a stupid person would think it's easier to join the SM, much more simple believing in Brexit".

It's disingenuous because they probably don't even believe it themselves, just a means to an ends, just another Brexit con.

I agree with your concerns on this. I made a comment a few days ago about Labour giving up the right to be called a progressive party. I am not going to assume that actually it's the Big Bad Blair running things, but it is concerning because of his cachet as the man who made Labour a governing party again and his obvious appeal to Starmer, and I'm not going to dismiss it.

It would be interesting knowing how many of his Institute's former employees (which probably number in the 1000s by now) are being parachuted into seats. Blair's network must easily be the best in the UK. Policy is hard, he has £10s of millions to work with and stacks of good people, he's simply got more firepower than anyone else. Next level entryism.

All sorts of Blair stooges are coming out of the woodwork now. My favourite was McTernan (ex-Blair political secretary) saying on Newsnight that Labour was the home of Thatcherism and "Thatcherites have to come home to the Labour party", Kirsty Wark's face was "wtf" before questioning him on that, to which he just doubled down on Labour being a Thatcherite party. Hilarious.

[Insane_Homer]

2 Massive thumping and narrow win for the cunts

Summary

Labour has won the Selby and Ainsty by-election, overturning a majority of 20,137 votes - the biggest it has ever overcome at a by-election, Keir Mather becomes the youngest MP currently in the House of Commons, at 25 years old

Liberal Democrats won the Somerton and Frome by-election by more than 11,000 votes. Party leader Sir Ed Davey said the party was "firmly back" in the West Country after Sarah Dyke overturned a Conservative majority of 19,000 votes

But the Conservatives narrowly held off Labour in Boris Johnson's former Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency by 495 votes after a recount. Labour had hoped to win the seat but blamed the loss on the expansion of the Ultra Low Emissions Zone in the capital under London Mayor Sadiq Khan

Bye bye Rishi

[C69]

Labour will need to sort ULEZ out apparently.
However they still increased their vote vote in Uxbridge by 6%

Clearly the nod and a wink will mean Labour and Lim Dems will know exactly where to focus their campaigning at the next GE.
The Red Wall Tory MPs will be totally wiped out and it's going to be carnage.

I think the Tories arrogance is still astounding.

Rayner acknowledged that Khan's ULEZ expansion is a vote loser so let's see a bit more flip flopping

[I like neeps]

I presume Labours brexit policy will be to improve on Sunak's deal without specifying what improvement actually is then when in power every inclination they make to move to closer alignment with Europe will be met with screaming tantrums by the right wing press. And we've seen how Sir Kier responds to focus group pressure. So it's going to be more fudge, more national decline, closer and closer to Kemi Badenoch.

What is actually an interesting point though. Brexit is "done" yet no party actually has a public position on their trade policy. It's just not even mentioned at all.

[_Os_]

Rayner acknowledged that Khan's ULEZ expansion is a vote loser so let's see a bit more flip flopping

That looks like a cope I'm afraid.

Greens held their vote or grew in each constituency, up to 3rd in all three. Well ahead of Labour in Somerton & Frome now, grew their vote there moved up to third ahead of Labour (they were fourth last time). In Uxbridge and South Ruislip it looks like the Lib Dem voters got behind Labour, their vote is down in absolute terms (number of votes) and relative terms (%), the Greens vote is down in absolute terms (number of votes) but up in relative terms (%), Greens move up up to third (fourth last time). Labour would've won Uxbridge and South Ruislip with the Greens votes. Selby and Ainsty Greens held all their vote, up to third there (fifth last time).

So in those three the Greens are now above Labour in one, prevented Labour winning another, and have had no slippage to Labour in the only one Labour won.

[Tichtheid]

I seem to recall that Johnson won the London mayorship due to votes in the outer belt against a congestion charge. Now it's being said that his constituency was won mainly down to votes cast for similar reasons - in the same week that climate scientists are saying that we will most likely not reach the goal of keeping to "only" a 2 degree rise in temp, the consequences of which will see much of the East End under water.

There is a life-threatening heat wave going on in Europe, floods in India and South Korea.

[SaintK]

The Red Wall Tory MPs will be totally wiped out and it's going to be carnage.

Hopefully we will see the back of the likes of Gullis, Anderson and Clarke!

[I like neeps]

Labour will need to sort ULEZ out apparently.
However they still increased their vote vote in Uxbridge by 6%

Clearly the nod and a wink will mean Labour and Lim Dems will know exactly where to focus their campaigning at the next GE.
The Red Wall Tory MPs will be totally wiped out and it's going to be carnage.

I think the Tories arrogance is still astounding.

Rayner acknowledged that Khan's ULEZ expansion is a vote loser so let's see a bit more flip flopping

ULEZ isn't even Khan's policy choice. Shapps made expansion of ULEZ a requirement for increased tfls funding settlement last year.

[_Os_]

ULEZ isn't even Khan's policy choice. Shapps made expansion of ULEZ a requirement for increased tfls funding settlement last year.

No a left leaning Labour mayor of London is responsible for losing it, on a green issue when the literal Greens came third.

Sounds like Khan is going to be purged from the Labour party for this.

The loss of course has nothing at all to do with the Labour leader appearing on stage with the most hated living person in British politics, Tony Blair, in the days before. A move guaranteed to get anyone motivated to kamikaze vote for the Greens specifically to harm Labour up and voting. Nothing to do with that, all Khan.

[SaintK]

Labour will need to sort ULEZ out apparently.
However they still increased their vote vote in Uxbridge by 6%

Clearly the nod and a wink will mean Labour and Lim Dems will know exactly where to focus their campaigning at the next GE.
The Red Wall Tory MPs will be totally wiped out and it's going to be carnage.

I think the Tories arrogance is still astounding.

Rayner acknowledged that Khan's ULEZ expansion is a vote loser so let's see a bit more flip flopping

ULEZ isn't even Khan's policy choice. Shapps made expansion of ULEZ a requirement for increased tfls funding settlement last year.

And it was Johnson who originally introduced it.

[I like neeps]

ULEZ isn't even Khan's policy choice. Shapps made expansion of ULEZ a requirement for increased tfls funding settlement last year.

No a left leaning Labour mayor of London is responsible for losing it, on a green issue when the literal Greens came third.

Sounds like Khan is going to be purged from the Labour party for this.

The loss of course has nothing at all to do with the Labour leader appearing on stage with the most hated living person in British politics, Tony Blair, in the days before. A move guaranteed to get anyone motivated to kamikaze vote for the Greens specifically to harm Labour up and voting. Nothing to do with that, all Khan.

I do think we'll see a lot of urban voters move to the Greens from Labour as a protest vote against Starmer but I don't think it'll be hugely significant overall and it's probably not because he was hobnobbing with Blair two days ago. More because he's been modelling himself on Blair for two years.

Starmer is going to win the next GE without saying anything substantive. That's what Selby and Frome last night suggested anyway.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

Labour will need to sort ULEZ out apparently.
However they still increased their vote vote in Uxbridge by 6%

Clearly the nod and a wink will mean Labour and Lim Dems will know exactly where to focus their campaigning at the next GE.
The Red Wall Tory MPs will be totally wiped out and it's going to be carnage.

I think the Tories arrogance is still astounding.

Rayner acknowledged that Khan's ULEZ expansion is a vote loser so let's see a bit more flip flopping

ULEZ isn't even Khan's policy choice. Shapps made expansion of ULEZ a requirement for increased tfls funding settlement last year.

And it was Johnson who originally introduced it.

It's not even that stringent. My 2004 petrol* car passes the standard (same with the Glasgow zone). 2004.

I suspect there's lots of wailing and moaning and reading the Daily Mail without actually checking the facts, as usual.

*Diesels will be more impacted, granted, though I checked my previous car, a 2016 focus, and that was fine too. So how many people will actually be affected?