We have far too many people who are just not willing to contribute to society and prefer to hide their considerable wealth in tax havens, rather than finance a stable culture.
Starmer and Reeves targeting sick, disabled and pensioners will not get them a second term. They'd lose an election called now. What they are doing in the Labour Party, I'm not sure. Are they colour-blind?
Theres many facets to your first statement, whilst I agree on those (hopefully few) with tax havens abroad, there's also a major issue (for many reasons) that continues to worsen on those of working age on some form of incapacity/disability benefit. Over 4.2m now. Pre Covid around 20,000 new claims a month is now dwarfed by almost 100,000 new claims a month. The cost pre covid of circa £12bn per year, now that's approaching 50bn and increasing daily. Expected to reach £64bn on current trend by 2028.
The pensioners (by way of winter fuel) I partly agree with, what I don't agree with is the level it's been brought down to or how it's handled. They could easily have made a small change to pensioners taxation to reclaim a lot of it simply by making it taxable and not tax free as currently.
The counties creaking for many many reasons, I'm not envisaging any parliament in my lifetime fixing it.
The question is "are the new incapacity/disability claims genuine or bogus?" We have an NHS system with 7 million on the waiting list for treatment. Perhaps dealing with that might reduce claimants. The maths do no excuse the lack of principle.
Not sure what your comment on pensions is about, I pay tax on my state pension. It is not tax free.
That it is a Labour Party clamping down indiscriminately on benefits and pensioners is inexcusable.
Wasn't suggesting they were bogus claims, but the number is a problem and suspect there are various and numerous causes, this is a good read:
Until we establish the cause we can't do an awful lot about it. But it's a hell of an ever increasing amount of money, nearly 20% of income tax collected annually to put in perspective.
I was saying the winter fuel allowance is a tax free benefit, not the state pension. Another way was to keep as was but to Tax the benefit.
We have far too many people who are just not willing to contribute to society and prefer to hide their considerable wealth in tax havens, rather than finance a stable culture.
Starmer and Reeves targeting sick, disabled and pensioners will not get them a second term. They'd lose an election called now. What they are doing in the Labour Party, I'm not sure. Are they colour-blind?
Theres many facets to your first statement, whilst I agree on those (hopefully few) with tax havens abroad, there's also a major issue (for many reasons) that continues to worsen on those of working age on some form of incapacity/disability benefit. Over 4.2m now. Pre Covid around 20,000 new claims a month is now dwarfed by almost 100,000 new claims a month. The cost pre covid of circa £12bn per year, now that's approaching 50bn and increasing daily. Expected to reach £64bn on current trend by 2028.
The pensioners (by way of winter fuel) I partly agree with, what I don't agree with is the level it's been brought down to or how it's handled. They could easily have made a small change to pensioners taxation to reclaim a lot of it simply by making it taxable and not tax free as currently.
The counties creaking for many many reasons, I'm not envisaging any parliament in my lifetime fixing it.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment is the issue not that the majority of pensioners don’t do a tax return and in practice therefore the ability to recover the tax without extra admin expense is limited?
Pretty much everyone drawing a private pension is an income tax payer, the pension company deduct tax based on what HMRC inform them of (as the government do not deduct tax at source from the state pension), adding another few hundred to that number is not difficult. Or simpler remove the benefit and increase the state pension by a few hundred. Many ways of doing it to achieve the same goal without effecting some of the most needy.
The pension company apply the tax code.
The majority I assume will have the standard allowance (not all).
The benefit is not paid by the pension company. People may have several pensions paying too.
It’s not quite as administratively simple as we might want it to be. But again I do agree there must be a better way than currently.
My thought was it could have been akin to child allowance where its tapered at a household income level BUT this also leads to adjustments via a tax return and my point is I suspect most pensioners don’t file tax returns.
Yes the state pension is paid gross, if there is tax to pay then generally it’s done through your coding (and applied to private pension) certainly how I’ve seen it done anyway. It should be relatively simple to have done. The easiest of course was to do away with it and add a sum to the state pension for all. Those who are tax payers would have paid an element back and stops a cliff edge. or like the £100k plus salaries, start to reduce the personal allowance.
The economy in my opinion encompasses street sleepers and the poorest and most dispossessed and most unfortunate in society. In order to have an economy working for everybody the first priority should be to improve the situation of the weakest and worst off otherwise does ‘the economy’ have any real meaning? You can order the economy of an individual household where the bills are paid and the adults and eldest children have plenty, but it would be failing if everything is seemingly in order except the youngest child is the one in the outside shed shivering in rags gnawing on dry bread with virtually nothing.
We have far too many people who are just not willing to contribute to society and prefer to hide their considerable wealth in tax havens, rather than finance a stable culture.
Starmer and Reeves targeting sick, disabled and pensioners will not get them a second term. They'd lose an election called now. What they are doing in the Labour Party, I'm not sure. Are they colour-blind?
We have far too many people who are just not willing to contribute to society and prefer to hide their considerable wealth in tax havens, rather than finance a stable culture.
Starmer and Reeves targeting sick, disabled and pensioners will not get them a second term. They'd lose an election called now. What they are doing in the Labour Party, I'm not sure. Are they colour-blind?
Not true apparently.
Labour leads the Conservatives by 9.7 percentage points, which would deliver a Labour majority government (50% probability) or a Labour minority government (39% probability) and a 90% probability of being the largest party. This, however, is totally irrelevant, as there will not be a General Election this year, or for several more years. Totally irrelevant.
(In the same way that the polling on Rejoin (46.8%) vs Stay Out (33.2%) shows a significant majority of people who would vote to rejoin the EU were there to be a referendum on the subject. But, more importantly, there won't be one. Not during the current parliament, in my view.
We have far too many people who are just not willing to contribute to society and prefer to hide their considerable wealth in tax havens, rather than finance a stable culture.
Starmer and Reeves targeting sick, disabled and pensioners will not get them a second term. They'd lose an election called now. What they are doing in the Labour Party, I'm not sure. Are they colour-blind?
Not true apparently.
Labour leads the Conservatives by 9.7 percentage points, which would deliver a Labour majority government (50% probability) or a Labour minority government (39% probability) and a 90% probability of being the largest party. This, however, is totally irrelevant, as there will not be a General Election this year, or for several more years. Totally irrelevant.
(In the same way that the polling on Rejoin (46.8%) vs Stay Out (33.2%) shows a significant majority of people who would vote to rejoin the EU were there to be a referendum on the subject. But, more importantly, there won't be one. Not during the current parliament, in my view.
‘Rejoin’ is a stupid and misleading term and it absolutely can’t happen at the stroke of a pen. For a start leave as voted for hasn’t happened because Northern Ireland has been treated differently to the rest of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and therefore the word ‘Brexit’ has come into being probably in order to obscure that truth. However in the status that Northern Ireland now has in relation to the European Union lies the seeds of creating a better relationship with the European Union. If the situation in Northern Ireland can be wrangled and improved upon to encompass the rest of the United Kingdom the country might get somewhere better economically.
I would impose a tax similar to the company car tax, but impose it on all work perks, be it free travel (you might want to include all the oap cheap / free fares), free / subsidised meals etc, entertainment, all things that are entered on the parliamentary register. Ban all gifts from lobbyists and if possible ban lobbyists.
Any age related free prescription are only for retired people if you carry on after retirement then you pay. No doubt there’s loads more, let everyone pay there fair whack.
So to summarise if your working and it’s a freebie you pay tax on it.
I would impose a tax similar to the company car tax, but impose it on all work perks, be it free travel (you might want to include all the oap cheap / free fares), free / subsidised meals etc, entertainment, all things that are entered on the parliamentary register. Ban all gifts from lobbyists and if possible ban lobbyists.
Any age related free prescription are only for retired people if you carry on after retirement then you pay. No doubt there’s loads more, let everyone pay there fair whack.
So to summarise if your working and it’s a freebie you pay tax on it.
Would you include the cost of flights on a business trip?
I would impose a tax similar to the company car tax, but impose it on all work perks, be it free travel (you might want to include all the oap cheap / free fares), free / subsidised meals etc, entertainment, all things that are entered on the parliamentary register. Ban all gifts from lobbyists and if possible ban lobbyists.
Any age related free prescription are only for retired people if you carry on after retirement then you pay. No doubt there’s loads more, let everyone pay there fair whack.
So to summarise if your working and it’s a freebie you pay tax on it.
Would you include the cost of flights on a business trip?
That’s a difficult one if your going strictly on business then probably not, but if you undertook private stuff such as attend a football match say after / before the meeting then, yes, although the yes part would most probably be impossible to prove / police. I would also include trains, boats and chauffeured car in this.
I would impose a tax similar to the company car tax, but impose it on all work perks, be it free travel (you might want to include all the oap cheap / free fares), free / subsidised meals etc, entertainment, all things that are entered on the parliamentary register. Ban all gifts from lobbyists and if possible ban lobbyists.
Any age related free prescription are only for retired people if you carry on after retirement then you pay. No doubt there’s loads more, let everyone pay there fair whack.
So to summarise if your working and it’s a freebie you pay tax on it.
Would you include the cost of flights on a business trip?
That’s a difficult one if your going strictly on business then probably not, but if you undertook private stuff such as attend a football match say after / before the meeting then, yes, although the yes part would most probably be impossible to prove / police. I would also include trains, boats and chauffeured car in this.
Any benefits in kind (BIK) are already taxable. I pay tax on private health care, private GP etc. if I travel purely for a business meeting I don’t, if you want to tax me on that I’ll be paying more tax than I earn!
Not sure the retirement part works, what if I retire at 55, can I get free prescriptions?
I would impose a tax similar to the company car tax, but impose it on all work perks, be it free travel (you might want to include all the oap cheap / free fares), free / subsidised meals etc, entertainment, all things that are entered on the parliamentary register. Ban all gifts from lobbyists and if possible ban lobbyists.
Any age related free prescription are only for retired people if you carry on after retirement then you pay. No doubt there’s loads more, let everyone pay there fair whack.
So to summarise if your working and it’s a freebie you pay tax on it.
Would you include the cost of flights on a business trip?
That’s a difficult one if your going strictly on business then probably not, but if you undertook private stuff such as attend a football match say after / before the meeting then, yes, although the yes part would most probably be impossible to prove / police. I would also include trains, boats and chauffeured car in this.
Any benefits in kind (BIK) are already taxable. I pay tax on private health care, private GP etc. if I travel purely for a business meeting I don’t, if you want to tax me on that I’ll be paying more tax than I earn!
Not sure the retirement part works, what if I retire at 55, can I get free prescriptions?
So you are telling me that Stamer (as an easy example) is paying 45% on his free football tickets, clothes, glasses etc, that train drivers pay BIK on free train travel etc etc. i understand re travel and flying, in my opinion it’s a company decision how you travel and if any levy is to be imposed then it should really be on the company but not the individuals, but my bug bear it isn’t that way with company cars so why flights? I’m fully aware of BIK as I ran a company and spent a lot of time looking into this subject and came to the conclusion that there’s no easy remedy, but only a small number of people are getting taxed on BIK whilst the vast majority (normally in higher positions or well paid) get away with murder, again as an easy example ministers etc. but director of companies who attend lunches etc, managers who get invited to the cricket, the list goes on. We actually banned any attendance to sporting events, etc., as it was only the well off employees and owners who benefitted, but we did suggest if whoever was invited wanted to pass the invite on to a young apprentice or a office worker, then it would be ok. Our company only had 30 employees so perhaps there are stricter restrictions in larger organisations.
Re the free prescription, sorry I might not have been clear, it would only apply to those over the state retirement age, which I think is 66 now.
I would impose a tax similar to the company car tax, but impose it on all work perks, be it free travel (you might want to include all the oap cheap / free fares), free / subsidised meals etc, entertainment, all things that are entered on the parliamentary register. Ban all gifts from lobbyists and if possible ban lobbyists.
Any age related free prescription are only for retired people if you carry on after retirement then you pay. No doubt there’s loads more, let everyone pay there fair whack.
So to summarise if your working and it’s a freebie you pay tax on it.
Would you include the cost of flights on a business trip?
That’s a difficult one if your going strictly on business then probably not, but if you undertook private stuff such as attend a football match say after / before the meeting then, yes, although the yes part would most probably be impossible to prove / police. I would also include trains, boats and chauffeured car in this.
Any benefits in kind (BIK) are already taxable. I pay tax on private health care, private GP etc. if I travel purely for a business meeting I don’t, if you want to tax me on that I’ll be paying more tax than I earn!
Not sure the retirement part works, what if I retire at 55, can I get free prescriptions?
So you are telling me that Stamer (as an easy example) is paying 45% on his free football tickets, clothes, glasses etc, that train drivers pay BIK on free train travel etc etc. i understand re travel and flying, in my opinion it’s a company decision how you travel and if any levy is to be imposed then it should really be on the company but not the individuals, but my bug bear it isn’t that way with company cars so why flights? I’m fully aware of BIK as I ran a company and spent a lot of time looking into this subject and came to the conclusion that there’s no easy remedy, but only a small number of people are getting taxed on BIK whilst the vast majority (normally in higher positions or well paid) get away with murder, again as an easy example ministers etc. but director of companies who attend lunches etc, managers who get invited to the cricket, the list goes on. We actually banned any attendance to sporting events, etc., as it was only the well off employees and owners who benefitted, but we did suggest if whoever was invited wanted to pass the invite on to a young apprentice or a office worker, then it would be ok. Our company only had 30 employees so perhaps there are stricter restrictions in larger organisations.
Re the free prescription, sorry I might not have been clear, it would only apply to those over the state retirement age, which I think is 66 now.
I work for a very large organisation, and yes there are heavy restrictions, the sign off I had to go through to take a client to football as the total cost was over £150 was painful.
BIK is only employer to employee. Every company should have rules around what is deemed acceptable to accept if for no other reason than anti bribery.
i don’t know the rules on ministers, but some of what you mention I agree on, it wouldn’t be accepted in business. If I accepted the level of expenditure on clothes, football etc that Starmer has I would be sacked for gross misconduct based on my company’s rules.
so the prescription’s are two fold, not working and over 66? So over 66 and working or under 66 and not working it doesn’t apply? That’d be hard to police and seems unfair.
I would impose a tax similar to the company car tax, but impose it on all work perks, be it free travel (you might want to include all the oap cheap / free fares), free / subsidised meals etc, entertainment, all things that are entered on the parliamentary register. Ban all gifts from lobbyists and if possible ban lobbyists.
Any age related free prescription are only for retired people if you carry on after retirement then you pay. No doubt there’s loads more, let everyone pay there fair whack.
So to summarise if your working and it’s a freebie you pay tax on it.
Would you include the cost of flights on a business trip?
That’s a difficult one if your going strictly on business then probably not, but if you undertook private stuff such as attend a football match say after / before the meeting then, yes, although the yes part would most probably be impossible to prove / police. I would also include trains, boats and chauffeured car in this.
Any benefits in kind (BIK) are already taxable. I pay tax on private health care, private GP etc. if I travel purely for a business meeting I don’t, if you want to tax me on that I’ll be paying more tax than I earn!
Not sure the retirement part works, what if I retire at 55, can I get free prescriptions?
So you are telling me that Stamer (as an easy example) is paying 45% on his free football tickets, clothes, glasses etc, that train drivers pay BIK on free train travel etc etc. i understand re travel and flying, in my opinion it’s a company decision how you travel and if any levy is to be imposed then it should really be on the company but not the individuals, but my bug bear it isn’t that way with company cars so why flights? I’m fully aware of BIK as I ran a company and spent a lot of time looking into this subject and came to the conclusion that there’s no easy remedy, but only a small number of people are getting taxed on BIK whilst the vast majority (normally in higher positions or well paid) get away with murder, again as an easy example ministers etc. but director of companies who attend lunches etc, managers who get invited to the cricket, the list goes on. We actually banned any attendance to sporting events, etc., as it was only the well off employees and owners who benefitted, but we did suggest if whoever was invited wanted to pass the invite on to a young apprentice or a office worker, then it would be ok. Our company only had 30 employees so perhaps there are stricter restrictions in larger organisations.
Re the free prescription, sorry I might not have been clear, it would only apply to those over the state retirement age, which I think is 66 now.
I work for a very large organisation, and yes there are heavy restrictions, the sign off I had to go through to take a client to football as the total cost was over £150 was painful.
BIK is only employer to employee. Every company should have rules around what is deemed acceptable to accept if for no other reason than anti bribery.
i don’t know the rules on ministers, but some of what you mention I agree on, it wouldn’t be accepted in business. If I accepted the level of expenditure on clothes, football etc that Starmer has I would be sacked for gross misconduct based on my company’s rules.
so the prescription’s are two fold, not working and over 66? So over 66 and working or under 66 and not working it doesn’t apply? That’d be hard to police and seems unfair.
Prescription are probably unfair, to be fair but in my opinion there are far to many prescriptions dished out, as an example I could (but never have taken up the prescription) have prescribed 100 low dose aspirins cost to buy around £2.50 how much does the NHS get charged for those. Think I better shut up now and go back to sleep, Cheers Rob.
If a pensioner is still working, it is quite possible that it is because they need to. I am still working 3 days a week because the rental market has gone mad and we can't afford to rent anything cheaper that is decent locally. Staying where we are currently, is the best option whilst I am still able to work. We do have private pensions, but they are not massive and we will eventually have to move north if I give up work completely.
Council Tax is no indicator of someone's wealth, we rent a 2 bedroom bungalow which is band E. A similar property in the north would be a band B or C at the most.
I don't understand this sudden wish to hammer pensioners, we're not all wealthy. I've worked all my life, paying tax and National Insurance.
This is the problem though, everyone looks at their own demographic and can give you a million reasons why you shouldn't tax them, but instead why you should tax everyone else.
If a pensioner is still working, it is quite possible that it is because they need to. I am still working 3 days a week because the rental market has gone mad and we can't afford to rent anything cheaper that is decent locally. Staying where we are currently, is the best option whilst I am still able to work. We do have private pensions, but they are not massive and we will eventually have to move north if I give up work completely.
Council Tax is no indicator of someone's wealth, we rent a 2 bedroom bungalow which is band E. A similar property in the north would be a band B or C at the most.
I don't understand this sudden wish to hammer pensioners, we're not all wealthy. I've worked all my life, paying tax and National Insurance.
The council tax banding is only relevant within your area. A band G/H in certain parts of London pay less than a band B in say Blackpool.
I don’t think it’s a case of hammering pensioners per se, but clearly where money can come from is being looked at, and whilst like any cohort there are rich and poor pensioners, they will look to collect more from those as they say ‘with the broadest shoulders’ (IHT a prime example), but as per usual they’ll get it wrong.
the shot in the foot is the promise to not increase certain taxes (NI & Income tax predominantly) for ‘working people’ which narrows significantly where money can come from, they shouldn’t have promised that, I do think that will change before the next election, although the fiscal drag on freezing bands and the tax free allowance will in effect see an increase in Income Tax, it’s almost a given that will extend past 2028.
we’ll know in a week, but it’s coming clearer as we approach that IHT, capital gains and Employers NI are on the cards. Of course employers NI will simply trickle down to the workers, so in reality it is a tax on working people…….
If a pensioner is still working, it is quite possible that it is because they need to. I am still working 3 days a week because the rental market has gone mad and we can't afford to rent anything cheaper that is decent locally. Staying where we are currently, is the best option whilst I am still able to work. We do have private pensions, but they are not massive and we will eventually have to move north if I give up work completely.
Council Tax is no indicator of someone's wealth, we rent a 2 bedroom bungalow which is band E. A similar property in the north would be a band B or C at the most.
I don't understand this sudden wish to hammer pensioners, we're not all wealthy. I've worked all my life, paying tax and National Insurance.
The council tax banding is only relevant within your area. A band G/H in certain parts of London pay less than a band B in say Blackpool.
I don’t think it’s a case of hammering pensioners per se, but clearly where money can come from is being looked at, and whilst like any cohort there are rich and poor pensioners, they will look to collect more from those as they say ‘with the broadest shoulders’ (IHT a prime example), but as per usual they’ll get it wrong.
the shot in the foot is the promise to not increase certain taxes (NI & Income tax predominantly) for ‘working people’ which narrows significantly where money can come from, they shouldn’t have promised that, I do think that will change before the next election, although the fiscal drag on freezing bands and the tax free allowance will in effect see an increase in Income Tax, it’s almost a given that will extend past 2028.
we’ll know in a week, but it’s coming clearer as we approach that IHT, capital gains and Employers NI are on the cards. Of course employers NI will simply trickle down to the workers, so in reality it is a tax on working people…….
No no no ! It’s been stated on hear that trickle down economics doesn’t work! 😉😉😆😆
The reaction to the budget isn't that important as long as it doesn't tank the economy as it probably won't. What is important is things start to look better in a couple of years. Then there is a direction of travel that we have not had since 2008. That is the challenge and if it is not met, I'm not sure where the country goes from there.
I don’t think they are targeting the vulnerable? I agree they got the WFA changes wrong (in my view) and that there were better ways to achieve the same result.
as mentioned they backed themselves into a corner re NI with their election pledge, but I still expect at some point in this parliament to back track on that, but clearly they are in effect likely to reverse it anyway, except they will do so by passing it on to the employers contribution rather than employee simply to, by cloak and dagger, stand by their pledge. Of course we all know that ultimately it’ll affect the workers.
i think it’s high time we got rid of NI for employees and simply add it to income tax. It’s no longer ring fenced really and hasn’t been for years. That way you could also help the lower earners by putting more of it on 40/45% tax payers and not so much on 20%.
i can see a negative reaction in the markets to the budget, all be it short term, I’ve downsized my UK holding this week in preparation!!
we need growth more than anything and that’s where their work should be placed. If we can grow a lot of the rest will take care of itself (financially).
Labour are killing the economy and now they are getting into bed with the lefties in America. This has to stop and we all regret now kicking Rishi out.
I know this isn't directly the economy but in my mind will have serious secondary effects:
Id pay all MPs £200k, and abolish all second jobs of any kind. It would be good to have a lot more people who are real professionals in the job, as although I can point to a good few MPs in parliament that impress me, the standard level of parliamentarian is abysmal. Look at how shit so many ministers/shadow ministers seem to be, and then remember they are generally the best of the bunch...
I work with dozens of people that are more impressive than most MPs, but wouldn't want to take the paycut, and nor should they in my opinion.
We could have more talented people who understand the issues making decisions, it would cost approx £90m-£100m a year I think.
I know this isn't directly the economy but in my mind will have serious secondary effects:
Id pay all MPs £200k, and abolish all second jobs of any kind. It would be good to have a lot more people who are real professionals in the job, as although I can point to a good few MPs in parliament that impress me, the standard level of parliamentarian is abysmal. Look at how shit so many ministers/shadow ministers seem to be, and then remember they are generally the best of the bunch...
I work with dozens of people that are more impressive than most MPs, but wouldn't want to take the paycut, and nor should they in my opinion.
We could have more talented people who understand the issues making decisions, it would cost approx £90m-£100m a year I think.
Seriously? You'd prevent MPs from working in their professions and gaining insight and experience of working people?
Should Fiona Bruce MP be forced to close her law practice? Should Dr Caroline Johnson, Maria Caulfield or Dr Dan Poulter be refused permissions to carry on working in the NHS as a Paediatrician, nurse and psychiatrist, respectively? And should Daniel Zeichner, Layla Moran or Chris Skidmore be prevented from working in academia, advising universities? Should Geoffrey Cox be refused permission to work as a barrister?
What successful industry leader would ever risk being elected, if they had to give up their career? Why would preventing people from working in their profession result in an increase in talent?
Banning people from working outside Westminster is a sure-fire way to ensure the talent pool inside Westminster is diluted, substantially.
Comments
or like the £100k plus salaries, start to reduce the personal allowance.
In order to have an economy working for everybody the first priority should be to improve the situation of the weakest and worst off otherwise does ‘the economy’ have any real meaning?
You can order the economy of an individual household where the bills are paid and the adults and eldest children have plenty, but it would be failing if everything is seemingly in order except the youngest child is the one in the outside shed shivering in rags gnawing on dry bread with virtually nothing.
(In the same way that the polling on Rejoin (46.8%) vs Stay Out (33.2%) shows a significant majority of people who would vote to rejoin the EU were there to be a referendum on the subject. But, more importantly, there won't be one. Not during the current parliament, in my view.
For a start leave as voted for hasn’t happened because Northern Ireland has been treated differently to the rest of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and therefore the word ‘Brexit’ has come into being probably in order to obscure that truth.
However in the status that Northern Ireland now has in relation to the European Union lies the seeds of creating a better relationship with the European Union.
If the situation in Northern Ireland can be wrangled and improved upon to encompass the rest of the United Kingdom the country might get somewhere better economically.
BIK is only employer to employee. Every company should have rules around what is deemed acceptable to accept if for no other reason than anti bribery.
i don’t know the rules on ministers, but some of what you mention I agree on, it wouldn’t be accepted in business. If I accepted the level of expenditure on clothes, football etc that Starmer has I would be sacked for gross misconduct based on my company’s rules.
so the prescription’s are two fold, not working and over 66? So over 66 and working or under 66 and not working it doesn’t apply? That’d be hard to police and seems unfair.
Council Tax is no indicator of someone's wealth, we rent a 2 bedroom bungalow which is band E. A similar property in the north would be a band B or C at the most.
I don't understand this sudden wish to hammer pensioners, we're not all wealthy. I've worked all my life, paying tax and National Insurance.
I don’t think it’s a case of hammering pensioners per se, but clearly where money can come from is being looked at, and whilst like any cohort there are rich and poor pensioners, they will look to collect more from those as they say ‘with the broadest shoulders’ (IHT a prime example), but as per usual they’ll get it wrong.
the shot in the foot is the promise to not increase certain taxes (NI & Income tax predominantly) for ‘working people’ which narrows significantly where money can come from, they shouldn’t have promised that, I do think that will change before the next election, although the fiscal drag on freezing bands and the tax free allowance will in effect see an increase in Income Tax, it’s almost a given that will extend past 2028.
we’ll know in a week, but it’s coming clearer as we approach that IHT, capital gains and Employers NI are on the cards. Of course employers NI will simply trickle down to the workers, so in reality it is a tax on working people…….
Reeves should have cancelled the last NI reduction which was totally unfunded (as was largely the previous one) and taken the political hit.
as mentioned they backed themselves into a corner re NI with their election pledge, but I still expect at some point in this parliament to back track on that, but clearly they are in effect likely to reverse it anyway, except they will do so by passing it on to the employers contribution rather than employee simply to, by cloak and dagger, stand by their pledge. Of course we all know that ultimately it’ll affect the workers.
i think it’s high time we got rid of NI for employees and simply add it to income tax. It’s no longer ring fenced really and hasn’t been for years. That way you could also help the lower earners by putting more of it on 40/45% tax payers and not so much on 20%.
i can see a negative reaction in the markets to the budget, all be it short term, I’ve downsized my UK holding this week in preparation!!
we need growth more than anything and that’s where their work should be placed. If we can grow a lot of the rest will take care of itself (financially).
Id pay all MPs £200k, and abolish all second jobs of any kind. It would be good to have a lot more people who are real professionals in the job, as although I can point to a good few MPs in parliament that impress me, the standard level of parliamentarian is abysmal. Look at how shit so many ministers/shadow ministers seem to be, and then remember they are generally the best of the bunch...
I work with dozens of people that are more impressive than most MPs, but wouldn't want to take the paycut, and nor should they in my opinion.
We could have more talented people who understand the issues making decisions, it would cost approx £90m-£100m a year I think.
Should Fiona Bruce MP be forced to close her law practice? Should Dr Caroline Johnson, Maria Caulfield or Dr Dan Poulter be refused permissions to carry on working in the NHS as a Paediatrician, nurse and psychiatrist, respectively? And should Daniel Zeichner, Layla Moran or Chris Skidmore be prevented from working in academia, advising universities? Should Geoffrey Cox be refused permission to work as a barrister?
What successful industry leader would ever risk being elected, if they had to give up their career? Why would preventing people from working in their profession result in an increase in talent?
Banning people from working outside Westminster is a sure-fire way to ensure the talent pool inside Westminster is diluted, substantially.