THE FOURTH OF JULY

[TRITON]

Starmer failed to deal adequately with £2000 tax issue (correct or otherwise)

Not in the slightest. He knew about it, knew it was false, but let Sunak babble on. Rest of this election they're going to hold Sunak up as a liar.

"Give a man enough rope and he'll hang himself"

 

[Jacob]

.......

There is no justification asserting wealthy are likely to be more corrupt than poor - the reverse possibly applies as the poorer may be more motivated by money that the wealthy don't need.

Since when have the wealthy not been motivated in pursuit and retention of the wealth "they don't need"? And sometimes even ended up in prison for it!
Listen how they skwark at the slightest hint of increasing taxation on the wealth they don't need, even if it is being spent on good causes such as alleviation of poverty and support of public services, where people do need it!
Congratulations on spotting that they don't need it however - all the more reason to tax them as it is worth less to them - you can only eat one dinner, as the saying goes.
PS as for corruption and crime - the only difference is that the wealthy tend to commit much bigger crimes than the less well off, as you'd expect e.g. compare/contrast tax evasion and benefit fraud.

 

[Chris152]

Given the choice between a man buying land for his parents' donkey sanctuary and an entitled hedge-fund wide-boy bank-rolled by his billionaire father-in-law who bet against British banks during the 2007 financial crash, I know which one gets my vote.

Jonathan Pie - the f-word crops up a few times, so don't watch if you're unhappy with that:

 

[niemeyjt]

I was listening to politician on the radio - cannot remember who or what party - but she "became an MP to change things".

Given the general level of (in)competance of politicians - they so often change things for the worse. The Law of Unintended Consequences cannot be repealed.

Look at how many of today's issues stem from a bad piece of legislation from both parties.

Given that the current lot have already fecked up most of the things they want to feck up (except Gove's renters bill which would have further fecked up renting still further) - the idea that another lot are going to come along with a different list of items to feck up is not appealing.

There is no situation a politician cannot make worse.

 

[Spectric]

Since when have the wealthy not been motivated in pursuit and retention of the wealth "they don't need"?

and there lies a big problem, more, more and never enough with the "it's all mine" attitude . Money is really nothing unless it is actually providing you with something you need, occasionaly just fancy. Is £1000 in a bank as enjoyable as say having a good machine that you enjoy using ?

@niemeyjt has mentioned it is not a case of getting into government with a clean sheet to work from but everything from previous parties has stacked up for better or worse. Maybe it is time to undo and clean up existing legislation before stacking more on the heap as having laws on top of laws that have already proven not to work or not been ultilised is a pointless game.

Perhaps Guy Fawkes had the right idea, big bang, clean up the mess and start again afresh .

 

[Jacob]

...

Given the general level of (in)competance of politicians - they so often change things for the worse. The Law of Unintended Consequences cannot be repealed.

Well yes but everything has unintended consequences, for better or worse.

Look at how many of today's issues stem from a bad piece of legislation from both parties.

Good things too. It's not all bad news!

Given that the current lot have already fecked up most of the things they want to pineapple up (except Gove's renters bill

I thought Gove was a step in the right direction but had no expectation of it being implemented. I wonder what set him on to it? Drink?

which would have further fecked up renting still further) -

But only for landlords! It would have been good for tenants - they are the ones that matter

 

[selectortone]

Jonathan Pie - the f-word crops up a few times, so don't watch if you're unhappy with that:

Yep. Says it all really.

 

[niemeyjt]

But only for landlords! It would have been good for tenants - they are the ones that matter

Maybe for the 1% who get to rent.

A year ago my daughter tried and failed to get a new rent - there were 80 going for each vacancy. Now it is over 100.

She said overbidding was rife. Landlords required guarantors with their own property. Some required a beauty pagent.

Why?

Landlords getting fed up and having better returns elsewhere leave the market - supply and demand - and those that remain want to ensure they get their money.. Gove's bill would have exacerbated an already bad situation.

 

[Keith Cocker]

Maybe for the 1% who get to rent.

A year ago my daughter tried and failed to get a new rent - there were 80 going for each vacancy. Now it is over 100.

She said overbidding was rife. Landlords required guarantors with their own property. Some required a beauty pagent.

Why?

Landlords getting fed up and having better returns elsewhere leave the market - supply and demand - and those that remain want to ensure they get their money.. Gove's bill would have exacerbated an already bad situation.

But if your daughter had a tenancy and was suddenly given a “no-fault “ eviction notice with one month to find somewhere else how would you feel then.

BTW if the Tories hadn’t sold off acres of council houses and flats and stopped local authorities building we would be in a much better state.

 

[Spectric]

The selling of the council housing stock at knock down prices was nothing short of a national scandal and worst case they should have been sold at market value so as new ones could have been built, but then why sell what you should have replaced as you still had a need for them and just added to the housing crisis.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Not in the slightest. He knew about it, knew it was false, but let Sunak babble on. Rest of this election they're going to hold Sunak up as a liar.

"Give a man enough rope and he'll hang himself"

Starmer and Reeves are choosing their words very carefully:

• they have (I think) outlined only three areas of tax increase - VAT on school fees, windfall tax on energy companies, non-doms - all populist targets
• they are ruling out some tax increases - but not all or any increases
• they are offering a carrot of materially better public services at a marginal increase in costs
• they assert they will not play fast and loose with taxpayers (our) money

You are at liberty to believe what you want. Asserting we should pay more tax for better services is entirely fair - again a matter of opinion.

I do not believe they are being honest. It is implausible that they will deliver materially better public services by tinkering in the margins on health, education, policing, etc.

Bluntly - Labour object to the Tory tax claim because it is critical. Labour have no more electoral integrity (and no less) than the Tories in selling the aspiration of better public services at no real cost to "working" people. (why just working people??)

Just as the Tories assert "we have a plan" to create the illusion that all is well, despite thus far substantially failing to deliver.

They both distort reality with selective assertions and careful choice of language. My personal view is that they will play creative accountancy with things like "investment" and increase those taxes which they have not explicitly ruled out.

 

[niemeyjt]

But if your daughter had a tenancy and was suddenly given a “no-fault “ eviction notice with one month to find somewhere else how would you feel then.

BTW if the Tories hadn’t sold off acres of council houses and flats and stopped local authorities building we would be in a much better state.

She was - which is why she was looking for a new flat.

Her landlady wanted to sell up - she was fed up with the ever increasing burdens on landlords and wanted to get out before Gove's next steps.

So my daughter would have been better protected without the various "bash the landlord" initiatives than she will with any no fault eviction ban on a property she is less and less likely to find.

 

[niemeyjt]

They both distort reality with selective assertions and careful choice of language. My personal view is that they will play creative accountancy with things like "investment" and increase those taxes which they have not explicitly ruled out.

Labour are addicted to "redistribution" and tax rises.

My predictions, in addition to what has been announced:

Extend NI to anything subject only to Income tax at present like rental incomes (that'll lose a few more properties from the market), bank interest and share dividends - but in line with weasel words - at the current rates.

Council Tax revaluations - Blair was rumoured to want to do it and balked at the loss of votes. Maybe with a 200 seat majority Sir Keir will feel safer doing it?

Hit the motorists - lefties hate private transport. Increase fuel duty and pay per mile would be my two bets.

 

[RobinBHM]

There is no justification asserting wealthy are likely to be more corrupt than poor

maybe not, but the wealthy can have a great deal of influence on our daily lives, the poor cant

fiddling Mrs Jones out of £50 , is not as destructive as billionaires using their wealth to influence political policy


have a look at the Institute of Economic Affairs and Tufton street -libertarian lobby groups have huge influence, the IEA literally put Liz Truss in power

and the wealth of Putin ended up in the coffers of a British political party, we now have a Lord of Siberia

https://www.desmog.com/institute-economic-affairs/


this is relevant to the current election because we need to look at party donations and vested interests -of all parties, Conservative, Labour, reform and see how it shapes their policies

 

[Keith Cocker]

Labour are addicted to "redistribution" and tax rises.

My predictions, in addition to what has been announced:

Extend NI to anything subject only to Income tax at present like rental incomes (that'll lose a few more properties from the market), bank interest and share dividends - but in line with weasel words - at the current rates.

Council Tax revaluations - Blair was rumoured to want to do it and balked at the loss of votes. Maybe with a 200 seat majority Sir Keir will feel safer doing it?

Hit the motorists - lefties hate private transport. Increase fuel duty and pay per mile would be my two bets.

Fine to criticise but if we want a restoration of decent public services never mind an improvement they have to be paid for. Where should the money come from? I would argue there are several groups and organisations in society that can well afford to pay more. No need to increase tax burden on the majority of us. Just target and extract better.

 

[Chris152]

Bluntly - Labour object to the Tory tax claim because it is critical.

I thought the objection is that it's inaccurate, a fabrication.

 

[Keith Cocker]

I thought the objection is that it's inaccurate, a fabrication.

Also known as a deliberate lie.

 

[Jacob]

...

Landlords getting fed up and having better returns elsewhere leave the market

Good idea.
Might have encouraged a few landlords to sell up and help keep prices down.

 

[Jacob]

Fine to criticise but if we want a restoration of decent public services never mind an improvement they have to be paid for. Where should the money come from? I would argue there are several groups and organisations in society that can well afford to pay more. No need to increase tax burden on the majority of us. Just target and extract better.

Tax the rich, that is what they are for.

Sunak had a point but misrepresented and really badly expressed. It's not a question of you and me paying £2k extra in tax, more for the very rich to pay very much more than £2k.
Where will Starmer get the dosh, if he really expects to make changes? Certainly not from "growth" - not least because the easiest way to get growth would be to first tax the rich and spend it on public services (benefits all those service industries, builders etc) or to pay it out in benefits - gets spent very quickly and supports the market. What goes around comes around.

PS Pennies dropping? (No pun intended) https://www.theguardian.com/busines...e-capital-gains-tax-to-revive-public-services

 

[Jake]

The selling of the council housing stock at knock down prices was nothing short of a national scandal and worst case they should have been sold at market value so as new ones could have been built, but then why sell what you should have replaced as you still had a need for them and just added to the housing crisis.

It's even more counterproductive than that, because councils were both required to sell under right to buy and expressly banned from using the proceeds to build new ones.