The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Rugeley Villa]

Sat in hospital waiting room 47 minutes past my appointment time. Come on Kier sort it out like you said you would . 

[sidcow]

3 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I don't want a 'utopian' socialist government.

We need to actually change our approach to things. You can't keep pumping the split of wealth into smaller and smaller percentages of pockets, you can't turn everything into a profit motive. There needs to be wholesale change to the way we approach tax, public institutions and services. 

If we don't, it will all collapse. People will not accept struggle to pay basic bills and never owning things while a small elite lives in luxury beyond comprehension. It will turn violent, and the system will be destroyed. It's arguably already getting there - London basically isn't sustainable as a city, housing and basic living is so warped by predatory profit motivation that the city basically imports the people that keep the wheels turning and it's central investment from government dwarfs anywhere else in the country - just look at it's transport system, Birmingham, ****, the West Midlands, would crawl through fire for half the system London has, but it will never, ever have it. That kind of thing can't carry on, there needs to be an acceptance that yes profit is good but there's limits to which it starts to be counterproductive and the tide must raise the lowest higher faster, that money must be diversified wider.

Neither party wishes to address this though and instead basically commits to the system as it stands and fiddles on the periphery. And calls it change. It isn't.

The whole world has to move as one to fix that.  it isn't going to happen.

Be like the Premier League trying to impose a pay cap.  it just sees players move to other leagues.

And you say people won't stand for it.  Well stand for parliament with your suggested alternatives and see how the public reacts.  I put to you that will stand for it, and without right wing agitators we wouldn't have seen anything from the public.  Ind if we do it will be with a small group (compared to the overall population).

Seriously, go put forward your ideas for stopping the small elite living in luxury an the new way we approach tax, public institutions and services.  Not a generic "it needs to change" but what actual systems and how to make them actually work.

I agree totally sharing wealth should be more equitable, public services should be better.  But I'm realistic and pragmatic about how this can be achieved.

At the moment you're like someone on on topic just saying we should tomorrow sell Carlos, Hause and Dendonker and buy X amazing player.  It isn't that easy.

[Chindie]

I'm absolutely not saying it's easy, it's not, it's **** hard. But it has to start, the journey has to begin. Instead we tinker on the edges but do nothing to the bigger picture. 

There's no point sitting there and saying 'too hard, can't be done'. It's gonna have to be.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Sat in hospital waiting room 47 minutes past my appointment time. Come on Kier sort it out like you said you would . 

Sunak was blasting about being from an NHS family for months and did nothing, it's gonna take time to clean up the mess the Tories caused.

[blandy]

4 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

So you’re of the ‘lucky guesses’ opinion on the multiple parties and organisations that called the right figure or within £2 billion of the right figure? That’s fine, that’s just as valid as any other reason unless they show us their workings out.

It was clever evasive wording, or a sleight of hand, or a necessary evil to gain power, or a genuine surprise to the people being put in charge of the nation’s finances. None of those is a great look. But I completely understand power first, full disclosure later.

No, I'm not.

What the "multiple parties" said was that there was a gap between what the Government (then Tory, to be Labour Gov'ts) plans for spending were and what was actually needed, like "the things you say you will do will cost more than you say they will cost" to both of them. Whether that's Tories cutting NI again, or Labour doing Labour things. That's a "everyone knew" black hole. Labour is saying (and yes there's some sleight of hand) "It's even worse than the (inherited) Government's figures - the reserve money has already been spent, but it's also been promised to be used for X, Y and Z in the future, but it's already gone, for example and no one knew and the OBR and IFS agree with that part. The reason no one knew is there's been no kind of spending review audit for the last 3 and a bit years, probably deliberately to hide the mess. The costs of housing asylum seekers, Rwanda scheme and so on are one of the elements where the true costs were hidden from everyone.

The civil service draws up the plans and costs etc. based on ministers decisions. Those plans don't vanish as soon as there's a change of Government - you'll know better than me that infrastructure programmes, procurement of stuff and all that malarkey takes ages. There are still, and long will be, things that the last Gov't committed to, that have a duration well into the current Gov'ts time in office. But none of that is the "Black Hole". There was rightly criticism of both Labour and Tories for not being honest that the spending plans to fund all that (and more) being claimed were unrealistic.

This isn't a defence of politicians (of either stripe) lying and deceiving, it's trying to seperate out what's a valid black hole no one knew about from the one everyone knew about.. The size of it is around 7 billion, rather than the claim of 20 odd billion. They all lied. The tories also hid that they'd committed the same pot of money to multiple things.

 

[chrisp65]

I’m happy to settle on both tory and Labour lied.

Not ‘all’. 

[Xela]

On 27/08/2024 at 16:40, sidcow said:

You can moan about as much as you want and call it what you like. 

But it's a fact if you increase tax on the super rich they just walk.. Because they can. 

France tried it and ended up with less tax because the rich just moved elsewhere. 

I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying it's fair. 

But declaring "just tax the richest 1% an extra 1%, job done" is just not an answer. 

It's like trying to bottle Scotch Most. It's a soundbyte. 

Going back to this, I agree. I read an article about CGT being increased. What happens is the rich simply don't sell the assets, and will just wait for a future Government to reduce CGT again. So the current Government actually lose out on revenue. 

 

[MakemineVanilla]

On 27/08/2024 at 16:40, sidcow said:

You can moan about as much as you want and call it what you like. 

But it's a fact if you increase tax on the super rich they just walk.. Because they can. 

France tried it and ended up with less tax because the rich just moved elsewhere. 

I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying it's fair. 

But declaring "just tax the richest 1% an extra 1%, job done" is just not an answer. 

It's like trying to bottle Scotch Most. It's a soundbyte. 

I wouldn't argue with that but if we are about to enter a period of austerity he has to give the impression that he's sharing out the misery, or he will just stoke more societal tension.

Paying off the train drivers and public employees while punishing pensioners, suggests he's doing his best to not look like a socialist in these early days, but he'll have to balance that eventually or expect to be hated.

His lack of charisma makes it impossible for him to smarm his way through the crisis and the impression he's given, that he has blurred the separation of powers has not been a good look; branding his critics as right-wing will alienate the electorate.

All the statistics which describe the state of things in society are available and are undeniable despite his best efforts.

 

[chrisp65]

He has said those with the broadest shoulders will bear the most.

My simple understanding of that is we will now see if he thinks pensioners on £12k per year and children in poverty, or people with a million pound of assets have the broadest shoulders.

 

[Rugeley Villa]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

He has said those with the broadest shoulders will bear the most.

My simple understanding of that is we will now see if he thinks pensioners on £12k per year and children in poverty, or people with a million pound of assets have the broadest shoulders.

 

Hope he’s not on about us builders and roofers when he talks about broadest shoulders 

[Rugeley Villa]

4 hours ago, Dodgyknees said:

Sunak was blasting about being from an NHS family for months and did nothing, it's gonna take time to clean up the mess the Tories caused.

Tongue in cheek mate . I did wait nearly two hours over my allocated time and did have to go up and make sure they had not forgot me, but was happy to hear they hadn’t . 

[chrisp65]

11 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Hope he’s not on about us builders and roofers when he talks about broadest shoulders 

I think the extra tax needs to go back on fossil fuel, that would be very sensible.

I wouldn’t personally be opposed to paying more tax, it’s just it needs to be ‘fair’. We can’t go through life worried billionaires will leave if they are taxed properly. **** em if they don’t like it. I’d rather live somewhere equitable with less rampant consumerism than live like a drone safe in the knowledge the likes of Dyson might leave if they are asked to actually contribute proportionally. We need a bit more self respect and a bit less timidity.

Imagine life without the likes of Amazon or BetFred, how on earth would we ever survive.

[Rugeley Villa]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I think the extra tax needs to go back on fossil fuel, that would be very sensible.

I wouldn’t personally be opposed to paying more tax, it’s just it needs to be ‘fair’. We can’t go through life worried billionaires will leave if they are taxed properly. **** em if they don’t like it. I’d rather live somewhere equitable with less rampant consumerism than live like a drone safe in the knowledge the likes of Dyson might leave if they are asked to actually contribute proportionally. We need a bit more self respect and a bit less timidity.

Imagine life without the likes of Amazon or BetFred, how on earth would we ever survive.

I’m the same if I’ve got to pay a bit more tax to help get the country in a better place so be it. 

[TreeVillan]

2 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

I’m the same if I’ve got to pay a bit more tax to help get the country in a better place so be it. 

I'm sure that's the excuse every time a new tax is created.

[Rugeley Villa]

7 minutes ago, TreeVillan said:

I'm sure that's the excuse every time a new tax is created.

Unfortunately we are not the powers that be and are merely low level servants. It is what it is until it becomes what it is .

[Jareth]

Waiting for Kier's ruling on whether we abide by international law, or not.

[TreeVillan]

2 hours ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Unfortunately we are not the powers that be and are merely low level servants. It is what it is until it becomes what it is .

How can it become what it is if it is already what it is, ya get me?

[Rugeley Villa]

6 hours ago, TreeVillan said:

How can it become what it is if it is already what it is, ya get me?

 Because it is what it is 

[Rds1983]

10 hours ago, Rugeley Villa said:

I’m the same if I’ve got to pay a bit more tax to help get the country in a better place so be it. 

The trouble is the 'middle' already pays 'a bit more tax'.

The higher rates kick in from £50k to £125k with a jump from 20% to 40%. These salaries are a lot compared to less fortunate people, but then compare it to the top tax rate (a whopping extra 5% up to 45%) and you've got people on £125k a year paying the same tax as a footballer on £125k a week.

Except you don't, as the footballer will have much better accountants.

That's before you even get to the Billionaires who can make £125k quicker than people in the lower brackets could realistically spend it.

I'll put my hand up and admit that I'm in the middle/higher rate bracket. I'm happy to pay more tax to try and help people less fortunate than me and to help others try and get to where I am (I've certainly needed help in the past).

I'm not entirely sure though why I'm basically paying the same tax percentage as someone with generational wealth who could easily drop my entire annual salary in a single hand of poker.

[TreeVillan]

11 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

The trouble is the 'middle' already pays 'a bit more tax'.

The higher rates kick in from £50k to £125k with a jump from 20% to 40%. These salaries are a lot compared to less fortunate people, but then compare it to the top tax rate (a whopping extra 5% up to 45%) and you've got people on £125k a year paying the same tax as a footballer on £125k a week.

Except you don't, as the footballer will have much better accountants.

That's before you even get to the Billionaires who can make £125k quicker than people in the lower brackets could realistically spend it.

I'll put my hand up and admit that I'm in the middle/higher rate bracket. I'm happy to pay more tax to try and help people less fortunate than me and to help others try and get to where I am (I've certainly needed help in the past).

I'm not entirely sure though why I'm basically paying the same tax percentage as someone with generational wealth who could easily drop my entire annual salary in a single hand of poker.

The trouble there is most people pay tax via PAYE, a billionaire probably isn't paying tax in the UK anyway but if they are then it wouldn't be through a monthly payslip like you and I. Their large wealth is mostly held up in assets, which you can't necessarily tax each month like a salary. 

Edited August 29 by TreeVillan