borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Jul 25, 2024 9:32:43 GMT
Whereas yours are perfectly acceptable Those ones you imagine out of thin air? Yeah comparing me to papa was not intended as a personal insult (unprovoked by the way)
|
|
|
Post by AvonCalling on Jul 25, 2024 9:33:53 GMT
Give it a rest chaps it will just go round and round
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jul 25, 2024 19:14:09 GMT
Give it a rest chaps it will just go round and round Good grief — anyone would think you're the only one one here allowed to have a ding-dong...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2024 22:12:26 GMT
Any talk of tax rises breaking Labour's pledges is a misnomer. Labour only pledged not to raise Income Tax, National Insurance, and VAT. Any increase in any of these would be breaking a pledge. But no promises were made on other taxes so if more revenue needs to be raised, I am sure ways can be found.
I am well aware that Starmer has a proven track record for being a lying bastard. He has broken countless pledges these past five years. There is no pledge he will not break if it suits him. Thing is it would not suit him due to it being too politically damaging for him to break these pledges on those particular taxes so soon.
So expect windfall taxes, and tax raids on this and that if they want to raise more revenue. Fuel duty using the excuse of green agendas, big rises in duties on tobacco and alcohol citing public health, and suchlike. Possibly some kind of extra tax on high value property, perhaps increases in capital gains, that sort of thing is all possible. But we will get an idea of what is afoot in time.
It does remain true though that two thirds of the public would rather have increased spending on public services than tax cuts. Few of the other third are Labour voters. So if the money is spent on the right things, Labour is on a winner if it increases taxes on those with the broadest shoulders to pay for better public services.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jul 25, 2024 22:14:15 GMT
Why does changing his mind on action after circumstances massively changed, make him a 'lying bastard'?
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 25, 2024 22:23:27 GMT
Why does changing his mind on action after circumstances massively changed, make him a 'lying bastard'? Because he's not Corbyn.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jul 25, 2024 22:24:56 GMT
Who of course was a lying bastard
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2024 23:08:59 GMT
Who of course was a lying bastard On nothing like the same brazen scale.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 26, 2024 7:21:15 GMT
Who of course was a lying bastard On nothing like the same brazen scale. So you can call Starmer a lying bastard but we can't call Corbyn one.
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jul 26, 2024 13:05:26 GMT
Any talk of tax rises breaking Labour's pledges is a misnomer. Labour only pledged not to raise Income Tax, National Insurance, and VAT. Any increase in any of these would be breaking a pledge. But no promises were made on other taxes so if more revenue needs to be raised, I am sure ways can be found. I am well aware that Starmer has a proven track record for being a lying bastard. He has broken countless pledges these past five years. There is no pledge he will not break if it suits him. Thing is it would not suit him due to it being too politically damaging for him to break these pledges on those particular taxes so soon.
So expect windfall taxes, and tax raids on this and that if they want to raise more revenue. Fuel duty using the excuse of green agendas, big rises in duties on tobacco and alcohol citing public health, and suchlike. Possibly some kind of extra tax on high value property, perhaps increases in capital gains, that sort of thing is all possible. But we will get an idea of what is afoot in time. It does remain true though that two thirds of the public would rather have increased spending on public services than tax cuts. Few of the other third are Labour voters. So if the money is spent on the right things, Labour is on a winner if it increases taxes on those with the broadest shoulders to pay for better public services. I agree with all you post there, apart from the bit in blue.
As you indicate, any thinking person must realise that there's not enough coming into the kitty to fund all the UK's current commitments. Fully taxing non-doms, VAT on private education, reclassifying capital gains as income, etc, is unlikely to raise even the additional £8.5 billion a year of Labour's announced plans.
Tory cuts in recent years and the lag in public sector pay compared to the private sector show public services are desperate for investment. Now we hear there's a £20 billion black hole in the public finances uncovered by an audit by Treasury officials.
These are difficult times for Labour — facing the twisted logic of the ousted Tories, and (more immediately disrupting) the blatant greed of the transport unions, and the constant ire of the extreme Left — as it strives to stabilise the cost of living and get the economy growing faster.
Do we really yet know the true scale of the damage the Conservatives did to the public finances...?
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 26, 2024 19:08:24 GMT
Any talk of tax rises breaking Labour's pledges is a misnomer. Labour only pledged not to raise Income Tax, National Insurance, and VAT. Any increase in any of these would be breaking a pledge. But no promises were made on other taxes so if more revenue needs to be raised, I am sure ways can be found. I am well aware that Starmer has a proven track record for being a lying bastard. He has broken countless pledges these past five years. There is no pledge he will not break if it suits him. Thing is it would not suit him due to it being too politically damaging for him to break these pledges on those particular taxes so soon.
So expect windfall taxes, and tax raids on this and that if they want to raise more revenue. Fuel duty using the excuse of green agendas, big rises in duties on tobacco and alcohol citing public health, and suchlike. Possibly some kind of extra tax on high value property, perhaps increases in capital gains, that sort of thing is all possible. But we will get an idea of what is afoot in time. It does remain true though that two thirds of the public would rather have increased spending on public services than tax cuts. Few of the other third are Labour voters. So if the money is spent on the right things, Labour is on a winner if it increases taxes on those with the broadest shoulders to pay for better public services. I agree with all you post there, apart from the bit in blue.
As you indicate, any thinking person must realise that there's not enough coming into the kitty to fund all the UK's current commitments. Fully taxing non-doms, VAT on private education, reclassifying capital gains as income, etc, is unlikely to raise even the additional £8.5 billion a year of Labour's announced plans.
Tory cuts in recent years and the lag in public sector pay compared to the private sector show public services are desperate for investment. Now we hear there's a £20 billion black hole in the public finances uncovered by an audit by Treasury officials.
These are difficult times for Labour — facing the twisted logic of the ousted Tories, and (more immediately disrupting) the blatant greed of the transport unions, and the constant ire of the extreme Left — as it strives to stabilise the cost of living and get the economy growing faster.
Do we really yet know the true scale of the damage the Conservatives did to the public finances...?
Brilliant post.
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 27, 2024 10:47:33 GMT
Now we hear there's a £20 billion black hole in the public finances uncovered by an audit by Treasury officials. That's not really true. In fact the IFS specifically mentioned that there was a £20Bn black hole that the Labour and Tory parties were both ignoring during the election and accused the parties of colluding over that. The idea that it's now been found is at least disingenuous and at worst deceitful.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 27, 2024 16:27:04 GMT
Now we hear there's a £20 billion black hole in the public finances uncovered by an audit by Treasury officials. That's not really true. In fact the IFS specifically mentioned that there was a £20Bn black hole that the Labour and Tory parties were both ignoring during the election and accused the parties of colluding over that. The idea that it's now been found is at least disingenuous and at worst deceitful. Not quite true either The IFS warned that cuts in recent years and the way public sector pay has lagged behind the private sector meant that it was clear that public services would need investment. That would not be the same 20Bn black hole as its in addition to the need for money for public sector pay rises. I wonder if its extra interest payments due on public borrowing post the Truss debacle.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jul 27, 2024 22:18:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 28, 2024 7:52:10 GMT
Very good. My conclusion was that Labour could have easily estimated things were worse than the account summary implied, but that this would mean they would have had to jump into the Tory trap of Labour=Taxes.
|
|