Budget October 2024

[Phil xxkr]

1 hour ago, GMB said:

I can send you my account number and sort code if you wish.

They really do think we are stupid enough to swallow their BS and they are probably right because we do nowt about it.  BTW

 

I have it recorded they actually said there will not be no increase and we will not be nicking no more money from you

But that's because if you are working you will by default getting less. From the OBR October forecast post budget ;

"Real earnings growth is around 2½ per cent in 2024, but then falls to around zero in 2026 and 2027. Real wages are around 1½ per cent higher than our March forecast in 2028, despite being lowered by around ½ a per cent due to Budget policies, due to a higher starting point."

Taken with a backdrop of rising prices the young strivers in this country are in for a" character building " tough 36 months or so. Forget s****y cars and holidays just make sure your hatches are watertight! it may however make the cries of intergenerational unfairness even more strident. ☹️🤑🤔

[Boomer54]

1 hour ago, Malc1 said:

My accountants have advised I need to pay my Corporation Tax by the end of this month, November ……… if I pay right now might that take pressure from the Treasury and this Government 🤔

Malc 

😂🤣💥👍

Might take care of Friday night pizzas at No10. By return you get to call yourself Sir GiveaLot.

[Tickedon]

10 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Why do you think I have missed anything... maybe BIK is just irrelevant? 

Why it is irrelevant, because to get company car for many years now it had to be either absolute micro shaitebox diesel like with like 0.8L engine, or BEV/PHEV, even PHEVs lately struggled to comply. First column is Co2/km - it only applies to cars that does 50g or less, there is no car I would EVER be interested in which does 50g Co2/km (I guess maybe BMW i8). So how is this relevant to me or arguably anyone?

 

Well you’re on a Lexus forum and a good part of the current Lexus range are PHEVs with co2/km around 25g - so very much under 50g and thus the opposite of irrelevant.

We all know you have disdain for any car built after circa 1980, but for once it may be worthwhile seeing the bigger picture…

[Linas.P]

50 minutes ago, Tickedon said:

but for once it may be worthwhile seeing the bigger picture…

Not true, I am just not the person that buys new cars in 3 year lease cycles, I generally have no plans to buy new car, neither trough employment scheme, nor in any other way. So BIK was never an issue for me (since 2017) and likely never become an issue.

My next car is likely to be LC500 after 2018 (that is the one with £180/190 tax), but before 2023. The reason of ~2023 (likely made as early as 2022) being cut-off period is ISA (intelligent speed assist) and nothing else. Again in future there may be ways to short circuit ISA and then I may consider those cars as well. 

The bigger picture is that BIK, lower, higher, none or even not allowing any car scheme at all is a non-issue for majority of UK residents. (hyperbole warning here - I have not checked percentages, but I am happy to see sources if such exists that proves me wrong, so this is my guess in hyperbole) To start with - 80% are not even in position to get into car scheme, another 15% are not interested even if they can, then 4% will not be impacted and only final 1% is both impacted and cares. 

In short - changes to BIK is relevant to very very small % of public. It was big deal in 80s and 90s (not really a BIK as it was only introduced in 2002, but car schemes overall), but since 2010 it became increasingly irrelevant. Big blow to these schemes was 2017 budget and changes to eligibility and this was under tory government (and that is what should have been surprising, because it was huge change which basically wiped out 90% of point of even having company car, but somehow I can't remember any riots - proving my point that people just don't care about it), so some minor changes now is really minor part of the budget, which itself is "nothingburger". 

P.S. only a single Lexus drive train has less than 25g Co2 - that is 450h+ (both RX and NX), all the rest of Lexus cars are 100+. Well and also RZ us 0g (so untrue, but it is what it is).

[Linas.P]

Ok - so I had more time to analyse the budget and long story short - the more I look at it the more non-event it is. Leading to conclusion that all the people crying about it are just making political statements and attacks, rather than having any objective criticism.

To start with, in my usual longwinded fashion, let's just go trough two realistic (and one idealistic) options of how UK government can budget the expenses:

1. Cut tax and cut public services - this is usually associated with tories and favoured by rich people. Quite obvious - rich people do not use public services and they should (theoretically) pay most tax.

2. Increase the taxes and increase the public services - this is usually a labour tactic and it is favoured by poor. Again, quite obviously - poor people depend most on the public services and has least amount of money, so they are unlikely to pay for anything anyway. 

3. In theory there could be competent government, that uses same amount of tax, but cuts all the waste and inefficiency in the middle and still delivers either better public services with same budget, or lowers the taxes. The problem here is obvious - tories are just corrupt (although looking at last government I would argue also incompetent, not just incompetent, but fundamentally corrupt AND incompetent) and labour is JUST incompetent (and also ideologically driven). So the government that could do it just doesn't exist, never existed and unlikely to ever exist.

Overall, both 1 and 2 would be alright, assuming that tax is cut for the people who are least able to pay it, or tax is increased to the people who most able to pay it... Spoiler alert - no! As it happened - tories did cut public services, but they cut the taxes to the richest, not the poorest. And this budget from labour should have reversed that but failed... I can't quite say labour increased the tax on the poor, but certainly they didn't go after the rich either.

The budget was in line with what was expected from Labour government - increase the taxes and increase the services. The services badly needs extra funding (everyone agrees on that) and this is zero sum game, more services needs more taxes, I am not even convinced that the current tax hike was enough. The biggest problem is that they didn't even attempted to reform CGT and go after assets glut. Competent labour government would start from cutting all stupid exclusions, exceptions and close all loopholes (the less there are the better, ideally none), then once there is no escape they would round all the rich and hang them (just joking! - tax their assets). As nobody is talking about competent government here, they did what was expected, they went after slightly better off people  in roundabout way, instead of going after really fitly rich. Remember - they are just ideological and kind of close minded, so not very creative, so they can't even comprehend how rich some people are.

What I was always afraid off, and it sorts of looks it will happen, labour will go after "high" earners eventually, because in their simpleton minds people that earn 100k are the problem, yet they can't comprehend that there are further steps after that, like people who have 10s and 100s of millions or even 10s of billions in assets. You know how sometimes it is hard to visualise very large numbers, like try visualising wealth of elan the idiot mushk  - $200 Billion with B (or at least used to be before he shoot himself in the foot with totally retarded acquisitions). It is amount that is sort of hard to comprehend, because let's say even if I earn $100k a year...  it would still take me 2 million years just to earn it, nevermind save it! So where is the problem? The problem is that labour is poor in their soul and their imagination ends at £100k (well and £1 million in assets). They fail to comprehend that nowadays rent in London could set you back £50k a year and that average family home could be £1 million easily. In short, they setting all thresholds TOO LOW, but yet they completely fail to tax MUCH richer people. So every time they try to tax the "rich" they just end-up taxing the "above average".

However, here is the deal folks - hate to break it to you, but there was never any options. We had criminally corrupt government that was wasting and stealing public money openly and even then could govern properly. Tories just had to go, there was no alternative and choosing labour was the only thing to do, that was rational decision, but it has it's consequences... and these are the costs. From two evil we had to choose lesser one, and this is the lesser evil. We can argue to death here where something was raised by 0.2%, or limited at too low of a threshold, the fundamental issue does not change - taxation system fails in it's sole objective to redistribute wealth in equitable way. Failed before this budget and continues to fail. In short - "Keep calm and carry on".

In conclusion, what can we do? Not much - we need to live trough this government and hope that tories can sort it out internally, if they could get rid of rot and all scuumbags before next election, attract some actually competent and decent people to the party, then maybe we can elect them next time (chances of that not much more than 0.45%), but if not then we will have to live in higher taxation environment for foreseeable future. The second option - labour grows a pair, drops ideological blindfolds and finds courage to go after (REAL) rich and implements comprehensive and competent taxation policy, which stops runaway filth from hoarding assets and creates somewhat equitable society where everyone pays what they can afford and poorest and weakest in society are looked after... and everyone lives happily ever after (for this one to happen I will give 1.27% chance)! Otherwise, UK remains desolated wasteland and everyone will continue to suffer from dysfunctional state (I really don't want to spell it out, but chance of this is all the remaining percentages I haven't used).

[Malc1]

You forgot to mention the Govt ability to borrow a little more to plug that gap …….. especially the one that would prevent some 4000 OAPs dying at the behest of Starmer and Reeves cancellation of the WFA 

Malc 

[Boomer54]

What we have always known is you can't really raise tax from the seriously rich beyond a marginal increase. The reality is their wealth is mobile and if you make it necessary by going beyond the marginal they can and do move it. All parties know this. The poorer in society almost by implication don't have the wherewithal in their income to do much to support raising revenue. All parties know this. This leaves that 'meat' in the middle as the only target in town. That encompasses virtually everybody who doesn't fall into the other two groups. All parties know this. In the end you end up with a fairly simple formula. What you can raise from that group balanced against your willingness to either cut Govt spending, or increase it. Most other policies are simply tweaking around the edges of that formula. The Tory 'austerity' years speak for themselves although we could ask reasonable questions regarding that definition of "austerity". The Labour years we are now in will pretty much be a counterbalance of spend rather than cut. Here's the problem summarised. The trend for growth in the UK has been heading in the wrong direction for over 20 years and half of that was under a so called 'cut' Tory govt. Would you expect a Labour 'spend' govt to be better ,or worse in terms of it's impact on that trend? Rhetorical question from an economics point of view.

Trends in UK business dynamism and productivity 2023.pdf

The conclusion will be this. Increased Govt expenditure and debt will lead to an even lower trend in growth and a therefore a smaller economy supporting that higher debt than would otherwise have been the case.

The Tory party did a pretty crap job of creating growth because they forgot who they were supposed to be economically. The PDF spells that out. However,  in their defence they did that against the context of the greatest Financial crash in nearly 100 years that virtually brought the world to it's knees (2008-2012/3). A massive infight over Europe (Brexit) that caused so much internal disruption they appeared to have little time for managing anythingelse (2013/4 onwards). Finally, Covid a once in a multi lifetime event that brought economic/financial challenges on a scale hitherto unseen since the upheaval of the second World War (2020-2022/3).

Yes, we can criticise , but also I cannot think of any party in office who had to deal with a sequence of events like that. Not in my lifetime anyway. To say they are the other party in a statement of "lesser of two evils" is a display of historic and economic ignorance.

[Malc1]

17 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

Might take care of Friday night pizzas at No10. By return you get to call yourself Sir GiveaLot.

Then I need to liaise with the Guvnor of the BofE to mnake sure any upfront early payment I make doesn't impact the Markets and throw a wobble in Rachel Reeves works of wonder and amazement   😇

Malc

 

[Phil xxkr]

2 hours ago, Malc1 said:

Then I need to liaise with the Guvnor of the BofE to mnake sure any upfront early payment I make doesn't impact the Markets and throw a wobble in Rachel Reeves works of wonder and amazement   😇

Malc

 

Think of Chaos Theory Malc, you know, a butterfly's wing flapping in Brazil 🤔. Should you go ahead you may well ruin the economy of third world 🤗

[Linas.P]

5 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

What we have always known is you can't really raise tax from the seriously rich beyond a marginal increase. The reality is their wealth is mobile and if you make it necessary by going beyond the marginal they can and do move it. All parties know this. The poorer in society almost by implication don't have the wherewithal in their income to do much to support raising revenue. All parties know this. This leaves that 'meat' in the middle as the only target in town. That encompasses virtually everybody who doesn't fall into the other two groups. All parties know this. In the end you end up with a fairly simple formula. What you can raise from that group balanced against your willingness to either cut Govt spending, or increase it. Most other policies are simply tweaking around the edges of that formula. The Tory 'austerity' years speak for themselves although we could ask reasonable questions regarding that definition of "austerity". The Labour years we are now in will pretty much be a counterbalance of spend rather than cut. Here's the problem summarised. The trend for growth in the UK has been heading in the wrong direction for over 20 years and half of that was under a so called 'cut' Tory govt. Would you expect a Labour 'spend' govt to be better ,or worse in terms of it's impact on that trend? Rhetorical question from an economics point of view.

Have I said anything different? Basically we mostly agree with this... except one thing... 

Wealth is not as mobile as you think and we should not care either way, yes there are limits, but they are not reached and a lot of wealth isn't mobile... you just can't put your Belgrave mansion into the backpack and leave the country (a lot of UK wealth is in real estate). Also high taxation is one of many things to consider, safety, lifestyle and many other things comes into consideration. On top of that - perhaps we should look into taxing them before they become filthy rich, before they get so rich that they become mobile? And yes - I guess in theory what that means is that we just take one more step on the ladder - instead of taxing 100k income and 1 million in assets, maybe we can get onto the ladder of taxing 1 million in income and 10 million in assets. Besides, all that so called "mobility" is due to loopholes that are specifically made to be exploited. Those loopholes can be plugged and we can tax any assets leaving UK as well... and we can tax them at the rate that is higher than keeping them in UK, meaning we can effectively trap wealth if we wanted to, government has power to do it if they decided to exercise it. Yes it requires budgetary revolution that labour has no competency to pull it off and some wealth will inevitably escape, so be it... but now we are just drowning middle-class to the point of extinction... and middle class is what we want to preserve most.

5 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

However,  in their defence they did that against the context of the greatest Financial crash in nearly 100 years that virtually brought the world to it's knees (2008-2012/3). A massive infight over Europe (Brexit) that caused so much internal disruption they appeared to have little time for managing anythingelse (2013/4 onwards). Finally, Covid a once in a multi lifetime event that brought economic/financial challenges on a scale hitherto unseen since the upheaval of the second World War (2020-2022/3).

Yes, we can criticise , but also I cannot think of any party in office who had to deal with a sequence of events like that. Not in my lifetime anyway. To say they are the other party in a statement of "lesser of two evils" is a display of historic and economic ignorance.

Brexshaite was of their own doing, so they don't get credit for that. Financial crisis impacted most of developed world - yet UK has been damaged by it most and never rebuilt (at least compared to G7, I think maybe we beaten Italy which is totally useless), also covid hit all the countries in similar way... all in all UK responded to all the crisis worse than any of our peers. And that is before we even consider that they had useless governments as well... So although I agree that last 14 years of tories governance coincided with two major crisis + one that they created themselves, I cannot agree they dealt with issues competently, or at least better than their peers, quite contrary - all statistical indicators shows that they failed to deal with them. So when faced with adversity you only get credit if you overcome it and they failed... Should we be sorry for them? Maybe... if they wouldn't have enriched their cronies at the same time as the country was sinking. 

And yes I stand by the statement of "lesser evil" - they were openly corrupt, they were openly criminal, they were openly undemocratic and on top of that all they were incompetent. Corrupt government can stay in power when it is very competent, basically nobody really cares that they are enriching themselves and their cronies... if overall situation is improving for everyone. But if they are corrupt and at the same time incompetent, where quality of life becomes worse year over year and they become greedier and greedier every year, then they have to go. It is unconscionable that somebody could have voted for them in last election. I have said myself - it is not like labour won the election, it is more like tories lost it. Tories tried to find the limit of how much openly corrupt could you be before you lose the election and they found it. Weirdly there is something cool about very competent criminals, imagine mafia boss, but the one that is really smart and cool... he is still criminal, but for some reason we may find people rooting for him... yet if he is replaced by literal idiot who may not even be as ruthless and bad, we suddenly see him just as criminal he is. So that is the tory party in 2024 - a bunch of criminals. 

Sure labour is incompetent in useless, but at least I can't see how one can attack their character or accuse them of being criminal. Above all, there is no indication that they will be any less competent than tories. It does not mean they are competent, but it is simply the case of going from utterly incompetent government to slightly incompetent one. 

[Malc1]

Power to the People eh ! 

Labour Govt forever 👍👋😂🤣

We’re hopefully anticipating,  and all in line for comparable incomes as the Labour Govt Chancellor of the Exchequer ……. minimum £500k Plus …… we’ll all be able to pay our heating, eating and Lexus bills and not worry for our WFA and that stolen from those destitute OAPs ……. that at least the majority here worry for …….. 

Jeez, wots it all coming too when a Labour Govt budget kicks the desperate poor and needy into the long grass ……. and seemingly don’t much care coz they’re inept at financial and fiscal propriety for the welfare of All in this Great British nation of ours 

Malc 

[Phil xxkr]

1 minute ago, Malc1 said:

Power to the People eh ! 

Labour Govt forever 👍👋😂🤣

We’re hopefully anticipating,  and all in line for comparable incomes as the Labour Govt Chancellor of the Exchequer ……. minimum £500k Plus …… we’ll all be able to pay our heating, eating and Lexus bills and not worry for our WFA and that stolen from those destitute OAPs ……. that at least the majority here worry for …….. 

Jeez, wots it all coming too when a Labour Govt budget kicks the desperate poor and needy into the long grass ……. and seemingly don’t much care coz they’re inept at financial and fiscal propriety for the welfare of All in this Great British nation of ours 

Malc 

We need to change our thinking. Tony blier used the term "new Labour" to distance themselves from "old Labour". We need to think the same. Today's Labour is no longer the representive of unionised people working in pits, factories and manual work, they are in decline. No, they are now the party of the Public Sector, that's who they represent now. They should be called the TPSP (Not TSP🙂). The Public Sector Party 🤠. Once you get that image in your head victims of the various budget sequestrations becomes more understandable as not one of the front bench have ever been tainted from working in the private sector. 

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, Malc1 said:

Power to the People eh ! 

Labour Govt forever 👍👋😂🤣

We’re hopefully anticipating,  and all in line for comparable incomes as the Labour Govt Chancellor of the Exchequer ……. minimum £500k Plus …… we’ll all be able to pay our heating, eating and Lexus bills and not worry for our WFA and that stolen from those destitute OAPs ……. that at least the majority here worry for …….. 

Jeez, wots it all coming too when a Labour Govt budget kicks the desperate poor and needy into the long grass ……. and seemingly don’t much care coz they’re inept at financial and fiscal propriety for the welfare of All in this Great British nation of ours 

Malc 

I really not sure why you keep attacking that 500k, almost seems desperate now... 

Every second of tories fraudsters made more, but importantly none of them earned it... So I am really puzzled why you find it no okey when very few in labour earn as much relatively fairly (can't find any fault play there), yet you have no issue when tories steals millions. In short does not feel like very balanced view to me.

Also I just can't see how farmer on estate that costs over £1 million, or somebody with pension inheritance of over £1 million, so somebody who lives in house worth £1 million and now has to pay for their own heating can be described as "desperate poor"... overall seems fair enough for me... no?!

48 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Today's Labour is no longer the representive of unionised people working in pits, factories and manual work, they are in decline.

Those jobs no longer exist in UK, at least not in any meaningful capacity. Majority of jobs are now in services industry and they have no protections at all.

As for them being Public Sector Party... even if they are - so what? We all need that public sector to work, somehow people keep crying how bad is NHS, yet when publicly paid NHS workers get's a pay rise it is somehow an issue? Also I don't think they did nearly enough to earn Public Sector Party name. 5.5% pay rise, after we consider there was like 30% inflation, isn't much. All public sector workers are poorer now than they were 4 years ago, even after that pay rise offer.

[Malc1]

I’m simply.     apolitical.     and find it incredulous that any couple are worth that annual £500,000+ package working in our Public Sector and being paid from the Public Purse 

One would think, nay the Nation would think, they had immense value to this Great British Nation and could and would bring tremendous well-being and comfort to our Society 

Malc 

[Linas.P]

22 minutes ago, Malc1 said:

incredulous that any couple are worth that annual £500,000+ package working in our Public Sector and being paid from the Public Purse 

I don't, they are highly experienced and educated experts, both in their respectively late careers, what else do you expect? £200k salary at their level of work is to be expected, totally normal even - do you expect people with 30 years of experience, in 2nd most important post at the government and masters degree in economics to work for free (and her "hubby" is also highly ranked civil servant)? Most important - this is official and legitimate salary they earn, they not inherited it, they were not promoted there by their parents, they are not stealing it - they earning the salary and pay taxes. They should be commended for that, this is perfect example of how it should be done, that is what career should be about, that is how wealth should be built and not trough some dodgy loopholes and tax cuts and untaxed inheritance via family trusts etc. This is exactly what people should strive for and be encouraged to do. I really find it surprising and even concerning that you find issue with that. Even in isolation, without comparing that with filthy rich corrupt thieves in tory party... and I don't say this lightly I mean it - they are thieves and criminals, if there would be a shred of integrity in our legal system people like them would be rotting in jails (majority of tory MPs)... I am not saying it in some sort of elevated, hyperbolic and theoretical way, nepotism and cronyism is really just the very start of what they doing, but also many of them would be literally guilty of criminal offenses, abuse of power, bribery, corruption, misconduct, illicit enrichment etc. And from all that filth the issue you have is that some people who have spent all their life climbing the career ladder to earn £200k a year? Really? That is the issue in our country? Not literally thousands of millions and billionaires who pays no tax whatsoever? 

Boris the idiot buffoon Johnson earns from £100k to ~£800k per single speech... (well to be fair he made same speech in 3 different countries, so really it is for repeating same speech 3 times), where he spews lies and toxic disinformation. And let's just be clear - his speech is not worth that, this is bribe concealed as speakers fee, paid by foreign governments and corrupt individuals that have interest to push in UK. And you see no issue with that, but you see issue with two people earning honest living by being at the top of their career... just bizarre.

If it is really that incredulous for you that couple can earn £500k a year, then you should be incredulous about 2/3rds of all MPs, yet somehow you are fixated on Reeves. Apolitical? No I don't think so. 

 

[Boomer54]

5 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Have I said anything different? Basically we mostly agree with this... except one thing... 

Wealth is not as mobile as you think and we should not care either way, yes there are limits, but they are not reached and a lot of wealth isn't mobile... you just can't put your Belgrave mansion into the backpack and leave the country (a lot of UK wealth is in real estate). Also high taxation is one of many things to consider, safety, lifestyle and many other things comes into consideration. On top of that - perhaps we should look into taxing them before they become filthy rich, before they get so rich that they become mobile? And yes - I guess in theory what that means is that we just take one more step on the ladder - instead of taxing 100k income and 1 million in assets, maybe we can get onto the ladder of taxing 1 million in income and 10 million in assets. Besides, all that so called "mobility" is due to loopholes that are specifically made to be exploited. Those loopholes can be plugged and we can tax any assets leaving UK as well... and we can tax them at the rate that is higher than keeping them in UK, meaning we can effectively trap wealth if we wanted to, government has power to do it if they decided to exercise it. Yes it requires budgetary revolution that labour has no competency to pull it off and some wealth will inevitably escape, so be it... but now we are just drowning middle-class to the point of extinction... and middle class is what we want to preserve most.

Brexshaite was of their own doing, so they don't get credit for that. Financial crisis impacted most of developed world - yet UK has been damaged by it most and never rebuilt (at least compared to G7, I think maybe we beaten Italy which is totally useless), also covid hit all the countries in similar way... all in all UK responded to all the crisis worse than any of our peers. And that is before we even consider that they had useless governments as well... So although I agree that last 14 years of tories governance coincided with two major crisis + one that they created themselves, I cannot agree they dealt with issues competently, or at least better than their peers, quite contrary - all statistical indicators shows that they failed to deal with them. So when faced with adversity you only get credit if you overcome it and they failed... Should we be sorry for them? Maybe... if they wouldn't have enriched their cronies at the same time as the country was sinking. 

And yes I stand by the statement of "lesser evil" - they were openly corrupt, they were openly criminal, they were openly undemocratic and on top of that all they were incompetent. Corrupt government can stay in power when it is very competent, basically nobody really cares that they are enriching themselves and their cronies... if overall situation is improving for everyone. But if they are corrupt and at the same time incompetent, where quality of life becomes worse year over year and they become greedier and greedier every year, then they have to go. It is unconscionable that somebody could have voted for them in last election. I have said myself - it is not like labour won the election, it is more like tories lost it. Tories tried to find the limit of how much openly corrupt could you be before you lose the election and they found it. Weirdly there is something cool about very competent criminals, imagine mafia boss, but the one that is really smart and cool... he is still criminal, but for some reason we may find people rooting for him... yet if he is replaced by literal idiot who may not even be as ruthless and bad, we suddenly see him just as criminal he is. So that is the tory party in 2024 - a bunch of criminals. 

Sure labour is incompetent in useless, but at least I can't see how one can attack their character or accuse them of being criminal. Above all, there is no indication that they will be any less competent than tories. It does not mean they are competent, but it is simply the case of going from utterly incompetent government to slightly incompetent one. 

Brexit was not of their making actually. It was a long running issue that simply came to boil under their Govt, but you could trace it back to the days of Blair and beyond. The fact is there was a ground swell of discontent about immigration and it was years in the building. That is a problem Govts of all ilk are responsible for. They all bought into the idea that largescale immigration was good for this country. We know better now of course, but they all group thunk that one at the time. Unfortunately for the Tory party it reached a tipping point whilst they were in Govt. Indeed, the argument could well be that that issue is the primary reason for the Tory party implosion and the birth of the Reform party. 

With regard to taxing the rich given the former occupation of my brother I can safely say you are way off point if you think property is any kind of barrier to them moving tax regimes. Not even close. Their mobility is very real and very tangible. I am going to leave you to search out the list of wealthy individuals who have proven this point. I will start you off with one who now owns Manchester United. You may have ideas of how you think you could deal with it, but frankly if you can think of it and it could be done then it already would have been done. Out there in places you have never heard of are people who run teams of people who do nothingelse but find ways for wealthy people to shield income and assets from taxation. They are paid a fortune to do that and in doing it they save their clients even greater fortunes. The possibility that you could find ways to stop that doesn't register as an whole number. That isn't meant to offend by the way. it's just recognition of the fact that there is a mountain of expertise working 24 /7 to make sure people with ideas like you may have don't win. I should really cap that with "all parties know this". It's been tried and the tax take fell so at least they have learned not to be stupid enough to try it again.

[Linas.P]

52 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

Brexit was not of their making actually. It was a long running issue that simply came to boil under their Govt, but you could trace it back to the days of Blair and beyond. The fact is there was a ground swell of discontent about immigration and it was years in the building. That is a problem Govts of all ilk are responsible for. They all bought into the idea that largescale immigration was good for this country. We know better now of course, but they all group thunk that one at the time. Unfortunately for the Tory party it reached a tipping point whilst they were in Govt. Indeed, the argument could well be that that issue is the primary reason for the Tory party implosion and the birth of the Reform party.

No - it is not. Let's just be crystal clear here, it was a political gamble because Mr. Cameroooon, who wanted to silence far-right racist fringes of his party and to stay in power (just small note here - despite all his mistakes I actually liked him, I think he was semi-decent PM... compared to what came after him). He did not have to call referendum... also referendum was ADVISORY (no opinion, this is fact, legally it was non-binding), so he didn't have to follow-up on it and exit EU or resign, it was 100% in his power to say "we hear you guys, we will do better, but we staying in EU". Would have the party revolted? Maybe... maybe not.

In short - didn't need to call referendum, didn't need to respect the outcome of it - it was all by choice. 

I can trace it back to all politicians being bulshaiters and blaming anyone but themselves for their mistakes. Not a single issue we had in UK was fault of EU, EU was simply convenient scapegoat for way too long, until it became inconvenient when Mr. Fartage started the party basically saying "if EU is so bad then why don't we leave it". The thing here is the "if" part, politicians blamed EU for everything, but realistically it was all fault of them, the people sitting in Westminster... so we left the union under false pretext of it being issue of all the problems there is, but as it turned out it was false pretext we still have all the same problems except we are now also out of EU. Now whenever down to your heart you believe being in EU is good or bad thing is different topic altogether, I am just saying that brexshaite was caused by lies and deflection. You can name literally any issue and I can objectively prove it was issue with our government and not EU. Where do you want to start? Immigration... let's go - UK had every lever to limit immigration, from outside of EU 100%, but even within EU. Germany did so despite being a member, Switzerland does it despite being part of EEA... there are power that local governments can use to limit migration. Did our government used those powers? No they didn't... so how is this EU fault. Also let's just look past what they said and to what they actually did - after we left EU migration has doubled and then tripled, and majority was not even from EU... so this means they always wanted as many immigrants in as possible and it was never EU fault. Whenever immigration is good or bad that is separate topic, but tories specifically wanted immigrants in and they let them in... EU has nothing to do with it... and we could have limited migration if that was genuine desire even whilst still being in EU.

 Either way - it was not a genuine problem boiling over... sure people voted out as a "protest vote" against tories austerity, but they would have voted that way in literally any referendum. 

52 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

With regard to taxing the rich given the former occupation of my brother I can safely say you are way off point if you think property is any kind of barrier to them moving tax regimes. I should really cap that with "all parties know this". It's been tried and the tax take fell so at least they have learned not to be stupid enough to try it again.

According to me (I literally work in wealth planning) I disagree. 

Here I would add - the topic is complicated, some wealth escaping is inevitable and even welcome, also we could stop the bleeding if we wanted to, but also if we just going to tax the rich on current, completely broken tax system... then sure there is more holes than in Titanic at the moment and they simply going to escape. 

Sure... there is wider issue of multi-jurisdiction tax planning and if UK just decides on it's own to crack down on it, then it will be difficult. We need at very least EU and US support if we want to achieve anything. That said UK is the worst out of 3 - we have all sorts of tax heavens under out control which we can very easily close if we wanted to.

If you think that issue is "rich people finding ways around it", it is more like - there are demarcated superhighways of tax evasion and tories government even bent backwards to open more of individual runs. Not as single loophole is mistake, all of them were specifically designed to please small groups of uber-riche people, sometimes even literally single person. Sure - there is barrier of entrance, most of those loopholes are not made for poor bstards with £1-10 million, you need at least 10 to start... and even then there are some where one really needs to be a billionaire to exploit. 

52 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

I should really cap that with "all parties know this". It's been tried and the tax take fell so at least they have learned not to be stupid enough to try it again.

And here you are kind of right - tories for sure not only knew it, they literally made it.

Labour as far as I know have no part in this, however they are likely too weak and incompetent to pick a fight like this. 

@Malc1 - sorry, I know it my feel like I just wanted to silence you on the Reeves topic, but would be happy to hear your argumentation as to why she or her "hubby" does not deserve the salary they get. I am just tired of unjustified attack on them. but perhaps I am just looking at it from my high castle and I am missing some important point. So if you can justify why you think that is "incredulous" then I would be happy to hear it and discuss, otherwise it does seem like a little bit of politically motivated attack without substance.

[Boomer54]

25 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

No - it is not. Let's just be crystal clear here, it was a political gamble because Mr. Cameroooon, who wanted to silence far-right racist fringes of his party and to stay in power (just small note here - despite all his mistakes I actually liked him, I think he was semi-decent PM... compared to what came after him). He did not have to call referendum... also referendum was ADVISORY (no opinion, this is fact, legally it was non-binding), so he didn't have to follow-up on it and exit EU or resign, it was 100% in his power to say "we hear you guys, we will do better, but we staying in EU". Would have the party revolted? Maybe... maybe not.

In short - didn't need to call referendum, didn't need to respect the outcome of it - it was all by choice. 

I can trace it back to all politicians being bulshaiters and blaming anyone but themselves for their mistakes. Not a single issue we had in UK was fault of EU, EU was simply convenient scapegoat for way too long, until it became inconvenient when Mr. Fartage started the party basically saying "if EU is so bad then why don't we leave it". The thing here is the "if" part, politicians blamed EU for everything, but realistically it was all fault of them, the people sitting in Westminster... so we left the union under false pretext of it being issue of all the problems there is, but as it turned out it was false pretext we still have all the same problems except we are now also out of EU. Now whenever down to your heart you believe being in EU is good or bad thing is different topic altogether, I am just saying that brexshaite was caused by lies and deflection. You can name literally any issue and I can objectively prove it was issue with our government and not EU. Where do you want to start? Immigration... let's go - UK had every lever to limit immigration, from outside of EU 100%, but even within EU. Germany did so despite being a member, Switzerland does it despite being part of EEA... there are power that local governments can use to limit migration. Did our government used those powers? No they didn't... so how is this EU fault. Also let's just look past what they said and to what they actually did - after we left EU migration has doubled and then tripled, and majority was not even from EU... so this means they always wanted as many immigrants in as possible and it was never EU fault. Whenever immigration is good or bad that is separate topic, but tories specifically wanted immigrants in and they let them in... EU has nothing to do with it... and we could have limited migration if that was genuine desire even whilst still being in EU.

 Either way - it was not a genuine problem boiling over... sure people voted out as a "protest vote" against tories austerity, but they would have voted that way in literally any referendum. 

According to me (I literally work in wealth planning) I disagree. 

Here I would add - the topic is complicated, some wealth escaping is inevitable and even welcome, also we could stop the bleeding if we wanted to, but also if we just going to tax the rich on current, completely broken tax system... then sure there is more holes than in Titanic at the moment and they simply going to escape. 

Sure... there is wider issue of multi-jurisdiction tax planning and if UK just decides on it's own to crack down on it, then it will be difficult. We need at very least EU and US support if we want to achieve anything. That said UK is the worst out of 3 - we have all sorts of tax heavens under out control which we can very easily close if we wanted to.

If you think that issue is "rich people finding ways around it", it is more like - there are demarcated superhighways of tax evasion and tories government even bent backwards to open more of individual runs. Not as single loophole is mistake, all of them were specifically designed to please small groups of uber-riche people, sometimes even literally single person. Sure - there is barrier of entrance, most of those loopholes are not made for poor bstards with £1-10 million, you need at least 10 to start... and even then there are some where one really needs to be a billionaire to exploit. 

And here you are kind of right - tories for sure not only knew it, they literally made it.

Labour as far as I know have no part in this, however they are likely too weak and incompetent to pick a fight like this. 

@Malc1 - sorry, I know it my feel like I just wanted to silence you on the Reeves topic, but would be happy to hear your argumentation as to why she or her "hubby" does not deserve the salary they get. I am just tired of unjustified attack on them. but perhaps I am just looking at it from my high castle and I am missing some important point. So if you can justify why you think that is "incredulous" then I would be happy to hear it and discuss, otherwise it does seem like a little bit of politically motivated attack without substance.

"In short - didn't need to call referendum, didn't need to respect the outcome of it - it was all by choice".

So, to be clear all around him was a mountain of evidence that a large part of the voting electorate were unhappy about immigration from the EU. However, in the face of that you are suggesting he basically ignore it. The 'little peasants' don't have a right to a view, or a right to make their view known via a referendum ? You miss the point. It was never about whether the EU was the problem and what you can prove. It was always about what do people think is the problem and what do they think is the solution. If you work in wealth planning in London you have no idea how people in Boston feel about their community being turned into a Romanian enclave, or how people living in Trowbridge feel about being crowded out of housing and hospitals by a huge influx of Polish. Multiply those examples multiple times over across the country. and something had to give. To be frank here you are sounding very much like an elitist. If your IQ is higher than others then on that basis whatever they think counts for nothing. They will be ignored and you can "prove it" why that should be the case.

Interesting view of how a democracy is supposed to work. I was fairly agnostic about Brexit in the sense that I found it hard to work out if the pros outweighed the cons. Clearer now of course and of course you are right about immigration itself and how it has been mishandled. None of that has a bearing on the Brexit issue itself.  That was baked into the oven even as early as 2010 and the Tory party coming to power. It just needed a trigger. However, no matter my view on it I don't think there was any clear option other than to let people have their say and of course having had it, execute it. Otherwise it is clear to all that the only views that count belong to whom exactly? Not voters presumably. In that case we might as well drop all pretences to the contrary and be in Russia.

[Malc1]

Regarding me Linas ……. 

As I say, I am simply.  apolitical    I find it sad that such incompetence evidenced to me, in my mind, by Reeves is rewarded by such a monstrously huge income from the Public Purse 

I suppose my initial knowledge of her was the blatant disregard for the safeguarding of the WFA for those OAPs that are disadvantaged and with zero ability to effectively counter any of this attack upon them 

Thank heavens. AGE. UK. came to the fore

Malc 

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

So, to be clear all around him was a mountain of evidence that a large part of the voting electorate were unhappy about immigration from the EU.

However, in the face of that you are suggesting he basically ignore it. The 'little peasants' don't have a right to a view, or a right to make their view known via a referendum ? You miss the point. It was never about whether the EU was the problem and what you can prove. It was always about what do people think is the problem and what do they think is the solution.

To be frank here you are sounding very much like an elitist. If your IQ is higher than others then on that basis whatever they think counts for nothing. They will be ignored and you can "prove it" why that should be the case.

Interesting view of how a democracy is supposed to work.

How large? ~12% at most? and to prevent UKIP getting like 2 seats in parliament he gambled the union? That is justification?

Also "electorate unhappy" - you mean because of government lying about issues for generations? They were unhappy because political establishment here did not want to admit their failure and misled voters saying it was always EU's fault? 

In face of non-binding opinion poll which would cost immeasurable damage? Yes - obviously they should have just ignored it! Again this is not opinion - referendums in UK are non-binding unless specifically made binding by parliament. Did politicians mislead people telling them it is binding? Yes they did, but political lies didn't make it any more binding. 

"Little peasants" have a right to have a view, known as referendum and that referendum is NON-BINDING. It is advisory, government is informed, but the people view and then they should make decision themselves i.e. they voice is heard, but it does mean government has to implement it. That is a political cost. Same cost as not admitting to any failure and deflecting on somebody else. And again even brexshaite referendum was great example of government not owning up to their decision - "we don't want to be blamed when all this shaite hits the fan, as such let's put it to vote of ordinary people, who don't understand shaite, and who literally elects us to make these decisions for them for this reason specifically ... and then if it all goes horribly wrong we can blame people for making that decision". 

It is not my view on democracy that is "interesting", UK barely counts as democratic and I am just outlining facts. Why am I saying this? Because in UK Parliament is SOVEREING, meaning that it is only them and them alone who can make the decision. Meaning ALL referendums are merely advisory, this is in UK unwritten "constitution" basically, same way as petitions works etc. So if parliament want to leave the EU, they may leave, if they want to stay they may stay. What people said in referendum has legally no meaning. In this case it was particularly problematic, because vote was so close... would it have been 85/15% then we can argue by being informed by such overwhelming vote parliament decided to leave, most important part of this "parliament decided to leave", it is not people who decides to leave it is parliament that makes that decision. But when vote was basically 50/50% this really was just the case of government at the time wanting to leave and that is all on them. Good example on of that - once UK reached the agreement with EU everyone knew that if referendum would be re-run on the actual negotiated deal, something like 65% of people would vote against leaving, because what was promised before vote was totally different from what was in the end agreed. Yet they never called for another referendum and "with mountain of knowledge" that majority of people are against the deal they negotiated... still left EU. Why - because only they decide, there is only illusion of choice. 

I may be elitist, but it does not make me wrong. Somebody being confused by misinformation and lies does not make them right i.e. they may have made a decision from their heart and honestly believing it is best for them and best for the country, but making honest mistake doesn't make it any less of mistake.  

2 hours ago, Malc1 said:

incompetence evidenced to me

Can you give examples of that incompetence? Because I generally cannot see any of her actions as incompetent. I may disagree with them, or don't like them, but they were competent as far as I can see.

[Boomer54]

You really don't get it. Democracy. You keep saying "non binding" like it is some easy answer when you hear something you don't like. It isn't. If you rightly ask for the view of your voting electorate and then ignore it because it is not legally binding you might as well just tell voters it really does not matter what you think, or what you want. Indeed, I can easily think that doing that might be just a small step away from civil war under some circumstances. I really doubt they all just turn around and smile and say "that's OK just let us know next time you want us to look like brainless sheep".

You say Parliament have the ultimate say. Correct, but who does Parliament answer to ?. Who are they elected to serve? If the majority of the people they serve make their wishes clear then what exactly should we expect Parliament to do? To explain that in more basic terms. The voters of this country are the dog and Parliament the tail. The tail does not wag the dog! Whatever power Parliament has got it has because the voters of this country bestow it.

I will never blame the Tory party for Brexit. I will blame them for screwing up the post Brexit immigration issue which to a large degree has meant that Brexit was almost pointless.

[Malc1]

Rachel Reeves

Gross Incompetence, Negligence, Deceit whatever in not having undertaken the essential Impact Assessment prior to wilfully cancelling the OAPs   WFA 

Malc 

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

You really don't get it. Democracy. You keep saying "non binding" like it is some easy answer when you hear something you don't like. It isn't. If you rightly ask for the view of your voting electorate and then ignore it because it is not legally binding you might as well just tell voters it really does not matter what you think, or what you want. Indeed, I can easily think that doing that might be just a small step away from civil war under some circumstances. I really doubt they all just turn around and smile and say "that's OK just let us know next time you want us to look like brainless sheep".

So is everything else - making false promises to get elected and then no following trough, lying when in government, misleading the public on meaning and results of changes you are doing etc. 

UK is representative democracy, not direct democracy - referendum is a tool of direct democracy, but under system in UK government is sovereign and therefore does not need to implement the results of referendum. Now sure... what does it means in practice? They will be voted out in next election. And that is how changes are achieved in British democracy - in elections, but not in referendums. Again - the whole point of referendum was a dirty ploy to distance themselves from decision, which they knew stinks from a far. The gave choice to the people who were not only poorly equipped to make it, but also actively mislead and deceived... 

2 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

The voters of this country are the dog and Parliament the tail. The tail does not wag the dog!

Do you truly believe this is the case? Do you truly believe you have a say, we have a say, or would you rather agree that neither party gives a flying money about what electorate wants? I agree this is what it should be, government should only represent people, nothing else. But this is really idealistic belief, I do not personally agree that this is how it works in UK (and brexshaite by the way was not the will of the people). Especially under tories it was abundantly clear that they acted like fffing kings and felt no remorse openly stealing and lying...and brexshaite actually was one example of that.

Tell me one thing - was there a single brexshaite promise that was kept?

2 hours ago, Malc1 said:

whatever in not having undertaken the essential Impact Assessment prior to wilfully cancelling the OAPs   WFA 

Okey - so I think we are getting confused with terminology here. 

Incompetent is somebody who set's out to do something, who has all tools and all possibilities to do it, but ultimately fails, for no other reason but their incompetence. That is incompetent.

Example of incompetent - tories promised to reduce immigration, they created so called "hostile environment", which hurt a lot of hardworking people and just destroyed the trust of those who are already here and are working hard to make this country a better place to live, but ultimately immigration has increased under their rule. They had all the tools, they controlled everything, they could have sent every single non-European immigrant home as soon as they arrived... and they failed. Well... that is incompetent. 

The response to covid was incompetent, the breaxshaite negotiations were incompetent, they said there will be enquiry in "grenfell fire and accountable people will face consequences", but they were incompetent at that, "eat out to help out" policy was incompetent, the "track an trace" system was incompetent (well that was actually beyond incompetent and criminal)... PPE contracts ... well okey - that was also criminal. The "christmas parties" during lockdown... damn... that was also criminal based on the rules they have created themselves. In short - competence is setting out the goals and achieving them, no matter if those goals were good, bad, moral, immoral or whatever else. 

Your argument is - chancellor is "evil" person for taking away subsidy from pensioners. I disagree with you about that, but even if I agreed that would only make her bad person, but not incompetent. What would make her incompetent would be to announce she will cut WFA, but then next year it turns out they paid more WFA then before she anounced it. That would be incompetent. But if she just says she will cut WFA and does it, then there is nothing incompetent about it. When ever it is good or bad decision this will obviously depend on your perspective, but I just can't see how is that incompetent. And how you can say she is incompetent based on single decision about policy. 

[Malc1]

To preserve my sanity, or indeed what I have left, I’m throwing in the towel on this subject 

Malc 

[Phil xxkr]

1 hour ago, Malc1 said:

To preserve my sanity, or indeed what I have left, I’m throwing in the towel on this subject 

Malc 

I believe this was attributed to Mark Twain

"Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." 😎