| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Put the knife into tories and labour this morning
Paul Johnson says both manifestos don't provide for investment and improvement of public services
Starmer I think made a fool of himself arguing that Labour's did .....its more generous than the conservatives but that's not the point
I think ideas like this energy Bank are a good idea but only if its financially viable . I would love to see the return of public utilities and privatised industry to the state but if its going to happen it could be decades away .
I think people thinking corbyn type plans ever had or will ever have a chance to be implemented are mad .
Wow, I for one am absolutely shocked!
It's not going to take long for people to feel a bit let down I sense. I can't say I have much sympathy; for months and months Labour have been criticising the "high tax" Tories and they will soon face the exact same issues.
I can't see how anybody with a working braincell could justify feeling let down, Labour aren't really promising anything.Originally Posted by JamesWales
They criticise the 'high tax' Tories because it cuts through, and it cuts through because the Tories spend so much time claiming they are lowering taxes and that they are the party of low taxes and the general public have realised this is essentially bollocks.
I hope that Labour get a big majority and increase spending
Then people might realise that in order to have a better NHS or public transport system it's got a cost in real terms , in the pocket
Then come the next election they can bat away the critics by saying well this is the reality
Labour plans could lead to highest tax burden since 1948
Tory plans will lead to highest tax burden since 1950
So the Tories really are stretching reality
When they say tax burden who are they referring to? Just the UK population as a whole? I am minded to think that there are plenty of people in the UK who could afford to pay more tax than they are currently, I am also minded to think that there are people who literally will not be able to provide for themselves or their families if you squeeze another penny out of them.
But the reality is it's all a moving feast, if other costs go up/down (housing/bills) people move between those two categories.
The tax burden on the country , population , as a whole
This whole debate has frustrated me a bit. Yes, the thresholds haven't changed for a couple of years, so more people are dragged into higher tax bands, but that only happens by virtue of a wage increase crossing a threshold
I don't earn enough to pay the top rate of tax and I am demonstrably paying less tax than six months ago. Not saying thats right or wrong, but it is definitely the case that I am paying less tax.
So we could feasibly have the same tax burden and it be distributed in a far more progressive way across the spectrum of individuals, businesses and murky grey area in between? That alone makes the concept of the tax burden near to useless in my opinion.
For clarification, here's the piece: https://ifs.org.uk/calculators/what-...fits-and-taxes
There's a tendency to mix Tax/GDP (which includes all taxes on businesses and subjects) and more disaggregated analysis (by income cohort etc).
Actually Tax/GDP is very useful as a macroeconomic tool. But yeah, you can have the same tax take but collect it in various ways.
The starting point of any discussion on this needs to be anchored to how much does it cost to live and that is going to vary wildly from region to region. This is the depressing thing about the right wing obsession with being against/afraid of people working from home. WFH allows people to bypass the usual requirement of living near your workplace, which is something that for so many people makes life so much more difficult from an income/expenditure pov.
Fixed it for you. Fiscal drag is not really about real wages, Bluebottle.
I am paying proportionately less tax than I was 9 months ago. That's a fact.
I don't think it's a right-wing obsession! It's certainly something that concerns many, for many reasons, across the spectrum.
Do you think it's more important to arbitrarily force people into an office or for those people to live fulfilling secure and happy lives? It really is an either or for a lot of people because it's practically impossible to live near enough to London to commute without it ruining your life/future on the median wage or below.
I think at least 2-3 days a week collaborative working is generally best for the long term for individuals, a business and society generally really. There's a sweet spot for a small number of people that earn London weighting whilst living miles away I don't there's much evidence it solving the housing affordability crisis at all. Made it worse if anything
I hope I get a date with Kate Beckingsale but that's very unlikely to happen too. You'll just have to be content with having got rid of the Tories. And replacing them with a party doing largely the same thing. Congratulations.
Well I would rather labour in charge than the Tories
Hopefully enough tinkering around the edges can make some sort of difference to people's lives
I think it was the leader of unite union that was on newsnight demanding this and that from an incoming Labour government
I just wish she and others would just stf up until the new government , if elected , bedded in
They just can't help themselves
Still it appears corbyn might be beaten in Islington so not all bad news
I am expected in the office once a month, I am currently part of the tightest, most productive team I have worked in. I could buy a 3bed fixer upper near family just outside of inverness for 140k (I wouldn't get half a 2bed round here for that), travel down for work and still be miles better off.
Ah, the fabled sweet spot where houses cost 10x the median salary , you travel for 3 hours a day to get to work and your extra salary barely covers your train fare. Lucky bastards. Not to mention the ripple effect which makes it harder to live and work in areas where people who work in London move to.
Being in the office is 'better for society'? I would love to hear how that is more important to 'society' than being able to live/work in the same community, being able to have free time (not swallowed up by a sweaty commute) and for younger people to have enough security in their lives/finances to start a family.
The misleading statement you made that I corrected for you had nothing to do with that.
My point isn't about office working etc.
If people with higher incomes move to lower-priced areas, how would the locals feel?
I don't know. What are you classing as a higher income? I don't think it's right to expect younger people to live in some kind of perpetual 'just about make ends meet each month's rat race in the south east of england if they can obtain a better quality of life elsewhere.
You've made that pretty clear. But it seems to be the "name" Tories you object to. It doesn't seem to matter to you what an alternative party would actually do, just so long as they aren't called Tories. Which is fine but a bit odd.
There is no point - he is a lost cause. Pent up angry little man, forever single, like the weird uncle who is socially awkward. Blames everyone else for his own shortcomings and has anti anti Tory fetish - whilst living in heart of a Tory county. He is a strange one - at least he gets his kicks on a football msgboard rather than being a nuisance elsewhere (as far as we know anyway)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote