Westminster Politics

It's going to be tougher for small businesses off the back of today, an increase in wages in April next year, very slight change on National Insurance. Full expensing benefits the larger businesses so offers nothing for small business. Still no reform on business rates which is desperately needed, support on energy costs or even a stretch to review corporation tax.

Public spending down, and tax thresholds remain the same. Looks like a new version of austerity on the horizon.
 
Kinsella said:
Regardless of the amount or value of the assets, it’s the most disgusting tax there is (imo).

It’s essentially a death tax.
Click to expand...
It’s not. It’s a tax on the wealthy. The only issue is that the government are terrible at redistributing it to where it’s needed.

If you’re inheriting £500k to million tax free, plus 60% of anything over that, shut up and take it. You’re going to have a far easier life than almost everyone on this planet.
 
Kinsella said:
Regardless of the amount or value of the assets, it’s the most disgusting tax there is (imo).

It’s essentially a death tax.
Click to expand...

It’s arguably the most justifiable and necessary tax there is.

If you are fortunate enough to have £1m, I appreciate you won’t like it.

But it’s the easiest tax to make sense of.
 
Kinsella said:
Regardless of the amount or value of the assets, it’s the most disgusting tax there is (imo).

It’s essentially a death tax.
Click to expand...
It's the fairest tax there is, the people being taxed are too dead to notice. And only the rich pay it. And it helps prevent inherited privilege accumulating (not as well as it should, mind).

Of course, what you really object to is not being able to inherit a load of someone else's money tax free.
 
Last edited:
Dan_F said:
It’s not. It’s a tax on the wealthy. The only issue is that the government are terrible at redistributing it to where it’s needed.
Click to expand...
There’s nothing ill-gotten or illicit about this ‘wealth’. And, as you’ve alluded to, the idea that the state should get a chunk when it’s terrible at ‘redistributing’ wealth is just the icing on the cake.

Dan_F said:
If you’re inheriting £500k to million tax free, plus 60% of anything over that, shut up and take it. You’re going to have a far easier life than almost everyone on this planet.
Click to expand...
Not a penny (hopefully). A portion of it would just go towards whichever illegal and immoral war Britain’s involved in at the time, so I’m more than content with my stance.
 
Easy game. Push the wages up and keep the tax thresholds the same. Not even sure what’s stealthy about it
 
TheGame said:
Click to expand...

He didn't call it a shithole.

I mean, the audio makes it clear that he did indeed call it a shithole, but his defense is that he didn't call it a shithole even though he clearly fecking did.

I fecking hate these cnuts so much.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
He didn't call it a shithole.

I mean, the audio makes it clear that he did indeed call it a shithole, but his defense is that he didn't call it a shithole even though he clearly fecking did.

I fecking hate these cnuts so much.
Click to expand...
So is it a shithole or not?
 
Red in STL said:
So is it a shithole or not?
Click to expand...
As the resident of another shithole I can safely say that if you don't live there then it's not your place to say. It's like cats; my cats are arseholes but only I get to call them that.
 
Kinsella said:
There’s nothing ill-gotten or illicit about this ‘wealth’. And, as you’ve alluded to, the idea that the state should get a chunk when it’s terrible at ‘redistributing’ wealth is just the icing on the cake.


Not a penny (hopefully). A portion of it would just go towards whichever illegal and immoral war Britain’s involved in at the time, so I’m more than content with my stance.
Click to expand...
Well there is nothing ‘illicit’ about most wealth, but they are taxed higher, that’s how society works. As always for the rich, there are plenty of simple enough ways around it anyway so I’m sure you won’t have an issue avoiding paying your share if that’s what you’re worried about.
 
Kinsella said:
There’s nothing ill-gotten or illicit about this ‘wealth’. And, as you’ve alluded to, the idea that the state should get a chunk when it’s terrible at ‘redistributing’ wealth is just the icing on the cake.


Not a penny (hopefully). A portion of it would just go towards whichever illegal and immoral war Britain’s involved in at the time, so I’m more than content with my stance.
Click to expand...
It's probably just lucky asset inflation that wasn't worked for (house price increase).
 
FireballXL5 said:
Energy bills in Great Britain to rise by 5% from January as cap hits £1,928

Ofgem increases minimum price for energy suppliers to charge customers after rise in global gas prices

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...ls-great-britain-rise-january-price-cap-ofgem
Click to expand...
There's something seriously messed up when the organisation that is apparently set up "to protect consumers by working to deliver a greener, fairer energy system" ends up parroting the same bullshit excuses that the companies make whenever they hike prices.

It's like HR departments at work, who are apparently there to protect workers. Shite; you're all there to protect the business from getting into trouble.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
There's something seriously messed up when the organisation that is apparently set up "to protect consumers by working to deliver a greener, fairer energy system" ends up parroting the same bullshit excuses that the companies make whenever they hike prices.

It's like HR departments at work, who are apparently there to protect workers. Shite; you're all there to protect the business from getting into trouble.
Click to expand...

Tbf the clue is in the name - human resources. It could just be "the employee welfare department" or something if the intention was for them to help you.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
There's something seriously messed up when the organisation that is apparently set up "to protect consumers by working to deliver a greener, fairer energy system" ends up parroting the same bullshit excuses that the companies make whenever they hike prices.

It's like HR departments at work, who are apparently there to protect workers. Shite; you're all there to protect the business from getting into trouble.
Click to expand...

Quite agree.
 
This morning's headlines are a classic reason why this country is fecked.
 
Dan_F said:
Well there is nothing ‘illicit’ about most wealth, but they are taxed higher, that’s how society works. As always for the rich, there are plenty of simple enough ways around it anyway so I’m sure you won’t have an issue avoiding paying your share if that’s what you’re worried about.
Click to expand...
The rhetoric around wealth could lead many people to assume that most of it is gained illicitly however. But I agree with you that the rich should pay the most, it’s just a case of maximising the tax take from the rich and finding the best way of achieving that.

Its hard to resist succumbing to the sloganeering (and intuitive appeal) around taxing the rich, but when you discover that such policies, more often than not, reduce the tax take from that group then you have to be more practical about it.
 
Last edited:
Adisa said:
This morning's headlines are a classic reason why this country is fecked.
Click to expand...
daily-star-083309670.webp
 
justsomebloke said:
Okay, so Mr. Ron English probably has a thing or two to learn about what Rule of Law means.
Click to expand...

Reckon Ron English is just a right wing troll, either partially or fully aware of the issues at hand. But the number of likes he generates is what is worrying, as they'll be people who actually believe what he says.
 
I will not stop saying this - the fairest way of redistributing wealth or closing loopholes for the rich would be to equalise capital gains and dividends tax rates with the rates applied to other forms of non-savings income. Why should passive income be taxed at a more favourable rate than earned income? If anything, if governments truly wanted to incentivise hard work, it would be the other way around. Instead, rich people with investment portfolios and inherited property get a much more favourable tax rate (although admittedly the dividend rate has recently increased but not the whole way to 40 or 45%).
 
Kinsella said:
The rhetoric around wealth could lead many people to assume that most of it is gained illicitly however. But I agree with you that the rich should pay the most, it’s just a case of maximising the tax take from the rich and finding the best way of achieving that.

Its hard to resist succumbing to the sloganeering (and intuitive appeal) around taxing the rich, but when you discover that such policies, more often than not, reduce the tax take from that group then you have to be more practical about it.
Click to expand...

Go on then, find some evidence for this that isn't just a rich person saying it.

End of the day the UK is at the centre of the world's largest network of tax havens, if you're rich and don't want to pay much tax it's already very easy. Perhaps we should work on changing that...

Those who do pay their fair share of taxes will probably still do so if for example capital gains or income tax goes up a few percent.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
There's something seriously messed up when the organisation that is apparently set up "to protect consumers by working to deliver a greener, fairer energy system" ends up parroting the same bullshit excuses that the companies make whenever they hike prices.

It's like HR departments at work, who are apparently there to protect workers. Shite; you're all there to protect the business from getting into trouble.
Click to expand...
I feel attacked. :(
 
Kinsella said:
The rhetoric around wealth could lead many people to assume that most of it is gained illicitly however. But I agree with you that the rich should pay the most, it’s just a case of maximising the tax take from the rich and finding the best way of achieving that.

Its hard to resist succumbing to the sloganeering (and intuitive appeal) around taxing the rich, but when you discover that such policies, more often than not, reduce the tax take from that group then you have to be more practical about it.
Click to expand...
I think there was another thread a while ago about this, so probably not worth debating in here when we clearly have completely opposite views and won’t change each others mind. I’d rather the tax loopholes were closed than just accepting that if we try and take too much tax from the rich, they will just find a way around it.
 
Spark said:
Reckon Ron English is just a right wing troll, either partially or fully aware of the issues at hand. But the number of likes he generates is what is worrying, as they'll be people who actually believe what he says.
Click to expand...

Yup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.