Will Messrs Reeves and Raynor Still Be Around This Time Next Year?

Why would popularity give you confidence though?

I have confidence in someone who is not rising to the media slurs and bot-inspired tweets that have whipped up such negativity. KS has said that he doesn't care about popularity and I respect that in him.

If he allowed some of the comments about him to make him deviate from his plans he would not the sensible leader I believe him to be. Popular does not equate to competent.

He’ll care nought for that.

For what? My confidence in him?

No, I doubt he’s particularly thrilled about that. If he wanted my full support he’d be a lot further to the left, but we can only vote for who we think best. My MP was the best of the bunch, and I firmly believe that KS is the best of the leaders who could have got in.

He doesn’t have to single me out for consideration- that’s the reason I vote Labour - they are interested in what is fair for everyone.

Actually DD I agree with that, but being the best of a bad bunch isn’t that much of a recommendation. Then starting off by doing what he condemned others when they suggested it . . .

I agree that popular does not necessarily equate to competent, Angela Merkel is a good example. But at least she cared about everyone in her country. Keir Starmer appears to be selective.

The answer to the question is I hope not. Keir is boringly bland and AR an embarrassment. Don't think much of the opposition either. .
The people who have integrity and could do the job don't want it.

Why are you embarrassed by Angela Raynor Allsorts ?

I don’t think that sharing the burden of taxation is being ‘selective’ though. For too long it has been working people (ie those in work) who have been expected to fund the lifestyles of the non-working (ie those not paying income tax) and choosing to spread the burden of paying for for all the things we take for granted in a first world country seems to me to be fair and reasonable.

The country has never taxed people who don’t go to work except through VAT, car tax, petrol etc. They have a personal allowance and if they choose not to work, or can’t work for some reason, then they don’t use their tax allowance and they don’t pay income tax because they don’t earn an income. It was ever this, and I have no doubt that it will remain. The idea that people who don’t work so don’t pay income tax should make a payment towards services they may, or may not use, will not happen and I suspect will never happen. I hold no resentment towards people who don’t work using the NHS or education etc.

Incidentally, high earners don’t have a tax allowance (the usual one of around £12000) and actually pay tax on every single penny earned, and I’m not talking about billionaires.

madalene Less than half of the money raised by the government comes from income tax and National Insurance, so of course non-working people contribute in some way, imcluding VAT, council tax, fuel duty, tobacco and alcohol duties, etc. VAT raises almost as much as National Insurance.

There are other ways that a government can raise money other than by tinkering around with income tax and NICs.

That’s exactly what I was saying growstuff.

I agree with you growstuff.

There are other ways that a government can raise money other than by tinkering around with income tax and NICs.

And the 'other ways' include direct spending into the economy (viewed by some as 'money printing'). Which is cheaper all round, but disliked those who use interest on government bonds as part of their income. And by the banks, which create a great deal of the money in the economy, because they can't make any profit on direct state spending...

Sorry, I can see that. The point I was making is that people who don't work do contribute to services. The Treasury doesn't know whether money has come from income tax or some other tax. It all goes into the same pot.

I can't see that any government would ever ask people to pay some kind of citizen tax, but in some cases the public is already paying for services, for example museum entries, extra fees for taking away garden rubbish and large items, prescription charges, school transport for 16-18 year olds. Some people feel forced to pay for private medical care.

MaizieD

^There are other ways that a government can raise money other than by tinkering around with income tax and NICs.^

And the 'other ways' include direct spending into the economy (viewed by some as 'money printing'). Which is cheaper all round, but disliked those who use interest on government bonds as part of their income. And by the banks, which create a great deal of the money in the economy, because they can't make any profit on direct state spending...

Exactly! So whatever is announced in the budget will not be easily comprehensible to people who only look at 'headline' figures of tax rates, etc.

I'm still hopeful that Reeves does understand that and has something up her sleeve to mitigate some of the cuts we've already seen.

Exactly. I don’t agree with a citizen tax either. Everyone contributes to the tax take, whether or not they work. That’s my point.

madalene

Exactly. I don’t agree with a citizen tax either. Everyone contributes to the tax take, whether or not they work. That’s my point.

The point I was making is that people who don't work do contribute to services. The Treasury doesn't know whether money has come from income tax or some other tax. It all goes into the same pot.

Yes to both.

MaizieD

^There are other ways that a government can raise money other than by tinkering around with income tax and NICs.^

And the 'other ways' include direct spending into the economy (viewed by some as 'money printing'). Which is cheaper all round, but disliked those who use interest on government bonds as part of their income. And by the banks, which create a great deal of the money in the economy, because they can't make any profit on direct state spending...

Yes, but it needs to be very carefully managed, a balancing act.

There are clearly different schools of thought and people will never agree (which is fine) but it is not just tax that 'working people' contribute, but the goods and/or services that their working provides.

Those who use money that someone else has earned to go to museums or whatever are not contributing goods, services or 'new money', but are still getting education, healthcare, defence, infrastructure and so on. It's very much a free ride, if they are able to work but simply choose not to. I'm not talking about pensioners who are living on pensions based on contributions made when they did work (and yes, I know there is no 'pot' ), or about those who are sick or disabled, or caring for those who are sick or disabled. A decent society should, of course, provide for them, and anyone else who has a genuine reason not to contribute in their own right. Nor am I saying that women who stayed at home when their children were babies should have done anything differently. As I have said repeatedly, we do what is right at the time, and times change.

Whether the breadwinner in a household contributing one lot of tax to cover everyone in it pays the museum entry from his or her pocket or it is paid by his or her spouse/partner is irrelevant, however - it is the same money being circulated, not 'new money'. The spouse is not 'contributing to the tax take', whether they hand over the money or not.

I don't think a citizen tax is likely, but nor do I think that it should be income tax that props up the system, which is why I am pleased with the government's wish to avoid targeting working people in the budget.

I realise that hardly anyone on here agrees with me, but I have yet to hear a convincing reason why I am wrong (as opposed to calling me names or questioning my love for my children). I am happy to listen if anyone can explain (preferably civilly) why it is fair for people to take the benefits of living in a first world society but not contribute to the cost of providing them. If none of us worked, what sort of society do people think we would have, and on what grounds do they think some should be able to opt out and others not?

Doodledog This country is not a first world country, that is a myth. Apparently according to some, each person here has £25k per head annually less than American citizens.
Also there are many people who still work past their retirement age. At the moment, my DH is losing half his company pension in tax because of it. However I am acting as an unpaid housekeeper- is this fair?
When our children were very small, my DH went to work for a rest. I still don’t seem to have that privilege at the end of my life.

What does ‘apparently, according to some’ mean in real terms, please?

I am still waiting for some sort of explanation as to why it is acceptable for some to expect a free ride whilst others are supposed to be taxed on the money they provide for the society we all live in. Anyone?

The term "first world" as originally developed is outdated. What's your definition of "first world" in the modern world?

ronib It would make sense if you found yourself a job because you'd probably only pay 20% tax and your husband could work less. It's up to you how you divide the work in your household, but Doodledog is correct. Your husband is paying for your access to the NHS and other infrastructure.

growstuff I am well past 67 years. Exactly who is going to give me a job? My DH should be paying me to run the house? What nonsense is spouted sometimes.

growstuff for some, the USA is seen as first world! Certainly in economic clout, it’s way ahead of the UK.