Love the longer hair Rachel and the smiles!

As several posters say, Labour not putting up taxes from the off was a big mistake and shouldn’t have been in their manifesto.
What they could have done tho was to say once in power that things were so bad that if the people want good public services then taxes would need to go up, they didn’t do that and I knew that was the wrong choice at the time.Then RR built on that mistake by vowing she wouldn’t be coming back next year (now) for tax hikes.And now of course she has to.She has proved to be a poor Chancellor and is now shored up by a couple of economists to help her out.
It has to be a big swathe of the population that pays higher taxes, there just aren’t enough very wealthy people around to bring in enough money.
Her policies on farmers and businesses paying higher NI for employees and higher living wages at the same time are disastrous for growth. When will Starmer replace her?

Thanks PaynesGrey for clarification 👍🏻

TerriBull

Her hair's fine, her fiscal policies aren't. No need to expand on that we all know the effects of the NI hike which has been so counter productive for businesses. In any case I don't think we should be commenting on her appearance, she's the Chancellor not Kim Kardashian.

No, she's not Kim Kardashian.

Ms Kardashian is highly likely much - very much - more financially savvy.

Parties are not set in stone, if they can change one way then they can change another. As long as its the current voting system we have to make the best of it. If we move to PR you will have the chance, to get your own choice.

Absolutely Wyllow. I may not agree with some things that Labour does but I accept that we had a democratic election under FPTP and that’s what happens. The majority of voters end up with a government they don’t want. The majority of voters end up with an MP they don’t want. And yet when we had a referendum in 2011 to ask if people wanted PR (in the form of AV), two thirds of voters said no. Every major party apart from the Tories has said they want PR and yet here we are again with a government that only 34% of voters wanted.

There is so much the Reeves could do instead of increasing taxation on ab already hard pressed section of the population, the barely managing and the lower paid ‘middle classes’ who are suffering from inflation and the subsequent increases in food, fuel and servicing mortgage debt or paying high rental costs.

She could take control of the Bank of England and stop them paying £billions in interest on bank reserves. Reserves which have been given to the banks by the BoE since the GFC in order for them to be able to guarantee up to £85k of customers deposits should there be another banking crisis like that in 2008. The interest is paid because bank reserves are supposedly deposit accounts with the BoE. It’s ludicrous because the BoE created them in the first place. Other countries don’t pay interest on such reserves.

She could also concentrate on making taxation more progressive, tax the wealthy on their unearned income so that their tax burden is the same percentage as that of those who are taxed by PAYE. At the moment it is a considerably lower percentage. And she could rectify anomalies, such ss the fact that people living solely or mainly on dividend or rental incomes don’t pay National Insurance.

And, if course, she could increase government spending, which would grow the economy and increase the tax take without the need to increase rates.

But she won’t..

Last post to PaynesGrey

The day 'hysterical' is not a put down, there will be snowball fights in hell. Your tiredness is no excuse for pejorative terms.

Plenty of analysis here. I just think she sees the wolves circling Keir Starmer and that was her setting her stall out as the next PM. It was an elaborate production to tell us all to wait until the budget, which is what we were doing anyway.

PaynesGrey

growstuff

If something costs £13.80 and increases to £15, the increase is £1.20. £1.20 is 8.7% of £13.80, therefore the percentage increase is 8.7%.

I think we are talking semantics or pedantics. The rise was from 13.8% to 15% which I expressed as a 1.2% increase.

If Reeves were to increase income tax from 20% to 21% it will have gone up by 1% one percent of a £1.

Yes, the last sentence is correct because it's been worded differently (and accurately). However, the first claim is not pedantic and it's something which so many people (including journalists) get wrong. It's an 8.7% increase in a deduction for the employee, ie. the employee is having 8.7% more deducted to pay for National Insurance.

Rosie51

Added to which someone on a minimum wage job losing £2.50 a week is not the peanuts you assume! Leave them out of any tax rises, start them further up the scale!

And for all we know that may be what happens.

I rest my case about over-reacting, (as you object to the word hysteria), over something that hasn't happened yet.

Rosie51

PaynesGrey let’s not get hysterical in a country where a tube of Polo mints costs 70p (£1 in Waitrose) and a cup of coffee £4.
who is getting hysterical? People are expressing opinions, belittling them by use of words such as 'hysterical' shows a contempt that is undeserved. Not willing to give up your £4 posh coffee then? Who knew Polo mints had become so expensive, not bought a packet in over 30 years, they're very bad for your teeth

I am not belittling people, only very, very tired of the fuss over something that hasn't even happened yet and even if it does happen may have minimal consequences for the average person.

And you can save the sarcasm and the silly emojis. I am allowed to express an opinion too.

Allira

^Cutting spending depresses the economy.^

Oh! We agree!
😀

I apologise for misinterpreting your response to fancythat. I thought you were agreeing with the cutting spending so it was puzzling that you then said about spending stimulating the economy🤔

You’re certainly right that no-one will agree with her.

Rosie51

Wyllow are you saying that broken manifesto pledges only count if it's something you're concerned about? Personally I wish they had campaigned on a manifesto of fair but necessary tax rises whether that be NI, VAT, income or other fiscal changes, but then I prefer honesty. Only a fool could possibly believe that the mess austerity got us into was going to be solved by more of the same. I voted Labour, I'm in serious danger of having 'buyers remorse'.

Quite a lot of us in the L Party wished they should have said "if needs must" and have gone on saying so subsequently. So I don't disagree with you in principle at all.

OTOH had we said appropriate tax rises but no actual figures, how many votes would they have lost in the elections

It's real politik and I don't like it but there it is.

Reform have just completely changed tune on tax, recognising people might do the math and realise it would mean enormous cuts beyond even loyal reform voters toleration.

The Conservatives are currently dead in the water, the pathetic swipes by Badenoch at PMQ dont actually ever tell us what they would do.

I'm in the Party to change it atm. I go out on the doors and will as long as possible.

Parties are not set in stone, if they can change one way then they can change another. As long as its the current voting system we have to make the best of it. If we move to PR you will have the chance, to get your own choice.

Added to which someone on a minimum wage job losing £2.50 a week is not the peanuts you assume! Leave them out of any tax rises, start them further up the scale!

PaynesGrey let’s not get hysterical in a country where a tube of Polo mints costs 70p (£1 in Waitrose) and a cup of coffee £4.
who is getting hysterical? People are expressing opinions, belittling them by use of words such as 'hysterical' shows a contempt that is undeserved. Not willing to give up your £4 posh coffee then? Who knew Polo mints had become so expensive, not bought a packet in over 30 years, they're very bad for your teeth

Perhaps Reeves should take the Reform line and just say that not raising taxes was aspirational. After all Farage has just admitted that the £90 billion of tax cuts he promised in their contract was just that.

A political manifesto is not legally binding in the traditional sense; there is no legal obligation for a government to fulfill all its promises once elected. By contrast, a contact is legally binding.

Someone on mean average annual salary in the UK earns £38,224.

A penny on income tax would cost the person with an income of £38,224 less than £5 a week, about 70p a day. Someone working full time on minimum wage less than £2.50 a week or 35p a day.

Let’s wait and see what happens but equally let’s not get hysterical in a country where a tube of Polo mints costs 70p (£1 in Waitrose) and a cup of coffee £4.

I’d rather forgo the Polos mints and pay a bit more tax to see the two child cap on Universal Credit abolished.

Wyllow are you saying that broken manifesto pledges only count if it's something you're concerned about? Personally I wish they had campaigned on a manifesto of fair but necessary tax rises whether that be NI, VAT, income or other fiscal changes, but then I prefer honesty. Only a fool could possibly believe that the mess austerity got us into was going to be solved by more of the same. I voted Labour, I'm in serious danger of having 'buyers remorse'.

Love th new look, and am not concerned they have changed their policy at all from the election

- what's the point having a politician who can't change as needs must?

Why is it always ;'wrong" to have to change from an election manifesto, whatever the area under consideration? I just dont get that.

As an example of one that really matters, is BJ's promise to sort Care, remember? did he do anything at all for it?

There are some election promises that do of course count, but having to change tax policy due to need isnt one of them. As ever for some reason in the UK people get angry at the shortage of services

but dont want to shell out.

StripeyGran

Teazel2

PaynesGrey

Labour came to power in 2024 in a snap election. We’d had 14 years of austerity the tail end of which was catastrophically damaging Brexit, a lethal pandemic swiftly followed by a cost of living crisis and record energy prices - the latter three major issues where the previous government provided funds to keep businesses and families afloat.

Everybody here in a pensioner household will have had at least £1,000 help - EBSS of £400 and a WFP boosted by £300 for two consecutive years. All households received EBSS. The cost of those two bits of help alone cost around £17-18 billion.

Interest rates rocketed as result of the soaring inflation.

On top of that we had the irregular migration issue where from 2022 the Tories had just stuck asylum seekers in hotels, awarding lucrative contracts to private businesses while they virtually stopping processing asylum applications.

On top of all this, almost the first thing the new government had to tackle was the FarageRiots swiftly followed by the election of Trump and the many challenges he presented with his toddler tariff tantrums.

And yet people expect the mess to be resolved in 16 months. They gripe constantly about the state of the NHS and yet when Reeves raises extra funds for it they complain about that too.

Yes, I am aware of the different monetary theories and that there are other ways but this is the way that goverments do it - they treat the economy as books that have to be balanced.

We have a costly ageing popualtion, around a quarter of the working age population not working and around 30% of children living in poverty.

How would critics address all this?

‘Irregular immigration issue’

You really have swallowed Labour speak, hook, line and sinker.

What would you call it?

What it is, illegal immigration.

growstuff

Thank you PaynesGray. Please continue with your rebuttals.

Thanks. I do feel I am wasting my time though save for clarifying my own thoughts and understanding.

growstuff

If something costs £13.80 and increases to £15, the increase is £1.20. £1.20 is 8.7% of £13.80, therefore the percentage increase is 8.7%.

I think we are talking semantics or pedantics. The rise was from 13.8% to 15% which I expressed as a 1.2% increase.

If Reeves were to increase income tax from 20% to 21% it will have gone up by 1% one percent of a £1.

sundowngirl

When is she going to stop blaming everyone else - The Conservatives, Brexit, the pandemic, Nigel Farage, Liz Truss Ukraine, etc etc
Her policy of squeezing employers by raising their NI has stifled growth in this country but she won't take accountability for that. U-turns every other month
Labour will probably still be using the 'excuse 14 years of Tory government' by the end of this parliament.
When will it stop

Kwasi Kwarteng, don’t forget that one😀.

If something costs £13.80 and increases to £15, the increase is £1.20. £1.20 is 8.7% of £13.80, therefore the percentage increase is 8.7%.

Matt cartoon today.

PaynesGrey

dayvidg

PaynesGrey

dayvidg

PaynesGrey
'Reeves increased employers NIC from 13.8% to 15% a 1.2% increase'

I make that an 8.7% increase!

How?

15 divided by 13.8 x 100 = 8.69

What?

Would you agree that if the price of something increases from £13 to £15 it increases by £2?

Therefore if the price of something increases from £13.80 to £15.00 it increases by £1.20.

£100 x 13.8% = £13.80. £100 x 15% = £15.00. The increase is £1.20. £100 x 1.2% £1.20.

Sorry, but dayvidg is correct.