Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rick_chasey

That was of the living, not the dead..!

narbs

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Leaving the politics out of it I would say that Steve answered the question with point one. Put another way maximise revenue with the least distortion to the market.

My own broad brushstroke answer would be to remove (as far as possible) all tax breaks and incentives and concentrate on raising the threshold and keeping the rates as low as possible. I would also make income tax honest by incorporating NI.

But Steve's answer lists his aims towards which specific policies should be geared, he doesn't give any idea of what those may be.

So for example I'd be interested if he, or others, think that we should abolish VAT, have a one-flat-rate system and so on. And what should be paid for out of central taxation, what out of local etc etc.

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

That was of the living, not the dead..!

I don't think that changes things in the slightest.
The principle of private property is that it is yours to do what you choose with. As soon as the state rules that it doesn't belong to you but can only be borrowed for a while according to rules dictated byt the state - that's communism.

rjsterry

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

That was of the living, not the dead..!

I don't think that changes things in the slightest.
The principle of private property is that it is yours to do what you choose with. As soon as the state rules that it doesn't belong to you but can only be borrowed for a while according to rules dictated byt the state - that's communism.

It makes all the difference. You can't own anything if you are not alive. That's not to say I agree with 100% IHT.

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well anything gifted within 7 years of death, assuming the giver was say, over, 57.

The rest you tax like you would any normal transfer right now.

One way to generate an enormous demand for solicitors and accountants but where would we get them from?

kingstongraham

Tangled Metal wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Someone has to pay for care. I don't have a problem with that being me, when my time comes.

General taxation pot. It's about the priorities. Social care of the elderly isn't a big winner on that stakes. Imagine if you had to pay for all you NHS treatment when you retired. Would you be happy to pay for that?

We are talking about people who are vulnerable, who cannot look after themselves and probably need round the clock care. Certainly a secure establishment. It's not much different to healthcare in many ways. Dementia is a health condition but it goes under social care until a point it becomes too bad. That is when it becomes a health issue and gets funded. That takes a subjective decision by a social worker and we all know they're under stress.

The social care of adults is underfunded. Simple fact. If you are happy to self fund then can I suggest you start going private with your healthcare too? IMHO there's a very grey line between healthcare and social care of the elderly. One you get free the other you don't if you have money or your family have money. Don't forget the reality is that even if funded your elderly relative's next of kin will before asked for top ups by the care provider if under state funding.

The way the population mix is going, I think it would be more responsible to admit that you are going to have to look after yourself if you can afford to, and that you might want to.

And on private health, I see no contradiction between wanting (and wanting to pay for) a good free healthcare system for all, and being able to pay for a better one.

mrfpb

Stevo 666 wrote:

Well, looks like New Old Labour have finally decided that £80k pa is the level at which you are deemed to be rich and need to be punished. Bet they would have gone for a lower threshold if they thought they could get away with it.

Trouble is, it probably won't raise much if the last effort at being spiteful and raising the top rate to 50 % is anything to go by.

Clealry they need MPs to vote for the policy and MPs are paid -

guess how much?

£76,000 approx.

Coincidence?

mrfpb

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

You don't have kids, do you.

No.

I had the discussion with my parents, who were the first to float the idea - which is how I got thinking about it. I'm pretty sure they have children.

But let's hear the arguments? As in, rational, economic arguments.

Not 'oh but I want Tarquin to be able to have money when he's already middle aged and is towards the end of his earning cycle'.

People's savings underpin the banks lending. The poor level savings deposits as a proportion of lending was one of the drivers of the great financial crash. Savings (and investments) also underpin the pensions industry. Policies such as IHT will discourage cash savings. And as others have pointed out, for most people the money was taxed before they saved it.

Equity in proerty is a different issue. If the value of my house goes up at twive the rate of inflation, that is wealth that I have done notheing to earn, and have never paid tax on. So a differential treatment of savings from income and savings from unearned income would be appropriate.

surrey_commuter

mrfpb wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

You don't have kids, do you.

No.

I had the discussion with my parents, who were the first to float the idea - which is how I got thinking about it. I'm pretty sure they have children.

But let's hear the arguments? As in, rational, economic arguments.

Not 'oh but I want Tarquin to be able to have money when he's already middle aged and is towards the end of his earning cycle'.

People's savings underpin the banks lending. The poor level savings deposits as a proportion of lending was one of the drivers of the great financial crash. Savings (and investments) also underpin the pensions industry. Policies such as IHT will discourage cash savings. And as others have pointed out, for most people the money was taxed before they saved it.

Equity in proerty is a different issue. If the value of my house goes up at twive the rate of inflation, that is wealth that I have done notheing to earn, and have never paid tax on. So a differential treatment of savings from income and savings from unearned income would be appropriate.

Cause and effect - lending is a multiple of peoples savings

Maybe the value of your house went up at twice the rate of inflation because you spent £5k a year on maintenance and improvements how are you going to allow for that plus the cost of buying, selling and interest on borrowing the money. Turns out that by the time your accountant has finished you have made a loss and now you are offsetting this against your PAYE.

tangled_metal

I'm starting to get excited about the GE since the leaked Labour manifesto draft. Anyone else looking forward to it?

I'm hoping the Tories help them with some of the policies. Like sectoral collective bargaining through unions. I think ex Labour MPs would appreciate help negotiating better severance deals for the long period they'll be kept out of Westminster except as a visitor of course.

Anyone else think it's a wind up? Can they really offer the voting public that vision of Britain? It's a sounding out of opinions surely, a large scale focus group thingy surely.

Can I just add that if Labour has fully costed this manifesto out then what have the Tories been doing with all this cash bonanza? Tory slush fund for one hell of a party after the GE perhaps. Reckon they've been stockpiling it since Corbyn first became leader. I'm going to join the party I think. With all that money going it'll be a lost week with all the champagne going on offer in Tory parties up and down the country.

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

I'm starting to get excited about the GE since the leaked Labour manifesto draft. Anyone else looking forward to it?

Yes

http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

The excuses of some on here on June 9th will be good entertainment. Another couple couple of percent on the Tory support in that poll and the lefties wont even be able to roll out the tired old 'you don't have a mandate because the majority didn't vote for you' line.

mrfpb

I've been following this one:

http://britainelects.com/

Which shows a better % for Labour (and is more up to date), but still Tories on 19% lead. The actual poll results behind the poll of polls is here:

http://britainelects.com/polling/westminster/

UKIP seem to have plummetted following the local elections. I think everyone has realised they are a redundant party. Oddly Tory and Labour have both benefitted from their fall.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I'm starting to get excited about the GE since the leaked Labour manifesto draft. Anyone else looking forward to it?

Yes

http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

The excuses of some on here on June 9th will be good entertainment. Another couple couple of percent on the Tory support in that poll and the lefties wont even be able to roll out the tired old 'you don't have a mandate because the majority didn't vote for you' line.

Probable though that might be, they're all still eggs at the moment.
Labour's policies might be an attempt to turn back time but at least they have some beyond fox hunting and Milliband's hand-me-down :P

Now I've got that bloody Cher song going round my head.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I'm starting to get excited about the GE since the leaked Labour manifesto draft. Anyone else looking forward to it?

Yes

http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

The excuses of some on here on June 9th will be good entertainment. Another couple couple of percent on the Tory support in that poll and the lefties wont even be able to roll out the tired old 'you don't have a mandate because the majority didn't vote for you' line.

Probable though that might be, they're all still eggs at the moment.
Labour's policies might be an attempt to turn back time but at least they have some beyond fox hunting and Milliband's hand-me-down :P

Now I've got that bloody Cher song going round my head.

Still eggs but do you really see it changing barring some Black Swan event for the tories.

The Labour manifesto beats more than a few similarities to the 1983 Labour 'longest suicide note in history'.

Talking of music, I heard the theme tune to 'Mission Impossible' yesterday and thought that maybe Labour and the Lib Dems could adopt it as their party song

wallace_and_gromit

Stevo 666 wrote:

Talking of music, I heard the theme tune to 'Mission Impossible' yesterday and thought that maybe Labour and the Lib Dems could adopt it as their party song

For inexplicable reasons I have "Things can only get better..." on my turbo playlist. How did that work out then?

tangled_metal

Well I'm looking forward to the collective bargaining of the unions after the election. Corbyn win for be!

BTW my phone's spellchecker keeps autocorrecting election to ejection. Does it know something about the Tory government's chances we don't? Polls can before wrong you know.

tangled_metal

BTW, have we switched to other topics such as music because it's a done deal now? Tory win and Labour near annihilation means this thread has nowhere constructive to go?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I'm starting to get excited about the GE since the leaked Labour manifesto draft. Anyone else looking forward to it?

Yes

http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

The excuses of some on here on June 9th will be good entertainment. Another couple couple of percent on the Tory support in that poll and the lefties wont even be able to roll out the tired old 'you don't have a mandate because the majority didn't vote for you' line.

Probable though that might be, they're all still eggs at the moment.
Labour's policies might be an attempt to turn back time but at least they have some beyond fox hunting and Milliband's hand-me-down :P

Now I've got that bloody Cher song going round my head.

Still eggs but do you really see it changing barring some Black Swan event for the tories.

The Labour manifesto beats more than a few similarities to the 1983 Labour 'longest suicide note in history'.

Talking of music, I heard the theme tune to 'Mission Impossible' yesterday and thought that maybe Labour and the Lib Dems could adopt it as their party song

No I don't see it changing significantly. It was more of a "plague on both your houses" comment.

kingstongraham

Tangled Metal wrote:

BTW, have we switched to other topics such as music because it's a done deal now? Tory win and Labour near annihilation means this thread has nowhere constructive to go?

It's a really tedious election when you know the result in advance and the opposition isn't even trying.

I feel 2022 could be a whole lot more interesting. I don't think it is possible to predict which parties will be the main parties then, as one of them might not even exist yet.

wallace_and_gromit

Tangled Metal wrote:

BTW, have we switched to other topics such as music because it's a done deal now? Tory win and Labour near annihilation means this thread has nowhere constructive to go?

Probably more that the campaign is far too long and we're all bored with it having long since made up our minds how we're going to vote.

tangled_metal

Join the Tory party and save Labour????

Perhaps we could try this and help save a viable opposition by destroying the Tories?!

Something drastic needs to be done to make politics entertaining beyond the humour derived from the second longest suicide note from Labour. We're in an era of political excitement from not knowing who will win an election. I want to go to sleep on election night to wake up keen to turn tv on and see what the results look like. This time I'm actually meh! For possibly the first time I might not bother voting.

rick_chasey

Do please vote.

The narrower the voting base, the more likely it is you end up with dodgy politics.

Seriously.

Doesn't matter who for, just do it, please.

Honestly, and I mean this, I'd rather you thought about it, voted for the best of a bad bunch and voted BNP or UKIP than not voting.

For democracy to work it's gotta be representative. It has to be.

meursault

If Brexit and Trump are anything to go by, I wouldn't place too much faith in the polls.

My instinct and workplace discussions tell me that the status quo will prevail. That is, USA style personality politics (no politics) and a very low workers consciousness that won't go to the polls and vote for a party that represents them. So the tories, somehow, remain.

Having said that, it seems, a protest is bubbling under, and the membership, not the PLP, support Corbyn overwhelmingly. Could go either way.

rick_chasey

So the consensus on the moderate left is this election is an inconvenience to Corbyn's plan to reform the Labour party so it will permanently be more left wing.

He's desperately holding out till September where they will have the chance to chance the voting weights to elect candidates, essentially ensuring there will always be a hard left candidate.

Hence his desire to change the goal posts and measure his success against Ed Milliband's performance, rather than leaving after being humiliated at the voting booths.

That's why the manifesto is so narrow - it's about energising the base labour members to keep them voting for him in September.

That's why he's campaiging in labour safe seats and not going near swing seats. He's not interested in the GE.

meursault

Rick Chasey wrote:

So the consensus on the moderate left is this election is an inconvenience to Corbyn's plan to reform the Labour party so it will permanently be more left wing.

He's desperately holding out till September where they will have the chance to chance the voting weights to elect candidates, essentially ensuring there will always be a hard left candidate.

Hence his desire to change the goal posts and measure his success against Ed Milliband's performance, rather than leaving after being humiliated at the voting booths.

The moderate left? Who are they? Blairites are full on tories.

It's not some principle of where on the left Labour is, but an ideological reaction against rampant capitalism. Where capitalism isn't working, and the list is very long, you need an alternative.

The only voting booths he's stood in so far, have been majority victories, yet the right wing keep pushing the unelectable tag.

We'll see.

rick_chasey

OK.

There's quite a big ideological difference between Blairism and Toryism in any form, but I sense you don't want that debate...

And is capitalism actually failing? Or is it mismanagement?

rick_chasey

I mean, this last decade has seen more people lifted out of absolute poverty than at any time in history - and that's largely a function of China's embrace of capitalism.

narbs

Rick Chasey wrote:

So the consensus on the moderate left is this election is an inconvenience to Corbyn's plan to reform the Labour party so it will permanently be more left wing.

He's desperately holding out till September where they will have the chance to chance the voting weights to elect candidates, essentially ensuring there will always be a hard left candidate.

Hence his desire to change the goal posts and measure his success against Ed Milliband's performance, rather than leaving after being humiliated at the voting booths.

That's why the manifesto is so narrow - it's about energising the base labour members to keep them voting for him in September.

That's why he's campaiging in labour safe seats and not going near swing seats. He's not interested in the GE.

Very hard to disagree with any of this - particularly this last sentence. I've heard plenty of whispers (which I suspect will become louder) that candidates, including sitting MPs, in marginals are getting no support from the leadership. No telephone canvassing, no resources, certainly no visits.

rick_chasey

I imagine in swing seats it's partly mutual - I've heard of Labour MPs on the door saying vote for me in spite of Corbyn...

bendertherobot

narbs wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So the consensus on the moderate left is this election is an inconvenience to Corbyn's plan to reform the Labour party so it will permanently be more left wing.

He's desperately holding out till September where they will have the chance to chance the voting weights to elect candidates, essentially ensuring there will always be a hard left candidate.

Hence his desire to change the goal posts and measure his success against Ed Milliband's performance, rather than leaving after being humiliated at the voting booths.

That's why the manifesto is so narrow - it's about energising the base labour members to keep them voting for him in September.

That's why he's campaiging in labour safe seats and not going near swing seats. He's not interested in the GE.

Very hard to disagree with any of this - particularly this last sentence. I've heard plenty of whispers (which I suspect will become louder) that candidates, including sitting MPs, in marginals are getting no support from the leadership. No telephone canvassing, no resources, certainly no visits.

I know an MP who is a former shadow (insert title). He is one of the ones who resigned.

Imagine the issues you face. Brexit area, that leader, it's a nightmare for that sort of MP. And, we forget, it's about that MP and what he can do for the people he represents.