Join the Labour Party and save your country!

ballysmate

Lookyhere wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

To lighten the mood somewhat.
The costs, if any, to the Exchequer of tax havens will be more than made up if Corbyn gets elected as PM. His vegan shadow Environment Secretary reckons meat should be treated the same as tobacco. Barking.

On the other hand, it would make the Dolmio thread academic wouldn't it?

Barking? too many dogs, too few responsible dog owners, So, if we tax dogs and those not taxed were eaten with the new healthier Dogmio problem solved!

Red meat is very destructive for the planet and a major cause of cancers.... things bad for either get taxed by tory and labour so why is it barking?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environme ... production

http://www.wcrf-uk.org/uk/preventing-ca ... prevention

Let's hope they put it in their manifesto then.

Lookyhere

the gov has cut £1.1 billion from the NHS repair budget for 2016, was that in theirs????

anyway, you said the meat/tobacco thing was a barking idea, i asked why you thought so?

ballysmate

If a Tory government came out and said they are going to tax a food group so highly as to take it out of reach of all but the wealthy, I'm sure you'd be outraged.
If a Tory government came out and said they are going to take away the livelihoods of thousands of people, not for economic reasons nor market reasons but because they wilfully wanted to tax it out of existence, you'd be outraged. Consider the outrage when Tata, a private company, decided that they were to close steel works because they were losing money hand over fist.

Looking forward to having to order steak/chops at the butcher's unseen in plain wrapping, as we can't have it on display can we?

Full English down the Greasy Spoon? Still legal but would you have to eat it outside in a shelter?


I take your point about the NHS repair budget, not being in their manifesto. I'm sure you can tell us where you would cut to raise the necessary money.

Lookyhere

When something is already taxed ie booze, tobacco, fuel, easy to increase, not so easy for red meat despite its impacts, whether in future, that ll remain the case is another matter.

re NHS repair budget, if repairs are not kept up, then ultimately this will cost more, stitch in time saves nine! so no saving at all and of course if IHT was nt being cut quite so aggressively, then maybe this repair budget plus a few other things would nt need to be?

ballysmate

So that's it then, back to IHT and the double taxation? I've made no secret that I think it unfair to tax income twice.
Interestingly though IHT take is at record levels.

http://economia.icaew.com/news/april-20 ... ta-reveals

I see the larger estates will pay more via probate fees and it will be easier to pass on your main residence to your children. Surely lefties will be happy with that.

Lookyhere

if you buy something for x and then 30 years later it is worth 100x, you then die and leave 100x to your kids, no tax has been paid on that increase in X has it? where is the double tax? (aside from the portion paid on the mortage repayments) not alot different from taxed interest on savings or CGT apart from you r now dead and dont care any more,
of course IHT has gone up, houses prices have risen exponentially.

Savings are different, they have been taxed.

you asked where i would get the nhs repair budget back from...... i ve told you.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

To lighten the mood somewhat.
The costs, if any, to the Exchequer of tax havens will be more than made up if Corbyn gets elected as PM. His vegan shadow Environment Secretary reckons meat should be treated the same as tobacco. Barking.

On the other hand, it would make the Dolmio thread academic wouldn't it?

Barking? too many dogs, too few responsible dog owners, So, if we tax dogs and those not taxed were eaten with the new healthier Dogmio problem solved!

Red meat is very destructive for the planet and a major cause of cancers.... things bad for either get taxed by tory and labour so why is it barking?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environme ... production

http://www.wcrf-uk.org/uk/preventing-ca ... prevention

Let's hope they put it in their manifesto then.

I agree, Jezza should put it in his manifesto that they will tax steak and bacon to high heaven. Just to see what the voters reaction is and whether Looky has a point

It might take the shine off March 14th every year though

Stevo_666

Never mind taxing it, I reckon they will start banning it
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-accused-of-snobbery-by-labour-backbencher-over-allegedly-blocking-mcdonalds-from-a6988726.html

Keep going, new old Labour...

ballysmate

Lookyhere wrote:

if you buy something for x and then 30 years later it is worth 100x, you then die and leave 100x to your kids, no tax has been paid on that increase in X has it? where is the double tax? (aside from the portion paid on the mortage repayments) not alot different from taxed interest on savings or CGT apart from you r now dead and dont care any more,
of course IHT has gone up, houses prices have risen exponentially.

Savings are different, they have been taxed.

you asked where i would get the nhs repair budget back from...... i ve told you.

So you are saying that you should pay tax on any profit you have made on your estate, which I agree is fairer than paying tax on the whole lot. You are assuming that an estate is purely your house. What about all the other bits that comprise your estate, stuff that depreciates? Cars are a big one. House contents? Worth a fortune when you buy them, FA if you sell. Investments? All part of your estate. What if you've been unlucky and they've tanked? I assume this depreciation would go in the loss column and would offset the increase in any house value.
But IHT doesn't tax any profit you may have made on the estate, it taxes the value doesn't it?

Unworkable? Of course it is.
Just trying to show how it is perhaps mistaken to focus purely on one facet of estate - house ownership. If one aspect of your estate is taxable based on appreciation, then surely the estate should be assessed as a whole, in the same context?

Buy a house before a price slump, die a few years later, do your relatives get a rebate?

ballysmate

Here's a story dear to lefties concerning two targets of their venom - McDonalds and zero hour contracts. The company held a trial by offering its employers the chance to move to a set contract. 80% elected to stay on ZHC.
They were given the choice of 4, 16 or 30 hour contracts. If my maths is correct, only 12% elected for the 30 hours.

Must be true, it's in the bible.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -contracts

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

My

Also let's not forget that UK unemployment overall has come down significantly since DC entered Downing Street in 2010 and is still at record lows:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35111020

Not withstanding the 1m in Zero hours contracts that aren't classed as unemployed.

750 jobs - whoopie do.

Lefties can always find negatives in good news. So once again: UK unemployment is at record low levels.



Some people use zero hours contracts as a flexible way of working. Or would you rather these people were on the dole?

Good find on the zero hours point Bally - as suspected, based on that announcement from the PC Gospel, the majority of people on zero hours contracts are on them because they want to be.

So in reality the reduction of UK unemployment I posted a little while back and have requoted for convenience is good news, isn't it Pinno

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

if you buy something for x and then 30 years later it is worth 100x, you then die and leave 100x to your kids, no tax has been paid on that increase in X has it? where is the double tax? (aside from the portion paid on the mortage repayments) not alot different from taxed interest on savings or CGT apart from you r now dead and dont care any more,
of course IHT has gone up, houses prices have risen exponentially.

Savings are different, they have been taxed.

you asked where i would get the nhs repair budget back from...... i ve told you.

So you are saying that you should pay tax on any profit you have made on your estate, which I agree is fairer than paying tax on the whole lot. You are assuming that an estate is purely your house. What about all the other bits that comprise your estate, stuff that depreciates? Cars are a big one. House contents? Worth a fortune when you buy them, FA if you sell. Investments? All part of your estate. What if you've been unlucky and they've tanked? I assume this depreciation would go in the loss column and would offset the increase in any house value.
But IHT doesn't tax any profit you may have made on the estate, it taxes the value doesn't it?

Unworkable? Of course it is.
Just trying to show how it is perhaps mistaken to focus purely on one facet of estate - house ownership. If one aspect of your estate is taxable based on appreciation, then surely the estate should be assessed as a whole, in the same context?

Buy a house before a price slump, die a few years later, do your relatives get a rebate?

Also, as I have posted before, if you make a gain on the house that you live in and sell it, that gain is tax free. So Looky's logic is fundamentally flawed here.

The principal private residence exemption as it is known has been around since time immemorial and will remain. Why the hell should it suddenly become taxable just because you die?

A lot of people still see IHT as a tax on the rich, hence some of the views expressed on here.

Lookyhere

i thought it was call Relief, not Exemption?

regardless, the rules on cgt and property are not quite as straight forward as you make out, 2nd homes, buy to let, bought for gain..... so profit from property can be taxed whilst you are alive, unlike with IHT which is paid for by the beneficiaries when you are past caring.
also, with changes coming through on thresholds, few will be paying it at all.

But the point is if this tax was abolished which you both want, where would you make up the tax shortfall from?

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

i thought it was call Relief, not Exemption?

regardless, the rules on cgt and property are not quite as straight forward as you make out, 2nd homes, buy to let, bought for gain..... so profit from property can be taxed whilst you are alive, unlike with IHT which is paid for by the beneficiaries when you are past caring.
also, with changes coming through on thresholds, few will be paying it at all.

But the point is if this tax was abolished which you both want, where would you make up the tax shortfall from?

If you read my post I was referring only to the home that you live in - this makes up the bulk of estate value for most people. PPE is now called PPR - it's the same thing, I just call it by the old name out of habit.

What to replace it with? It is already being effectively phased out as you say by the new thresholds so the various revenue raising measures announced such as apprentice levy etc and the various new anti-avoidance regs will cover it. And this has been budgeted for.

symo

Ballysmate wrote:

Here's a story dear to lefties concerning two targets of their venom - McDonalds and zero hour contracts. The company held a trial by offering its employers the chance to move to a set contract. 80% elected to stay on ZHC.
They were given the choice of 4, 16 or 30 hour contracts. If my maths is correct, only 12% elected for the 30 hours.

Must be true, it's in the bible.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -contracts

Out of interest if full time work is what 33hours per week, and some of those staff were doing full time hours on ZHC or more; then they weren't being offered an equivalent contract all. Or am I wrong? Looks like the illusion of choice to me, chose this and we have to give you benefits, or you can keep your current hours.

Stevo_666

symo wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Here's a story dear to lefties concerning two targets of their venom - McDonalds and zero hour contracts. The company held a trial by offering its employers the chance to move to a set contract. 80% elected to stay on ZHC.
They were given the choice of 4, 16 or 30 hour contracts. If my maths is correct, only 12% elected for the 30 hours.

Must be true, it's in the bible.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -contracts

Out of interest if full time work is what 33hours per week, and some of those staff were doing full time hours on ZHC or more; then they weren't being offered an equivalent contract all. Or am I wrong? Looks like the illusion of choice to me, chose this and we have to give you benefits, or you can keep your current hours.

Who said they were equivalent?

Bottom line is, 80% chose to stay on ZHC's - we have to assume that this suited them. So what's the problem?

Stevo_666

Looking forward to next week...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/24/labour-set-for-worst-council-defeat-in-opposition-for-34-years/

I hope you lot have all voted. Mine's in the post already.

rick_chasey

Ugh depressing.

disgruntledgoat

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ugh depressing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/labour-mp-backed-calls-to-relocate-israel-to-america/

Rather...

rick_chasey

That is the downside for the relentless hatred of politicians and the insistence to jump on anything and everything in their past life, as if they needed to have lived a life more virtuous than the average nun.

Only morons would sign up for that. So morons you get.

disgruntledgoat

Rick Chasey wrote:

That is the downside for the relentless hatred of politicians and the insistence to jump on anything and everything in their past life, as if they needed to have lived a life more virtuous than the average nun.

Only morons would sign up for that. So morons you get.

I love her excuse "it's ok. I was only an anti-Semite before I got elected an MP."

ballysmate

You don't need to look far to find her boss's and his boss's views. She was only echoing them.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... tisemitism

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 19156.html

Not to mention terrorists closer to home.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ent-labour

rick_chasey

This is exactly what I mean.

I'm sure if I became a politician people would trawl through some posts I've made on here and it'd end up in the paper demanding an apology for all the huge offence is has inflicted. :roll:.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

This is exactly what I mean.

I'm sure if I became a politician people would trawl through some posts I've made on here and it'd end up in the paper demanding an apology for all the huge offence is has inflicted. :roll:.

If it was one isolated quote or incident, then yes, you have a point. But with these it isn't is it? There are lots of incidents of Corbyn sharing a platform or giving praise to unsavoury groups. Should it all be brushed under the carpet or should we not stop to think what politicians' views actually are? Or should we just disregard odious views held by MPs just because they are in the past? After all, these were the thoughts and beliefs held.

As Goat said, the excuse is priceless - I used to be anti Semitic but that was before I became an MP.

rick_chasey

No it's more the only people left who will do it are morons, hence the dodgy excuse.

shimanobottombracket

Labour is to our country what fecal matter is to a restaurant. There are many types of fecal matter such as:

Bull feces (Tories)
Rat feces (Labour)
Diarrhea (Donald Trump)

ballysmate

People on here have mocked the "All in it together" philosophy. Well I have to admit, they have a point.

The study showed that there was a fall in the share of the adult population who pay income tax (from 65.7% to 56.2%) between 2007-08 and 2015-16 – a period when the government consistently raised the tax-free personal allowance. During the same period, there was an increase in the proportion of income tax paid by the top 1% (from 24.4% to 27.5%) caused by a lowering of the higher-rate threshold, a higher top rate of tax and less generous pension tax relief.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ays-report

joelsim

Bit of a mess at the moment. Labour are so weak and seemingly have no credibility or ability to create any policies, just to criticise.

In turn, with no viable opposition the Tories are riding roughshod over everyone.

And the Lib Dems request help from an imaginary diety.

And no, I haven't forgotten Ukip, but I wouldn't wipe my ar*e with them.

Sad situation.

disgruntledgoat

Rick Chasey wrote:

No it's more the only people left who will do it are morons, hence the dodgy excuse.

You may be part right, she won her seat on the ticket of not being George Galloway after all. However, morons or not I don't think "not wishing the dismantling of sovereign states and the forced repatriation of their citizens" is a particularly high bar to set for public office.

rick_chasey

Obviously too high for some.