LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Talk me through the logistics as I can not even begin to imagine how that would workFirst.Aspect said:
Are you one of these people who thinks Londkn and the home counties would be better off on its own?surrey_commuter said:
It is £4bn a year I would appropriate.rjsterry said:
🤣🤣surrey_commuter said:
HS2, licence fee and the monarchy for a startrick_chasey said:For those arguing low tax - who is going to pay for state run services and if the answer is no one, which services would you cut?
So one of your three isn't even a tax. The monarchy costs the government just £83m a year. Even HS2 is only £3bn a year or 0.3% of revenue.
Emptying a swimming pool with a teaspoon.
I am flogging off the land houses and palaces.
Even you don’t think HS2 is £3bn a year. And I would flog off all the land and houses.
And I would stop tatting around being a global power and reconfigure the three services into one (based on USMC) with a remit of defending our island.
Move the HoP and tens of thousands of civil servants up north.
Scrap all farm subsidies ((£4bn pa)
Unite the island of Ireland (£10bn +)
Let Scotland follow them out the door (£10bn)
Wait till I think of my tier 3 ideas0 -
With super davo’s cuts to working tax credits and transfer of wealth to private landlords I reckon I have saved tens of billions a year.rjsterry said:
I checked. Spread over probably 20 years to complete it's of that sort of order. Round it up to £6bn a year if you like: it'll still make f*** all difference to anyone's tax bill.surrey_commuter said:
It is £4bn a year I would appropriate.rjsterry said:
🤣🤣surrey_commuter said:
HS2, licence fee and the monarchy for a startrick_chasey said:For those arguing low tax - who is going to pay for state run services and if the answer is no one, which services would you cut?
So one of your three isn't even a tax. The monarchy costs the government just £83m a year. Even HS2 is only £3bn a year or 0.3% of revenue.
Emptying a swimming pool with a teaspoon.
I am flogging off the land houses and palaces.
Even you don’t think HS2 is £3bn a year. And I would flog off all the land and houses.
And I would stop tatting around being a global power and reconfigure the three services into one (based on USMC) with a remit of defending our island.
Move the HoP and tens of thousands of civil servants up north.
Scrap all farm subsidies ((£4bn pa)
Unite the island of Ireland (£10bn +)
Let Scotland follow them out the door (£10bn)
Wait till I think of my tier 3 ideas
The houses and land are mostly privately owned so there really isn't that much to sell off unless you've suddenly turned Marxist: a one time bump of about £15bn, if you could somehow sell the entire Crown Estate.
Saving to move Civil Service entirely out of London is £710m - another imperceptible twitch on the needle.
Then you seem to veer off into some scorched earth little englander nonsense. Have you had an afternoon in the sun?
So far I am no where near cutting taxes, merely reducing the annual deficit.
How about scrapping the overseas aid budget and instead contribute a % of any budget surplus? There’s another £10bn0 -
No dafter than suggesting we could unilaterally reunite Ireland or jettison Scotland.surrey_commuter said:
Talk me through the logistics as I can not even begin to imagine how that would workFirst.Aspect said:
Are you one of these people who thinks Londkn and the home counties would be better off on its own?surrey_commuter said:
It is £4bn a year I would appropriate.rjsterry said:
🤣🤣surrey_commuter said:
HS2, licence fee and the monarchy for a startrick_chasey said:For those arguing low tax - who is going to pay for state run services and if the answer is no one, which services would you cut?
So one of your three isn't even a tax. The monarchy costs the government just £83m a year. Even HS2 is only £3bn a year or 0.3% of revenue.
Emptying a swimming pool with a teaspoon.
I am flogging off the land houses and palaces.
Even you don’t think HS2 is £3bn a year. And I would flog off all the land and houses.
And I would stop tatting around being a global power and reconfigure the three services into one (based on USMC) with a remit of defending our island.
Move the HoP and tens of thousands of civil servants up north.
Scrap all farm subsidies ((£4bn pa)
Unite the island of Ireland (£10bn +)
Let Scotland follow them out the door (£10bn)
Wait till I think of my tier 3 ideas1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Firstly I don't believe the tax burden will be able to increase more than a % or two beyond the very high point it is today. Reeves first priority is to calm the markets, hence the announcement in the news today on the green plans. Secondly, Labour already plan to hit the very highest earners by removing various perks and get outs that exist today, much of which has already been announced.Stevo_666 said:
They claim they do. Reeves has been expending a lot of energy trying to appear business friendly, but where do you think they going to go fishing for the money to do what they want? Probably the like of you and me.rjsterry said:
Given the previous PM is quoted as saying "f*** business", it seems the Conservative party already views me as the enemy. Which is why it's dying.Stevo_666 said:
You don't think they'll get worse if Labour get in. After all, as a business owner you will be the enemy.rjsterry said:
Well obviously. I've already been the brunt of tax rises so why would I think they'll change?Stevo_666 said:
Speak for yourself. It's very relevant for me.rjsterry said:
As a business owner, this is laughable.Stevo_666 said:
If we accepted that premise then another way of looking at it is to ask who is likely raise taxes the most.rjsterry said:Nobody is lowering taxes any time soon. They can't afford to.
Also relevant is who is most likely to bear the brunt of any tax rises.
I think we know the answers to these.
Right now the Labour party say they have have more positive development policies than the Conservatives. It may well not come to pass but it's worth a punt against a party actively opposing my line of work. That's how much of a hole they're in.
In any case, I live in a Con/LD marginal with a majority of just 650, so my options are pretty clear despite the LD being next to invisible.
My expectations based on Blair/ Brown and what has been announced to date is that the fiscal effect on the very highest will be negative, for standard 40% tax payers broadly neutral, lower rate positive.
The Tories have actively squeezed both middle and lower earner groups throughout the last 13 years to raise taxes, largely because they neither have small state spending plans, not want to go after the very highest earners. The official line will be because they believe in the laffer curve; the leftibollox position is that they make policies favourable to their backers.
Either way - the likes of you and I have not received anything in the way of actual useful tax cuts in 13 years so I have no idea why anyone would believe they will now...
0 -
Another one bites the dust...seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Boris continuing his mimicking of Trump with his resignation being due to him being a victim not because he has done anything worthy of resigning.0
-
Pross said:
Boris continuing his mimicking of Trump with his resignation being due to him being a victim not because he has done anything worthy of resigning.
It would be interesting to know whether he's just mimicking or if he's actually got people like Bannon or Miller directly advising. At this piont, I'd put nothing past Johnson. He truly is malign, like Trump. He's not just an utter fvckwit like Truss.0 -
Well, you start with Scotland and N Ireland....surrey_commuter said:
Talk me through the logistics as I can not even begin to imagine how that would workFirst.Aspect said:
Are you one of these people who thinks Londkn and the home counties would be better off on its own?surrey_commuter said:
It is £4bn a year I would appropriate.rjsterry said:
🤣🤣surrey_commuter said:
HS2, licence fee and the monarchy for a startrick_chasey said:For those arguing low tax - who is going to pay for state run services and if the answer is no one, which services would you cut?
So one of your three isn't even a tax. The monarchy costs the government just £83m a year. Even HS2 is only £3bn a year or 0.3% of revenue.
Emptying a swimming pool with a teaspoon.
I am flogging off the land houses and palaces.
Even you don’t think HS2 is £3bn a year. And I would flog off all the land and houses.
And I would stop tatting around being a global power and reconfigure the three services into one (based on USMC) with a remit of defending our island.
Move the HoP and tens of thousands of civil servants up north.
Scrap all farm subsidies ((£4bn pa)
Unite the island of Ireland (£10bn +)
Let Scotland follow them out the door (£10bn)
Wait till I think of my tier 3 ideas0 -
I think that this sums up the Johnson phenomenon fairly well:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1667435882926751745.html0 -
Johnson giving his hairdresser an OBE surely confirms he does not own a mirror.1
-
Was my understanding of a snip of an interview with Dorries right in that she’s implying her recommendation to the Lords was turned down due to coming from a poor background rather than because she’s a total loon?2
-
These will be interesting by-elections. Wonder how many more there will be, provoked by Johnson arslickers.
0 -
It surely just proves that those leaving right now really aren’t (and never were) fit to be MP’s.
They put petty point scoring above the country, the party and pretty much everything.0 -
...especially their constituents.morstar said:It surely just proves that those leaving right now really aren’t (and never were) fit to be MP’s.
They put petty point scoring above the country, the party and pretty much everything.1 -
It’s all about me, me, me.
Nothing new or different.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
You didn't answer my question.rick_chasey said:
So explain what you’d cut for the associated tax cuts you want.Stevo_666 said:
Why are you assuming that all tax collected is spent on services?rick_chasey said:For those arguing low tax - who is going to pay for state run services and if the answer is no one, which services would you cut?
Would you, say, take a 15 percentage points cut in your top rate tax in return for scrapping the NHS?
Also go back to my point a few pages back that Sweden's experience of eliminating IHT was that it increased their overall tax take. So if you want to increase tax revenues, what would you do?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
A quote from someone who isn't even an MP. How relevant is that these days?skyblueamateur said:
It’s infinitely better then ‘f*ck business’Stevo_666 said:
They claim they do. Reeves has been expending a lot of energy trying to appear business friendly, but where do you think they going to go fishing for the money to do what they want? Probably the like of you and me.rjsterry said:
Given the previous PM is quoted as saying "f*** business", it seems the Conservative party already views me as the enemy. Which is why it's dying.Stevo_666 said:
You don't think they'll get worse if Labour get in. After all, as a business owner you will be the enemy.rjsterry said:
Well obviously. I've already been the brunt of tax rises so why would I think they'll change?Stevo_666 said:
Speak for yourself. It's very relevant for me.rjsterry said:
As a business owner, this is laughable.Stevo_666 said:
If we accepted that premise then another way of looking at it is to ask who is likely raise taxes the most.rjsterry said:Nobody is lowering taxes any time soon. They can't afford to.
Also relevant is who is most likely to bear the brunt of any tax rises.
I think we know the answers to these.
Right now the Labour party say they have have more positive development policies than the Conservatives. It may well not come to pass but it's worth a punt against a party actively opposing my line of work. That's how much of a hole they're in.
In any case, I live in a Con/LD marginal with a majority of just 650, so my options are pretty clear despite the LD being next to invisible."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And now I'm asking the question above. I wonder why he hasn't replied?kingstongraham said:
You asked when labour have said it.Stevo_666 said:
I'm a working person. How confident are you that he will be true to his word?kingstongraham said:
https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-vows-to-cut-taxes-for-working-people-and-rules-out-swiss-style-eu-deal-12755232Stevo_666 said:
For example, Hunts recent statement that cutting taxes is the right thing, just not right now. When have Labour ever said that?rjsterry said:
What makes you think your lot will change direction? Who is there within the government who is even interested?Stevo_666 said:
Read what I said above. While the current govt has not gone in the right direction as far as I'm concerned, it will very likely be worse under Labour. I already pay enough tax IMHO, so why don't you go ahead and pay more?super_davo said:
Were you in the UK 13 years ago? Have there been any tax cuts in the last 13 years that benefitted you?Stevo_666 said:
Don't count your chickens...super_davo said:
Thing is, recent Tory tax policy (Truss, LTA etc.) would put the level you need to earn way beyond the merely quite well off to benefit. This plays to people's arrogance - e.g. you think you're doing well so should vote for "the low tax party". But the reality is unless you're currently well into the 50% bracket, you've probably been shafted far more by freezing rate thresholds in the last few years than anything Labour are likely to do.rick_chasey said:
If you won’t pay it, who will?Stevo_666 said:
If we accepted that premise then another way of looking at it is to ask who is likely raise taxes the most.rjsterry said:Nobody is lowering taxes any time soon. They can't afford to.
Also relevant is who is most likely to bear the brunt of any tax rises.
I think we know the answers to these.
Take it as motivation to go earn an extra £100k - that’s how I see it.
I just want a return to competent government, so when I speak to international colleagues, for them not to be laughing at the crazy **** my government is doing. Personally I don't expect to pay much more tax but it wouldn't be the end of the world if I did; as long as it was spent compentently rather than on massively unsubtle attempts to get a particular group of people to vote for the incumbent government."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Granted, I don't bet much traction within the Cake Stop bubble, but then the audience is more skewed than even a Question Time audiencebriantrumpet said:webboo said:You keep singing the song Stevo but nobody is listening to the words.💤
I think Stevo is just trying to persuade himself at this point.
Meanwhile, out in the real world... "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
His freeze of the income tax brackets is the single biggest tax rise in living memory.Stevo_666 said:
A quote from someone who isn't even an MP. How relevant is that these days?skyblueamateur said:
It’s infinitely better then ‘f*ck business’Stevo_666 said:
They claim they do. Reeves has been expending a lot of energy trying to appear business friendly, but where do you think they going to go fishing for the money to do what they want? Probably the like of you and me.rjsterry said:
Given the previous PM is quoted as saying "f*** business", it seems the Conservative party already views me as the enemy. Which is why it's dying.Stevo_666 said:
You don't think they'll get worse if Labour get in. After all, as a business owner you will be the enemy.rjsterry said:
Well obviously. I've already been the brunt of tax rises so why would I think they'll change?Stevo_666 said:
Speak for yourself. It's very relevant for me.rjsterry said:
As a business owner, this is laughable.Stevo_666 said:
If we accepted that premise then another way of looking at it is to ask who is likely raise taxes the most.rjsterry said:Nobody is lowering taxes any time soon. They can't afford to.
Also relevant is who is most likely to bear the brunt of any tax rises.
I think we know the answers to these.
Right now the Labour party say they have have more positive development policies than the Conservatives. It may well not come to pass but it's worth a punt against a party actively opposing my line of work. That's how much of a hole they're in.
In any case, I live in a Con/LD marginal with a majority of just 650, so my options are pretty clear despite the LD being next to invisible.0 -
Vast majority is services isn’t it?Stevo_666 said:
You didn't answer my question.rick_chasey said:
So explain what you’d cut for the associated tax cuts you want.Stevo_666 said:
Why are you assuming that all tax collected is spent on services?rick_chasey said:For those arguing low tax - who is going to pay for state run services and if the answer is no one, which services would you cut?
Would you, say, take a 15 percentage points cut in your top rate tax in return for scrapping the NHS?
Also go back to my point a few pages back that Sweden's experience of eliminating IHT was that it increased their overall tax take. So if you want to increase tax revenues, what would you do?0 -
Why on earth should there be an even split of views here or anywhere else? If the majority are fed up with the current lot and you find yourself in a minority that's just the way politics work. I'm sure you were quite happy with the way views were 'skewed' over the last 13 years now the tide is ebbing.Stevo_666 said:
Granted, I don't bet much traction within the Cake Stop bubble, but then the audience is more skewed than even a Question Time audiencebriantrumpet said:webboo said:You keep singing the song Stevo but nobody is listening to the words.💤
I think Stevo is just trying to persuade himself at this point. Meanwhile, out in the real world...1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Stevo_666 said:
Granted, I don't bet much traction within the Cake Stop bubble, but then the audience is more skewed than even a Question Time audiencebriantrumpet said:webboo said:You keep singing the song Stevo but nobody is listening to the words.💤
I think Stevo is just trying to persuade himself at this point. Meanwhile, out in the real world...
It might be quite helpful for both you and what passes for the Tory Party these days, to reflect on why so many people who should be natural Tory voters (see the sorts of professions represented on CS, for instance) are so desperate to see the back of them, and why Labour continues to hold a convincing lead in the polls despite Starmer being utterly lacking in charisma and with no headline-grabbing policies.0 -
No. Biggest item is benefits including state pension. Then Health then Education then Debt interest. Nobody is seriously suggesting cutting health or education and everything else is just tinkering so state pension is where you would start looking for big savings. State pension is ~1.5 times entire defence budget.rick_chasey said:
Vast majority is services isn’t it?Stevo_666 said:
You didn't answer my question.rick_chasey said:
So explain what you’d cut for the associated tax cuts you want.Stevo_666 said:
Why are you assuming that all tax collected is spent on services?rick_chasey said:For those arguing low tax - who is going to pay for state run services and if the answer is no one, which services would you cut?
Would you, say, take a 15 percentage points cut in your top rate tax in return for scrapping the NHS?
Also go back to my point a few pages back that Sweden's experience of eliminating IHT was that it increased their overall tax take. So if you want to increase tax revenues, what would you do?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
That confirms what I suspected in so far as working tax credit and housing benefit cost a ton. It's notable that unemployment benefits are so much less than working tax credits; just proves so much of the UK's fabled full employment are really non jobs, if they don't pay enough to live on if people doing them still need government help to live.rjsterry said:
No. Biggest item is benefits including state pension. Then Health then Education then Debt interest. Nobody is seriously suggesting cutting health or education and everything else is just tinkering so state pension is where you would start looking for big savings. State pension is ~1.5 times entire defence budget.rick_chasey said:
Vast majority is services isn’t it?Stevo_666 said:
You didn't answer my question.rick_chasey said:
So explain what you’d cut for the associated tax cuts you want.Stevo_666 said:
Why are you assuming that all tax collected is spent on services?rick_chasey said:For those arguing low tax - who is going to pay for state run services and if the answer is no one, which services would you cut?
Would you, say, take a 15 percentage points cut in your top rate tax in return for scrapping the NHS?
Also go back to my point a few pages back that Sweden's experience of eliminating IHT was that it increased their overall tax take. So if you want to increase tax revenues, what would you do?
These are classic market distortions, ostensibly to help low earners but in reality the ultimate beneficiaries are low paying employers and private landlords and homeowners.
If Labour increase the minimum wage and build more local authority houses, there is a ton of money to be saved.
Politically it will be difficult to cut the costs of the pension budget with the triple lock et al, but I'm sure there is room for some sort of means testing/ taper at the top end. I can't see the Tories ever doing that, hence bang goes any chance of them ever achieving the low tax / small state that so many talk about.
0 -
Depends who for. I would have thought Labour hiking the top rate to 50% just before they got booted out had a big impact on some.rick_chasey said:
His freeze of the income tax brackets is the single biggest tax rise in living memory.Stevo_666 said:
A quote from someone who isn't even an MP. How relevant is that these days?skyblueamateur said:
It’s infinitely better then ‘f*ck business’Stevo_666 said:
They claim they do. Reeves has been expending a lot of energy trying to appear business friendly, but where do you think they going to go fishing for the money to do what they want? Probably the like of you and me.rjsterry said:
Given the previous PM is quoted as saying "f*** business", it seems the Conservative party already views me as the enemy. Which is why it's dying.Stevo_666 said:
You don't think they'll get worse if Labour get in. After all, as a business owner you will be the enemy.rjsterry said:
Well obviously. I've already been the brunt of tax rises so why would I think they'll change?Stevo_666 said:
Speak for yourself. It's very relevant for me.rjsterry said:
As a business owner, this is laughable.Stevo_666 said:
If we accepted that premise then another way of looking at it is to ask who is likely raise taxes the most.rjsterry said:Nobody is lowering taxes any time soon. They can't afford to.
Also relevant is who is most likely to bear the brunt of any tax rises.
I think we know the answers to these.
Right now the Labour party say they have have more positive development policies than the Conservatives. It may well not come to pass but it's worth a punt against a party actively opposing my line of work. That's how much of a hole they're in.
In any case, I live in a Con/LD marginal with a majority of just 650, so my options are pretty clear despite the LD being next to invisible."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think the graph above answer your question. Not sure you would count the state pension as a service for starters?rick_chasey said:
Vast majority is services isn’t it?Stevo_666 said:
You didn't answer my question.rick_chasey said:
So explain what you’d cut for the associated tax cuts you want.Stevo_666 said:
Why are you assuming that all tax collected is spent on services?rick_chasey said:For those arguing low tax - who is going to pay for state run services and if the answer is no one, which services would you cut?
Would you, say, take a 15 percentage points cut in your top rate tax in return for scrapping the NHS?
Also go back to my point a few pages back that Sweden's experience of eliminating IHT was that it increased their overall tax take. So if you want to increase tax revenues, what would you do?
Anyhow, you should have another read of the Sweden article though, should make it clear for you that cutting taxes wisely can increase tax revenue. You are assuming that any cut reduces it, which appears to be wrong."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I wonder if the triple lock will be amended from 'highest of' to 'average of', and how much that might then save.super_davo said:
That confirms what I suspected in so far as working tax credit and housing benefit cost a ton. It's notable that unemployment benefits are so much less than working tax credits; just proves so much of the UK's fabled full employment are really non jobs, if they don't pay enough to live on if people doing them still need government help to live.rjsterry said:
No. Biggest item is benefits including state pension. Then Health then Education then Debt interest. Nobody is seriously suggesting cutting health or education and everything else is just tinkering so state pension is where you would start looking for big savings. State pension is ~1.5 times entire defence budget.rick_chasey said:
Vast majority is services isn’t it?Stevo_666 said:
You didn't answer my question.rick_chasey said:
So explain what you’d cut for the associated tax cuts you want.Stevo_666 said:
Why are you assuming that all tax collected is spent on services?rick_chasey said:For those arguing low tax - who is going to pay for state run services and if the answer is no one, which services would you cut?
Would you, say, take a 15 percentage points cut in your top rate tax in return for scrapping the NHS?
Also go back to my point a few pages back that Sweden's experience of eliminating IHT was that it increased their overall tax take. So if you want to increase tax revenues, what would you do?
These are classic market distortions, ostensibly to help low earners but in reality the ultimate beneficiaries are low paying employers and private landlords and homeowners.
If Labour increase the minimum wage and build more local authority houses, there is a ton of money to be saved.
Politically it will be difficult to cut the costs of the pension budget with the triple lock et al, but I'm sure there is room for some sort of means testing/ taper at the top end. I can't see the Tories ever doing that, hence bang goes any chance of them ever achieving the low tax / small state that so many talk about.
But bear in mind that (as far as I'm aware) public sector pensions also all increased by 10.1% this year too, and think how much they cost.0
