To wonder what could Starmer do, to turn things around?

@Alexandra2001

"Where do you draw the line? a householder downsizing may also make a large gain, thats not taxed at preset.

I'd like to see pensions subject to NI above a threshold and more IHT bands and get rid of the trust/company structures used to avoid it altogether."

I would have CGT applied to unearned income from a house sale even if it is the principal residence.

As for the state pensions I would make all pension benefits taxable, get rid of the triple lock and increase the pension age by 2 or 3 months every year. Oh and set the IHT to zero as it's unearned income.

But at the same time I would cut taxation on employees and businesses and shift the burden of energy taxes away from bills and back to central Government.

Its hard to keep up with the negative posters towards Labour!

Where do you draw the line? a householder downsizing may also make a large gain, thats not taxed at preset.

I'd like to see pensions subject to NI above a threshold and more IHT bands and get rid of the trust/company structures used to avoid it altogether.

@PandoraSox

"Why would anyone name their cat after a leading provider of infrastructure services, construction and property developments?

Most odd."

Well it's better than calling your cat Balfour Beatty I guess.

Why would anyone name their cat after a leading provider of infrastructure services, construction and property developments?

Most odd.

@Alexandra2001

"I'm confused, you don't want the state to get hold of pension pots after death but all ok for the house to be subject to tax?

All assets should be taxed after death, above any thresholds, a pension pot was for the original saver, once they die, its just a lump of money,"

Not me - I'm perfectly OK with pension pots being taxed after death along with houses and all other assets.

I would even go further and set the IHT threshold at zero.

IMO inheritances enable the transfer of wealth across generations perpetuating social inequality, I mean it's not as if the beneficiaries (with the exception of the supporting spouse) actually worked or did anything for this money - they just get given it.

At the same time I strongly believe in meritocracy and I would be in favour of lower taxes on those who are in employment or business and are actually working or doing something for their own money.

That thread title was taking the piss out of someone who regularly plops in to insult us.

Though I don't know why people care so much about the titles of threads they don't post on. V odd.

People, unless seriously ill/end of life, pay, until they have almost nothing left, its not free.

I'm confused, you don't want the state to get hold of pension pots after death but all ok for the house to be subject to tax?

All assets should be taxed after death, above any thresholds, a pension pot was for the original saver, once they die, its just a lump of money, which the beneficiaries have contributed into, yet will still get 60%.... all of if below the TH, which could be up to £1m in total.

Aside Reeves has made no mention of going after private pensions, you and another PP seem to want to keep peddling this myth.

I don’t remember Truss smiling much.

You’re never fully dressed without a smile!

or in other words yes he jolly well could - probably would do if he were a woman.

And woe betide if anyone (accidentally on purpose) spells Our Dear Leader's name wrong!

Yep.

I don’t have time for badly run fan fiction threads, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a few cats called Kier on there as well.

From the thread you’re referencing.

I've always gone with mockery.
Thread 14 - The Starmeristas Strike Back perhaps?
(Joking 🤣)

@WhitegreeNcandle

"Young people absolutely can get jobs. They just don’t to do them."

So we need to look at how can young people choose not to work in the same way that 9 million people choose to be economically inactive.

Firstly as you correctly point out there is a history or an acceptance of choosing not to work that doesn't exist in say China or South Korea. Many of these young people have parents and siblings who also never chose to work. The culture of "victimhood" and not wanting to work has to stop before it becomes an epidemic.

Why do they choose not to work? Because of two things the system means that they can afford to do so and the difference between benefits and salaries are too small to incentivise work. To take two extremes if there were no benefits then the choice would be between starvation, crime or work. But equally if Amazon were paying delivery drivers or care homes were paying their staff say £100k a year then there would be no shortage of people switching from economic inactivity to paid employment.

But this isn't happening because the Government allows Amazon and care homes to import cheaper labour from abroad. If such companies simply couldn't import cheap labour then they would have a choice of paying local resident staff more or not having the parcel delivered and the care home operate

Next 50 years ago most areas had their large local industries where young people with regular education could always get a respectable job (often through a local network) on a salary that they could afford to buy a modest house and raise a family. That no longer exists because of high labour and energy costs compared to other countries and house price inflation out stripping incomes. The industries have closed and move to other countries with lower wages and cheaper (but more polluting ) energy.

So turning these points into policies:
There should be no difference in incapacity benefit and unemployment benefit. A combination of benefits being toughened up and the minimum salary increased.
Legal migration significantly restricted.
Tariffs on industrial products such as steel, aluminium, chemicals, cars, ships etc etc
Cheaper energy by shifting the environmental taxes away from bills and back to general taxation.

Yeah, right.

What’s embarrassing is failing to see it’s a piss take.

What’s embarrassing is calling oneself a Starmerista.

It would be hugely embarrassing if there was a grain of truth in it.

Yes, “cringe” as my children would say

IMO he could start by not looking almost permanently worried and gloomy (though it’s understandable why!)
God knows I’m no fan of Boris, but one reason for his former popularity, I’m sure, was his air of cheerful optimism.
I dare say KS can’t help his face, though.

It’s embarrassing. It reminds me of teenagers who crush on their pop star idol and then troll or threaten and doxx people who “throw shade.” Supposedly grown adults. It’s mortifying.

We can’t afford the sheer number of human beings who don’t go to work.

Too many people too ill too work, too many people too old to work, too many people not allowed to work (seeking asylum for example). All paid not to work. It’s not sustainable. Plus Importing people to do the jobs the ill people can’t do, which increases the tax base but also call on services.

People have to come off UC and go to work to balance the books and we need to stop importing people to do jobs that people already here could do. Nobody wants to hear this, let alone do it. The old people just aren’t up to going to work, so the (mental) health crisis needs to be sorted out.

The asylum seekers are very expensive because we live in an expensive country and they are not allowed to work.

l doubt very much we will be allowed to send any of these groups of expensive people to a country which is peaceful and sponsor them to live there because it’s cheaper. We have to solve the problems in the UK.

Can Starmer do it? He doesn’t mind being unpopular. But his judgement is shocking. Taking money for clothes and specs, letting Rachel Reeves do a budget without doing the maths, imprisoning people for Facebook posts while letting out prisoners, paying twice to get shut of an asset (Chagos). The man seems incapable of a good decision.

As for Starmer I believe there was a thread with a title around that showing keenness

Not everyone clearly going by public sentiment via polls

Talk’s cheap. When the government tells us what it’s proposing I’ll consider the facts and form an opinion. Until then I refuse to speculate on hypothesis.

Getting rid of Raynor and Reeves might be a start. And getting someone into those posts who actually knows what they're doing.....