AIBU to want spending cuts rather than more tax rises?

This all reminds me of a Cuban joke describing socialism:
So there two farmers, Juan and Carlos. They are both really poor except that Juan has a goat that he is incredibly proud of and Carlos doesn't have a goat which makes Carlos incredibly jealous.

One day Carlos was walking along the beach and found a magic lantern. In rubbing it a genie appeared and granted Carlos one wish for anything he wanted. After careful consideration Carlos wished that Juan's goat died.

Socialism isn't about improving the lives of the poor it's about envy and making everybody equally poor and that nobody has something that you don't.

This debate is so 1970s it’s got platforms, flares and a headscarf.

Financial exit controls? Ever more punitive higher tax rates? Property confiscation? You’re having a laugh.

I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised since Burnham has been harking back to Thatcher and the ‘glory’ days of Tony Benn and Michael Foot. But, Lordy, I really thought we’d grown out of this sort of shite. I know he’s only talking this crap to excite half-witted Labour MPs and party members and has no intention of acting on any of it, but Burnham seems to have set off quite a few people who miss power cuts, mass strikes and Spangles.

Sunak knew the issues of Truss and came in to restore confidence

It’s not envy. I was happy with my two at state school. None of them were without their problems. Oldest - dyspraxia. Youngest - DT1 then developed an eating disorder in his higher year.

Both are now professionals. One on 97.5k at age 30. Other on 55k at age 34.

It’s more relief that we didn’t have to pay for private school.

So firstly and without doubt Liz Truss was the worst Prime Minister this country has ever had. But she never " left a huge deficit ". What she did do was to promise tax cuts funded by significant extra borrowing. The bond markets went "nah - don't think so" and the cost of Government borrowing shot up to 4.3%. As a result she was quickly out of office.

Interestingly under Rachel Reeves borrowing is way more than under the Liz Truss budget and as a result the cost of Government borrowing is significantly higher at 5.8%. But because she did it over the course of two years rather than 2 weeks under Truss it attracted less publicity. And the reason being is that most of the electorate are economically illiterate.

...but still had a lifetime to prephare.

...or just made plans that didn't involve relying on our kuds being taxed into oblivion

I rest my case

I don't think that's entirely fair. How much someone pays in tax is largely a function of the particular economic and fiscal system they happen to live in.

I say that as a top 1% earner myself. I work in finance and pay a lot of tax, but I certainly don't think that makes me more valuable than a nurse or a teacher. A specialist nurse doing exactly the same job in the US could quite plausibly outearn me and be a top 1% earner herself and in the UK she would be a "drain" on public finances.

Where I am much less flexible is on the expectation that able-bodied adults who can work should be productive. That doesn't mean everyone needs a glamorous career or a huge salary. Working full time on minimum wage meets the expectation in full.

And if someone works full time and the arithmetic of our particular tax/benefit system still makes them a net fiscal recipient, I don't regard that as a moral failing on their part.

All my income went into my family so that we didn't have to claim benefits.
Did you miss this bit? Private pensions weren't typically a thing when I started working.
I'm done explaining my life to cunts who wouldn't care even if they were capable of it.

Your DDs can go to the state schools then, and those who want to go private can send their kids there. Let's not tax education. Everyone on here wants and yells for no tuition fees okay... let's not make make secondary schools more expensive then by taxing it. Education is a good thing.

I run a business, only 7% of our customers are in the UK. Try again.

Oh I care, I care about MY family, and the fact I may not get grandkids because my kuds are propping up an aging population that refuses to take any responsibility for itself.

Given where the public finances are now, I'm not sure there is a painless alternative to borrowing without a massive overhaul of the state and some extremely unpopular decisions.
Truss's mistake was trying to force the adjustment in one dramatic go, with unfunded tax cuts and no OBR forecast, and predictably spooking the markets. Reeves essentially chose the slower, politically survivable version.

I think it’s idiotic, never mind unreasonable.

Where exactly are we cutting spending?

You won’t see cost efficiencies generated in places you want to see them.

Public services are cut to the bone as it is and no, “let’s just cut benefits” isn’t going to cut it.

There’s plenty of bullshit in that. But just one point: there’s no evidence at all that any Covid contracts were awarded by the Tories to ‘cronies’. Not a scrap.

This lie circulates so much that it’s probably unshakeable now, sadly. It’s a bit like people who believe in ghosts: no amount of rational argument will persuade them otherwise because they want to believe it irrespective of any evidence.

Before Mone’s name comes up, she was never in government, had the whip withdrawn and the Tories started civil proceedings to recover the money from her two years before Labour came to office.

Since all the contracts were vetted and approved by the civil service, people who make this allegation are really accusing the civil service of being corrupt. But the accusers never stop to think.

If it's being earned in the black economy, then no taxes have been paid on the income, and there's no benefit to the UK at all if the money is then paid out of the UK to family etc. Even worse, if the person earning money in the black economy is also illegally claiming benefits.

Not just paying taxes, but also contributing to the UK by being productive, i.e. making things and doing things, especially when we have worker/skill shortages.

Taxing super wealthy (10 million plus) would raise an additional 10 billion in revenue.

Kemi Badenoch had Maternity Benefit herself and now wants to get rid of it for everyone else. How can you trust her to make decisions on Policy?!

A drop in the ocean.

Drop in the ocean. Interest alone on the debt is ten times that amount. Total debt is over 3 TRILLION. The damage it would do by some of those super wealthy leaving the country would easily outweigh the benefit.

National debt interest in July alone was nearly £12 BILLION, so your damaging tax wouldn't even cover one month's interest.