Sir Keir Starmer and the budget

[disappointed101]

Can someone explain in layman‘s teens how “The middle” will be affected by the budget? We are comfortable but not stinking rich by any means. Reading what people are saying makes me feel sick. We have a good disposable income due to almost being mortgage free, older kids etc but don’t spend on luxury items save for holidays. Is it even worth working at this point? Is it worth having savings or should we spend our savings and upsize in property? I’m so worried he’s coming for everything we have worked for in the past 20 years.

I assume @Menopausalsourpuss means landlords like Lloyds bank and others who are buying up homes with the aim to own a portfolio of thousands of rentals.

https://www.lettingagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2024/10/lloyds-bank-rebrands-private-rental-arm-and-hits-5000-home-milestone/

You'll be fine OP. If you really don't want your house any more though, give it to me. I'll make good use of it.

Op, you need to calm down. No one is going to come and take everything (or anything!) you own, and I'd hold fire on giving up work as your financial plan just yet...! We all need to wait and see what is actually in the budget.

I can see both sides of these arguments, even though people tend towards hyperbole in both directions pretty quickly especially online.

The day after the election was called, my employer announced a big deal with an investor was done overnight, approx 6 months earlier than expected, to come into effect before the election... The arrangements are complicated and I don't want to go into detail, but it essentially meant they could make large payouts in shares (cashed in or not) now, and people would be able to pay GCT this tax year at current rates... You didn't have to pay now, but who in their right mind wouldn't minimise their tax burden on what amounts to your life's savings at that point ..? On the other hand, I think things like that should be taxed more. The wealth gap in this country is far too wide, and our country and public services desperately need money. I'd rather that be raised by taxing the lucky including myself, particularly on "unearned" money, than increasing the burden on those who are struggling or by cutting yet more services. I want to live in a country with well functioning health and social care and every other public service and everyone has a chance of a decent life, not one where the luckiest hoard their wealth "they worked hard for".

Let's wait and see the budget first...

They (and Tesco at el) are not big corporate landlords “charging more”

I did actually LOL at that.... thank you! @SlugsWon 😂😂

@AquaPeer No? They're looking to make a profit. And once you've got a large share of the market, you can (to an extent) influence the market rate. I think it's pretty implausible that they're looking to do anything other than extract as much income as possible from the rental and property market??

@Rummly "
If you’re suggesting that there are lots of mindless, reflexive supporters of Labour as well as similar Tory supporters, we agree"

I agree. What I don't remember is the constant drip drip of the same negative nicknames designed to build up a negative mindset in the public consciousness, either on here or in the press that have been so noticeable in the past 4 months. Not sure BoJo is quite the same thing.

Of course there was and worse

Loads of name calling

I disagree with the " luck". I have had people in the past say to me " I wouldn't work there" and " I wouldn't live there" . Is that luck on my part then or is it that I took a chance on something and I reaped some financial rewards from it ?

There are already pockets in some cities where large scale investors have bought up and are renting out blocks of one bed units. They're all done out identikit but they comply with building regs, have good energy ratings and are in much better nick than the half arsed Victorian conversion bedsits beloved of the private landlords a few streets away, plus crucially they're cheaper for tenants. Economies of scale innit. There's something to be said for a businesslike approach as opposed to an amateur hobbyist bodging merrily along and charging top whack "because it's my future pension" who takes any kind of difficulty to do with running a tenancy as a personal slight.

Trust me- I work in this area, in policy- and these arrangements have been in place for well over a decade (that I recall) and have little impact on the market. Even 5000 units is nothing.

plus they have far less interest in unearned profit and ripping off the customer than Mr Jones the local slum landlord who rents out 40 HMOs.

Or- in other words- Don’t tell people they know nothing about basic economics then make a point about housing you know nothing about 😏

It's the Labour government themselves that have whipped up a frenzy. They keep releasing snippets of information, testing the public reaction and measuring the level of backlash. They themselves are causing a lot of confusion and fear. In the meantime, businesses in the UK have stopped investing in many areas having a big knock on effect.

I imagine the budget won't be anywhere near as 'bad' as what they're making out now. A simple case of, make it out as worse than it actually is so it doesn't sound so bad when we release the actual details. In the meantime, let's just cause complete chaos.

Also for those saying that employers national insurance won't have an impact...yes it will. Companies will not employ as many people.

OP’s post is hyperbolic as I think they are looking for about 40bio out of a total tax take of in excess of a trillion, or 4% or less.

But, where the OP is right, this will almost all come from the middle unless there is a real surprise. They intend to keep the stealth tax of not raising the tax thresholds and increase employers’ NI leading to either price increases or workers’ salaries being constrained. These will be the overwhelming largest contributors to tax rises, neither of which will touch the genuinely wealthy.

There is a lot of sound and fury about VAT on private schools (especially on MN!) but that will raise £1.5 bio optimistically, and they have watered down the tax rises on non doms and carried interest, either because you believe they won’t actually raise much or because those people have powerful lobby groups. They may raise CGT a bit, but sounds like they are scared of doing much there.

The tax nearly all economists agree is sensible and workable is a decent property tax, which would bring in the most money from the wealthiest and lead to property being a more mobile asset (people wouldn’t hang on to empty property and would be encouraged to downsize).

@EasternStandard "Of course there was and worse

Loads of name calling"

Like what?

I agree with this.

Do you really block out anything against the people you don’t like and only see it for Labour?

Can you read some of the old threads from the time it won’t take long

@EasternStandard "Do you really block out anything against the people you don’t like and only see it for Labour?"

No, I don't-which is why I quoted a couple of memorable anti Tory ones in my original post on the subject. I can think of plenty of insults, of course. Just not many of these specific incident focussed type that some posters on here-they seem to have been more personal.

Honestly people are acting like we’re under some mad dictator who’s going to actually take away their houses.
I was more worried about the mad dictators of the previous government destroying businesses, livelihoods and entire industries with their "new normal" of regular lockdowns with no end in sight.

To be honest the Labour voters pre the election were far worse. The number of times Boris Johnson was referred to by several posters as a c**t was disgusting. Whatever one's opinion on individual politicians, that level of discourse was vile.

On balance, these comments are far less aggressive

@gcsedilemma "
To be honest the Labour voters pre the election were far worse. The number of times Boris Johnson was referred to by several posters as a c**t was disgusting. Whatever one's opinion on individual politicians, that level of discourse was vile."

Absolutely-I agree. But I don't think personal insults like those are deliberately intended to undermine a politician professionally in the way the constant repetition of names for Starmer like those on this thread are. I'm not repeating them so as not to add to the traction. But even the form of Starmer's name used in the title of the thread is an example of the drip drip effect.

I don’t use ‘Sir’ for Starmer because, like you, I think it’s intended to cast him in an unfavourable way for no good reason - there are plenty of other good reasons to criticise him.

But you must surely have seen de Pfeffel being used on here? And Richy Sunak? (A particularly unpleasant attack on his wife IMO.)

The great days of gentle ridicule and retort have gone, sadly. From David Steel’s speech in the Commons on the death of Alec Douglas-Home:

“Most famously of all, when Harold Wilson mocked him for being the 14th Earl, he remarked that he supposed that Mr. Wilson, when one came to think of it, was the 14th Mr. Wilson.”

Of course there were. You really must skip over them

De pfeffel is the guy's name TBF.