Thread 20 Starmer - Spring Statement

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5286167-thread-19-starmer-a-coalition-of-the-willing?page=40&reply=142981585

Nicola Sturgeon’s results were even more shocking. Care home deaths were worse in Scotland.

Well the SNP is the best argument against Scottish independence.

I agree. However Boris wasn’t really that bad.

He really was that bad

Oven ready deal, there were no parties, we could go on.

However compared to the US right now, he was an entry level liar

He wasn’t. You were just taken in by Nicola, Jacinta et al

Sure derxa

have people forgotten illegal proroguing Parliament? Lying? Trying to retrospectively change the rules for Paterson? Pincher by name? The disgraceful response to the Standards Committee?

Anyway in amongst the shit news this from Dan Neidle -

It wasn’t mentioned in the Chancellor’s speech, but the Spring Statement papers contain a major suite of anti-tax avoidance proposals, probably the toughest ever introduced. If enacted this will, in effect, criminalise the tax avoidance industry. We welcome it.

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/03/26/radical-anti-avoidance-measures-hidden-in-the-spring-statement/

What happened to my post?

I attached an article from Dan Neidle/Tax Policy Associates regarding criminalising tax avoidance industry?

I found his bsky thread on it, thanks

However the new anti-avoidance proposals are excellent, and should be welcomed by everyone who wishes to see the tax avoidance industry ended.

https://bsky.app/profile/danneidle.bsky.social/post/3llcbummrf22o

Thanks Duncin - it looks very positive to me. Neidle suggests we will be billions of pounds better off. Although he also points out that they must put the necessary resources behind it.

I’m absolutely willing to be educated on this. I’m no tax expert. But what Neidle is highlighting are proposed powers to stop bogus avoidance schemes, not avoidance in itself. All well and good, but how does that generate more tax income? When the schemes are shut down now, liabilities are due. Sure, it might make it faster, but it’s not expanding overall tax take.

I very, very much doubt that bogus schemes account for more than the tiniest fraction of the graphic that was posted on the earlier thread.

I really cannot see that this ‘suite’ of measures means a great deal, laudable as it no doubt is.

If anything, budgets have been hammered. DS1 did a supported internship program, last year. It wasn't particularly successful for him. He struggled greatly and the tutors made it harder for him. His lovely job coach jumped ship at the end of the year because the various organisations behind the scheme were all losing a lot of funding. Similarly, the access to work scheme that funded his mentorship on his work placements is reported to be having its budget slashed.

Access to work is expensive for people like DS1 - much less impaired than DS2 but still with very complex needs. His personal budget for the year was about £20k, so that he could work in a fairly limited capacity for about 12 hours a week. That's more per hour than DH gets paid as a senior software developer and nkt exactly saving money for taxpayers.

Have you read the blog post and the embedded link referring to Cleverly remarks from 27/4/24? Both Lab and Conservatives made v similar claims.

I’m not a tax expert either but Neidle is and he thinks - the new anti-avoidance proposals are excellent, and should be welcomed by everyone who wishes to see the tax avoidance industry ended.

Exactly my fears @PickAChew

Trump is imposing (well today at least) 25% tariffs on car exports. 18% of UK car exports go to the US

Why the fuck wasn't this mentioned in the statement? Are they really only wanting to publicly crow about being tough on the people who are most powerless? Are they that scared of the incoherent wrath of the Daily Torygraph?

They shouldn’t be nervous of the wrath of the Telegraph given the Conservatives proposed similar (but didn’t implement it)

Desperate to change the headlines from the Signal Venmo fuck ups.

What does this do for car manufacturers in the US that rely on other countries for parts?

My understanding was the EU currently imposes a 10% tariff on car imports, while the U.S. levies were only 2.5%

Why did the EU think this was acceptable? 25% is very hefty but the if the EU were charging 10% and expecting 2.5% then that’s taking the piss and I can see why the US are annoyed.

Don't be so bloody patronising. Pointing the finger at us and saying WE were taken in!

Another Brexit benefit

Tellingly, here is the most upvoted comment on the BBC website - for info.

Comment by CaptainFeedback at 20:13 26 Mar
CaptainFeedback
20:13 26 Mar
Stop with the "punishing the disabled" rhetoric, that is simply not true. This is about getting the workshy to actually contribute to society. There are people using 'mental heath' as an excuse to not work and it needs to stop. Do you think people who do work never feel anxiety?
Reply
1182
323

I think this question passed X by.

Where did I say I supported ‘relative poverty’?

And, back to the thread…

Interesting to see the top comment on the BBC website - what do you think @BIWI ?

Anyone who justifies their views by reading the bottom of the Internet doesn't need to be taken seriously.

Do you think Sainsbury's would be a good call for DS2, @MyNameIsX or would Tesco be a better fit for him? Even if he couldn't manage checkouts, he could probably manage to shuffle a few trolleys round the car park if Access to Work paid for a full time personal assistant to make sure he didn't randomly run out in front of a moving car.