First 100 days

[Iwishicouldflyhigh]

whoever you voted for, what are your thoughts after the First 100 Days?
I didn’t vote for Labour, but I was quite excited in their first few weeks as Keir got his head down and I was excited fir change.

Now I just feel deflated. Same old….freebiegate, nitpicking, infighting. A bit depressing really.

i don’t even think there was a decent alternative really….and that’s even more depressing!!!!!

Here we go…

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/14/politics-latest-keir-starmer-investment-summit-kemi-jenrick/

Rich Britons will “bear the largest burden” at the Budget at the end of this month, Rachel Reeves has said.

In an interview recorded prior to today’s International Investment Summit, the Chancellor warned it would be those with the “broadest shoulders” at the sharp end of her first fiscal event on Oct 30.

Speaking to Andrew Marr on the New Statesman’s NS podcast, Ms Reeves said: “I said during the election campaign we’re not going to be introducing a wealth tax.

“But I think people will be in no doubt when we do the Budget that those with the broadest shoulders will be bearing the largest burden.”

“You saw that in our manifesto campaign. You know, non-doms, private equity, the windfall tax on the big profits the energy companies are making and putting VAT and business rates on private schools.”

If you’re against the richest people taken the largest burden who DO you think should bear the biggest burden instead? Genuine question.

Well currently less than half of all UK households contribute more in taxes than they receive in benefits/services. I would think it wants to be more like 2/3rds contributing. Stick another 10% on the basic rate of income tax would probably do it.

The wealthier arguably have more options to reduce their tax exposure - flight or mitigation.
Something to bear in mind.

Secondly, to focus on taxation without addressing the bill for social care and the NHS etc at the same time, is obscene.

Sounds very familiar in some ways to Osborne in 2010 and 2015. Even he thought it fair for the rich to bear the greatest burden rather than the most vulnerable (though that didn't stop the Tories hounding the ill and disabled):

In the 2010 budget Osborne insisted that those with the "broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden"
**
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/oct/20/spending-review-2010-osborne-cuts

And on 2015:

I can confirm that the analysis produced today shows that the richest are paying a greater share of tax than they were at the start of the last parliament

And more than that, we are continuing to devote a greater share of state support to the most vulnerable

As I said they would – those with the broadest shoulders are bearing the greatest burden. For we are all in this together

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chancellor-george-osbornes-summer-budget-2015-speech

High earners are undoubtedly already shouldering the greatest burden.

As I said; over half of all UK households contribute a net drain on the economy.

What labour are asking for is even more!

Quite so, whilst they meet the Unions demands without reforms.

Meanwhile Reeves is already fiddling with the semantics on NI - in breach of a manifesto pledge.

I dislike the term net drainers. Not everyone is a high earner. Many people who are high earners rely massively on those who they look down on as net drainers
Do any of you Imagine if you had to do the caring, make your own sandwiches, drive your own bus, do your own cleaning, educate your own children, look after your own health needs how your wage may be impacted. These are people you call net drainers.... weirdly though they shouldn't have a rise to make them able to pay more because then it is Unions being unfair.
Everyone deserves a good wage, the reason we don't have this is mainly the ridiculous housing policy we have in this country, where people cannot work in a low wage job and afford the rent without support.
Employers know that the wage will be made up ( to stop people being on the streets and in poverty)
The ideological of "work pays" when it doesn't if you need 85% childcare top up from UC.
Most people just want to get on and are happy to work to do that. If you are upset at "Net drainers "it is those working hard that are actually causing this and making those choices?
Remember 38% UC claimants are working and housing element is generally needed with that wage.

In terms of taxes paid vs benefits/services received - they are net drainers.

Too many are uncomfortable to state this, but it is the hard truth.

The UK cannot sustain itself economically. It is spending more than it can raise in taxes.

We need to cut costs. Cut benefits, cut the welfare state; and release the economy to grow.

We need to cut costs. Cut benefits, cut the welfare state; and release the economy to grow.

And what do you see happening to those on whom the cuts will fall hardest? Remember, these are people who are already living from month to month and on the edge.

So what do you suggest people on low wage strike for Better pay? Oh no that will be those pesky greedy unionised people.
How much do you feel we need to cut welfare benefits exactly? The under 25 rate for UC is £311 per month.
Job seekers allowance is £90 a week
I can't imagine cutting that further without people starving and being homeless. Are you seriously ok with seeing people homeless and starving?
An average rent is £1276 per month
On minimum wage of 40 hours= if over 21 £457 a week. How does that work if you cut welfare?

We raise minimum wages at the same time. Forcing employers to stop operating through subsidised wages.

@PinkFruitbat does that mean you will be happy to pay the higher costs? In order these people who need to earn enough do?
I have only seen a huge moan about wage increases. Do you seriously think that private businesses are going to up wages and not rinse the customers?
We only have to look at the shit ( literally) that water is and fuel to see how that looks to the customer- plus guess what most employees wages are still rubbish

Business taxes also get cut. Which softens the impact. Some will raise costs, some will go out of business. There will be some pain, but what you end up with are healthy businesses in room to grow.

Cut taxes, cut spending, chop the dead wood, let unviable enterprises fold and nurture ones which are viable and enriching. This is what will balance spending AND grow the economy.

I worry re your term dead wood, is it the same as net drainers?
Surely you have some soul

Plus some will have to spend to pay the wages for the " net drainers"
I thought they were all going to leave if it cost more.
What about housing- do we get better regulations re rent so people don't need a top up? What happens as we have no social housing- it is bought out?
You can't have two sides of the coin here

They don't give a shit what happens to them, as long as they're ok.
This attitude is partly why things are as bad as they are.

I agree.

We have become far too soft in the west -
some countries are now realising this - look at Poland and Germany for example. Too
many free-loaders, too much entitlement, the creation of an ownership avoidance culture etc.

So by all means target the broadest shoulders for an increasing fiscal burden - just don’t expect us to blithely accept this. We will leave, we will
mitigate, we will cut our income, cut our discretionary spending in the real economy.

It’s already happening.

Unemployed people will be given weight-loss jabs under Government plans to get them back to work.
Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has said the new class of medication could have a “monumental” impact on obesity and getting Britain working.

Dead wood as in non viable businesses which only survive on subsidies. In this instance subsidies on wages.

Look at it from my perspective. Endless handouts paid from mountains of tax. Never any thanks, always that it is never enough.

Weight loss drugs to combat unemployment?

Jeez, this government has run out of ideas within 3 months.

I mean, where is the funding going to come from? I’m sure they’ve cut a deal with pharma but nevertheless.

And the return? What have they modelled?

It smacks of a Government determined to cook the books in order to ‘save the NHS’.

Spot on.

@pinkfruit I don't understand your statement re dead wood and subsidies for employees wages. If 38% of people working and need to claim Universal Credit that is r a couple of " dead wood" companies is it.
What do we do with the 38% of UC claimants who are working a lot and still the costs of rent, childcare etc doesn't pay enough for them to live on?