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!!!!!

I haven't said what I think. Just asked what 'good things'?

And if the Tories had done these good things, would you still think they were good things?

I am hoping that Kemi gets the nod because she will make mincemeat of Starmer. It will be interesting to see how he tries to handle her.

The budget will otherwise prove a massive own goal for Labour I think.

I fear we are too late. It’s all too easy for a majority of net tax benefiters to keep in power a goverment who’s only plan is to tax the minority of net tax contributors even more. Sadly this will accelerate decline as more talent leaves for fairer climates; and the gaggle of geese becomes smaller and smaller.

Regrettably, you may be right.

It’s akin to rentiers who live off the hard work of others. Many high earners will simply leave, retire, or reduce their taxable income/liability.

Thats what we are doing - not keen on paying a penny more than we absolutely have to.

Sadly it makes for a very cynical and miserable place to live.

Tall poppy syndrome has always been an issue in the UK.

Envy is endemic - its really ugly.

I’m a high earner. I pay high taxes. I do not suffer from politics of envy. I vote Labour. The gaggle of geese has plenty who vote for the bigger picture rather than self interest. It’s not depressing at all.

Good for you. I suspect even you though will have your acceptable limits on how much of your earnings and wealth you consider fair for the state to tax you on.

How much more tax are you thinking of?

Also are you in the public sector

The statistics say that’s either bullshit or you’re in a minority. Especially at 100k+ you can’t keep the country afloat on your own.

OK, so list of good things:

• Improvement in workers' rights
• Abandoning the Rwanda plan
• Settling the strikes
• Abolishing one word OFSTED judgement
• Review of the CQC
• Review of the system for carer allowance overpayments
• Implementation of buffer zones around abortion clinics

And yes, I would have cheered for all of those if the Tories had done them. But they didn't, did they?

What statistics?
How can statistics have any bearing on a poster’s own view of taxes?

Oh hi there. How many net contributors are there versus net beneficiaries. Remind me. Funny how those willing to pay more tax on MN don’t reflect in the decreasing fiscal contributors. Funny that. It’s because it’s bollocks and doesn’t reflect actual reality.

I’d expect most tax to come from those with the most. As the point where you switch into being a net contributor is above the national average wage, I’d expect there to be more net beneficiaries. For many it’ll be a close run thing either way. I don’t see it is a problem. That’s how a welfare state works. The better off support those who need support. In reality, people will switch in and out of being net beneficiaries/contributors dependent on career, parenthood, illness etc.
Its not one set of people being exploited for the benefit of a load of lazy freeloaders.

Spot on.

It already is. Our higher earners are paying the most. That’s also when you compare to other similar countries. It’s everyone else who isn’t. Middle and lower earners specifically. We have a high personal allowance and low basic rate of tax. That’s before the huge welfare bill which will thankfully be cut. A country can’t afford 1/4 of its working age population to not be economically active.

It certainly is one set of people being exploited by people who take far too much. It is why we are skint, it’s also why we aren’t comparable to other countries. People don’t pay in enough and they take too much. Clue, it’s not the higher earners who are subbing this shit show.

Surely this depends on the outcomes. If some of these policies slow growth it’s an issue, a major one I’d say as their pledges rely on growth

And if we continue to see increase in risk for channel crossings, and fatalities plus numbers it’s not actually a good thing. Have you seen the recent headlines?

’the better off support those who need support’

That presupposes that all claimants actually require support, and that we trust the government to administer our tax receipts correctly.

I have no faith in either presupposition.

Look at the growth in the post-war tax burden vs the growth in the benefits and social care bill.

Many of the ‘broadest shoulders’ are simply not prepared to be fucked over.

Tube drivers threatening to strike would be paid more than head teachers and corporate finance directors if they accept Transport for London’s latest pay offer.
The offer means drivers would be paid just under £70,200, with instructors earning more than £73,000 a year.

That would put instructors’ pay ahead of head teachers, whose average salary is £70,835, according to Office for National Statistics figures, and financial directors, whose income last year averaged £71,525.

News of the high pay offer comes after one union said it would go on strike in the first week of November over stalled pay negotiations.

Utter madness….

I don't have a problem with that. The way certain jobs are valued and not valued in the UK always baffles me - why is a head teacher or a corporate finance director worth more than a Tube/train driver or instructor? A good friend of mine is married to a train driver instructor in the Netherlands. As a result I know a fair bit about what the job entails - including all the things that can go hideously wrong when trains go wrong. These are people who hold lives in their hands, so why are they always used as an example of people who aren't worth a high wage?

The funniest time I have ever seen this argument on here was the day the crowd strike glitch crippled the world. I remember saying about how cyber professionals are paid uncompetitively here. Low salaries globally, high taxes. Hard to recruit in a shortage area in this country. Like other areas such as engineering. Waaaaah no-one is worth that, blah, blah. 6 figures for a specialism which supports every industry isn’t that bad. The day after, huge cyber collapse. People couldn’t fly, they couldn’t travel, they couldn’t spend, they couldn’t pay. It was hilarious. That was a glitch as opposed to an hack but shows how reliant we are. Obviously the hacked NHS and all the cancelled ops wasn’t enough of a point.

People think IT professionals in this country are overpaid. They are vastly underpaid and over taxed comparatively. We are leaving ourselves very vulnerable in many areas which need STEM specialists. More fool us.

But I never made the argument about IT specialists, did I? I agree the UK doesn't pay them enough.

That doesn't mean that there are not other professions we also do not pay enough. I would argue, for example, that we do not pay childcare workers nearly enough.

I don’t have an issue with either salary. Both are important roles. £70k isn’t a lot of money. I know a lot of folk would choke on that statement. But lots of wages in various jobs have stagnated for 15 years. The average UK wage should be £50k now. Not £35k.

I dislike when one profession is traded off against another in arguments. Both these jobs are needed. Both are important. I also dislike political alliances favouring one profession over another. That is NOT how a free market works.

@PinkFruitbat we disagree about pretty much everything, but you've fully nailed it in that post.

Exactly. My example was about Drs. They are more worthy than people who sit at desks I recall. Drs can’t do much lifesaving if the transport system, or the NHS itself is hacked - as we have seen. All jobs have their place. Market forces means that people are paid for the rarity and “perceived importance.” For example, childcare and education are not valued in this country. So they are low paid.