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!!!!!

So that means that those who can pay more will have to, particularly on income they haven't earned. Taxing assets and passive income at higher levels is what I want to see.

Not wanting to sound like a heartless bitch; but why is that my problem?

Oh, for you it evidently isn't. Other people's views may vary, of course.

Those who are asking others to pay?

That’s always easier

Yep. There comes a point though - when that many people are dependent and we have a growing pool of pensioners - there isn’t anyone or many more to take. What then?

I think for a start we're going to have to move towards a realisation eventually that the triple lock isn't sustainable, but there's a commitment to it for this parliamentary term. I'd certainly begin by removing free prescriptions from the 60 - state pension age group, and making state pensioners who are still working subject to the requirement to pay National Insurance.

Those all sound like things that won’t affect you; well perhaps not in the short term…?

What then? No other comparable European or western country for that matter has such a narrow tax base. No other country punishes those who do well. No other country has over 50% of its population dependent on the state. We are growing our debt each month as not enough people are paying in. What else? That will happen but it’s not enough.

They would actually. I'm a pensioner who's part time self employed. I think it would be quite reasonable for me to pay NI. I've always thought it ludicrous that 60 year old people got universal free prescriptions. I was working full time in paid employment at that point and for several years thereafter.

How do other countries in the western world address the fact that there is an increasingly ageing population taking and not contributing? That can't just be confined to the UK.
I do accept that increasing levels of economic inactivity, particularly among younger people need to be addressed but I'm not sure how it's best to do it. And even then many of those people won't earn enough to be net contributors.

Well that is a refreshing view. Appreciate that, thanks.

What about benefits for working people; what can we take away there?

The percentage of retired households receiving more in benefits and services than contributing in all taxes has actually fallen (from 93.5% in 1997, to 87.6%).

What has gone up are the percentage of non retired households receiving more in benefits and services than contributing in all taxes (from 29.5% in 1977, to 47.2%).

https://www.ons.gov.uk/generator?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/financialyearending2021/8a4a4e33&format=xls

I am finding the current government very depressing. No new positive ideas, just gloomy and scaremongering messages about tax rises and it seems they hate anyone who isn't at the lowest level of deprivation.

The thing to watch imo is if Labour get this wrong and people change behaviour they will have to keep chasing tax rises and debt

Some will say oh great we welcome taxes for others but you get stuck in a decreasing paying base

Then we’ll really see the squeeze

When people say yes take as much as possible from others I don’t think they’re considering behaviour

I dont remember Tony Blair being this bad.

Everyone is expected to contribute. They value the taxes higher earners bring in. They don’t punitively tax them into a lack of productivity. Childcare is universal for all as people need to work and pay tax - everyone. People aren’t punished for doing well. Key difference? The welfare system is linked to what you’ve paid in and is time limited. No lounging around on UC topping you up at set rates. Work is valued. Success is valued.

Tony Blair didn't inherit a similar economic situation.

No VAT on school fees either. Instead you get a tax rebate for not using the state system.

True. Ken Clarke left a good economy.

Following which, Cameron/Clegg inherited worse.

Thatcher inherited a basket case economy. It’s true that Wilson/Callaghan had to contend with an oil crisis. But then the last government had to do so with Covid and an energy shock. They did pretty well considering.

Yeah - it’s a mindset here. Which is supported by the generous welfare system. People can scoff at that but it is comparatively. We are stuck in the mentality that it is someone else’s money. Anyone slightly better off than you - even if they’ve worked for it? Tax them and drag everyone down to the same level. Even if you’ve worked very hard and they haven’t. People here would rather have nothing if it means someone has something more.

Issue with that is - we don’t have anywhere near enough people fiscally contributing. Anyone who has taken an education and earns well is better off in other countries. We don’t have enough skilled people or people who pay higher tax. They’ve gone. The base has got smaller and smaller. Yet people still want to take more. It’s a self-defeating vicious circle. People are happy to sit around on minimum wage jobs as a career choice because UC lets them. Tax credits have destroyed the economy and that’s their legacy.

Oh no! Not communism! Aargh!

"From each according to ability - to each according to need"! Surely not!!

What next!? Fair shares for all?! Unthinkable!

Seriously, do have a think about who deserves what in human society. Perhaps try this: suppose you invest in a business, then die. Does this entail any loss to the business you invested in? But if the essential workers in the business were to pop their clogs? --

Put straightforwardly: workers are essential, investors inessential. (Of course capital may well be required; it's just the capitalist who is surplus to requirements.)

So, no you don't deserve the profits of your private investments, you really don't. You didn't do anything to earn them. You're just a societal leech. (Me too, in that regard. But if you can't beat them ...)

Really, you can't see that?

What do other countries do about people who are too ill or disabled to work, or may never have been able to work and contribute? I'm not disputing that people who can work should, but there are people who can't.

Funnily enough - with welfare not being a free for all - more people work. Funny that. People want to level up and have the safety net of welfare, good public services etc - so they go to work to pay for them. People want to level up - not drag down. That’s the whole issue here.

So other countries have significantly more people economically active and that means the tax base is much, much larger. This supports people who really need it and aren’t making life choices because of benefits cut offs. The other difference is - the basic rate of tax that lower and middle earners pay is much higher. Bigger tax base and more evenly taxed.

Investors are leeches.

We have reached peak ignorance on this thread!

All societies need capitalists to survive. You have to allow money to move in return for gain. That’s happened in every society ever, even in the Soviet Union and modern day China, Cuba and Venezuela.

Clause IV went under Blair and, for obvious reasons, it’s got no chance of coming back.

The personal profit motive needs regulating; but if it’s over-regulated you lose everything.