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!!!!!

When exactly did they ‘hop on private jets’? Was it for an international flight for government business? Because I don’t think they ever criticised that. They criticised new livery for planes/helicopters, and using them for short U.K. journeys.

Yes, they did. Vehemently.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/airbus-labour-rishi-sunak-david-lammy-andrew-murrison-b2585798.html

It might seem like it; but lifestyle expands with income. We all need a few nice treats after all.

Please don’t choke on your Prosecco but £120k really isn’t all that much in western income levels in 2024 terms. And you can earn this is in countries with much fairer tax policies.

Average wages have languished in the UK but in many other countries they have kept better pace.

I’d quite like to see the scrapping of most taxes and allowances; set a fair minimum wage; and say introduce a flat 30% tax on all income.

And when not if , WHEN a child ends up ending their life for that exact reason I hope Starmer and every single person who has supported this absolutely horrific policy hangs their blood stained head in shame.

Ive said time and time again, I could not give a toss if you add another 50k a year to school fees. You will not punish me. I can afford it without blinking. It’s the poor little kids who’s parents work their arses off and just about managed it that I feel sorry for.

My plan for employment is the same as yours. We have low staff turnover anyway. When I do need someone going forward it will be sourced out as a remote position to another country.

Anyone who voted Labour should be ashamed

Why should they?

That talks about ‘hopping on and off’ but only gives one example - a trip to New Delhi. I think Truss was criticised for repeated and excessive use when commercial flights were available.
That’s what should happen - and if Labour are doing otherwise they should be criticised. I’m not sure you’ve proved that is the case.

So here's where we're ideologically different: I don't think lifestyle necessarily has to expand to reflect income. I think 'growth' is inherently problematic where resources are finite. Our needs are basic, our 'wants' infinite. Lifestyles more closely aligned to our needs than our wants would be much more sustainable. 'Treats' are nice, but who needs treats amounting to £50k pa? Hoarding of surplus personal wealth in assets, savings and investments, beyond "rainy-day savings", is similarly lopsided to me.

I'm a teacher (so the reference to whether lower earners' taxes even cover their children's places in state schools stings) and as such invariably earn more than the majority of adults I encounter through work. I teach their wonderful children; smart, kind, funny and courageous, and without exception from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. I hate it that they have less than my DC, through no fault of their own. Or their parents', most of whom work hard in minimum wage jobs or on zero hours contracts ‐often more than one job too‐ and rely in UC top-ups.

Ok, here’s another, later report. With added Labour hypocrisy.

(I can’t bear the Express, but I think we can take the facts as true.)

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1931751/labour-mps-want-taxes-on/amp

Fair. A tax sounds like a good idea. Might change the cost-benefit analysis on government usage too.

Well I pay £3k a month on a mortgage, and another £5k a month in school fees; so it soon goes I can assure you.

Yes the “my tax doesn’t even cover the cost of my child’s state school place” is intended to be harsh. This is, I’m afraid, the reality of the UK tax system.

Which is why when high earners are already doing the heavy lifting; asking for more is causing people to consider moving to countries which are fairer. Squeeze the goose too hard and you kill it. That’s what Labour, I fear, are about to do…

@iamtheblcksheep so relived to have someone who gets it.. I only have 4 staff now used to have 8 but will never be able to go back to 8+ now they have dicked about with NI and the stupid rights. It's completely un manageable.

As for the private school kids I have no doubt this policy will cause awful consequences.

Stupid rights? So glad you value your staff so much.

@PickAChew when you run a business for 21 years and have piss taking staff that you need to remove from a business come back to me.

I value my staff who are amazing loyal people, and have never had anyone hand in notice in all my years of running a company. But there are utter piss takers and as a business owner you need to ability to remove them simply.

I won't derail the OPs thread. But labour are removing business owners ability to run their business with zero insight. They are just potentially rules for rules sake that benefit nobody.

So far so good .. the WFA was a great move .. if you are genuinely a 'poor pensioner with no savings' then claim pension credit (ooo no I don't want to do that because then I'll have to declare my savings) ...

So why did Labour attack the measure so fiercely less than a year ago?

@PinkFruitbat , you're being very gracious, but I can't help but think: both a £3k/month mortgage and £5k/month school fees are a choice. I make that +£60k pa that you don't necessarily need to spend, and likely more, as a 3k mortgage is really hefty. I'm in one of the pricier cities in the south and even here, that's a lot unless it's a sizeable property or in a very nice neighbourhood. Both of which are choices and not necessarily necessity. My point is that although you perceive that you are doing some heavy lifting with those broad shoulders of yours, you clearly have significant disposable income to invest in things which are wants as opposed to needs. You're doing alright.

The hyperbole is ridiculous!

Huffington Post referred to him as Drama Starmer. I added the Llama bit all by myself for added effect!

It hasn’t exactly been the smoothest 100 days for an incoming government, or are you just resolutely blinkered about the Labour Party.

Well I pay well over £50k a year in income tax. I think that counts as heavy lifting?

@PinkFruitbat Yes, that is heavy lifting, and I am so pleased that there are so many who are able to -I see first hand, every day, the benefits thereof: free school meals, off the top of my Sunday morning head.

I think you and I are unlikely to reconcile our differences though: I maintain that a baseline of disposable income (within a range) to meet the cost of housing, energy, food, clothing and some leisure expenses, is all anyone actually needs. Having a significantly greater amount left after taxation to me signifies doing very well indeed.

And as long as there are workers whose time, skill and expertise is remunerated so poorly that they require top-ups from Universal Credit, while their employers benefit from the profits of said time, skill and expertise, and as long as there are landlords whose inflated rents require tenants to seek top-ups through the housing element of income based benefits, there will be a need for high-earning tax payers to make up this shortfall in remuneration and housing costs caused by a drive for profit in business and housing (synonymous in cases where a portfolio of rental property is the 'business', of course).

An expectation of employees to pay what it actually costs to live and stricter regulation of the rental market with capped rents would go a long way toward relieving tax payers like yourself of aforementioned heavy lifting.

So I should live in a smaller house and not send my kids to private school so that I can pay even more tax?

Politely; no thanks!

I do already way more than my fair share.

I can’t fix society, but crushing high earners in taxes to the level that they leave the country seems counter productive to me.

Labour don’t understand this. They will kill the golden goose, and the quality of life for those reliant on the taxes of high earners will further deteriorate.

@PinkFruitbat I think that, like me, you are probably hard-working and wanting to do the right thing for your family with the resources available. Your higher level tax-payer status is benefiting those whose time and labour is not valued as highly as yours. This is precious. Of course I don't wish to turn you out of your home or upheaval for your children.

I think that the 'more than my fair share' or 'golden goose' narrative is problematic though. Many high income earners do so as a direct result of benefiting from the full-time labour of employees they do not reward sufficiently to achieve even a basic standard of living. Or they are generously rewarded by businesses that nemunerate other parts of the workforce poorly. Society is systemic, and benefits from all of our contributions. Someone's gain and good fortune is often dependent on someone else's loss. Taxation should reflect this.

The direction of travel is quite clear. Fewer and fewer households making a net contribution in tax.

Squeezing those who are the remaining tax contributors with more taxes isn’t the answer.

We need to grow the economy; that comes from lowering taxes and encouraging investment. This will provide the right conditions for growth. Labour do not understand this concept.

The problematic part is getting it wrong so behaviour changes and people opt out.

You will feel it at your level too if that happens as tax receipts go down.