We don't want the government to lurch to the left

[Bargepole45]

I am absolutely astounded that Labour think it's democratic to decide that they can lurch to the left despite being elected with a very clear promise to not tax and spend. I believe this is absolutely not what the general public want and I am really worried that the economy isn't going to survive this and we will end up with an IMF bailout that will lead to very painful spending cuts for our most vulnerable.

Please vote:
YABU :I want Labour to lurch to the left in order to increase taxation and spending
YANBU: I don't want Labour to lurch to the left and would be against further tax and spending rises

Read my posts!

I haven’t commented on wage stagnation or salary to housing costs

please Don’t put words in my posts.

If Reform lurched any more to the right they would be out the other side and mid-Jeremy Corbyn.

Im afraid thinking there is less financial support for young people now compared to the past is woefully incorrect

Again there isn’t free childcare.

There is less social housing now for one which was a huge support for families in the past. Housing costs are crippling. As I said pointless debating with someone who can’t see that the youth of today face a very different landscape. I’m not young but I have dc.

@DrPrunesqualer read my posts then before you reply to them 😆

You cant compare public and private pensions

I didn’t compare them to each other. I said pensions are less generous today because they are and that the age for state pension has increased. Don’t put words in my mouth

Mortgage. If you lose your job you can get a short term loan to help pay for it whilst you’re looking for work. In the past you got nothing

Why are you forgetting about MIRAS?

and I have three sons.

Your posts have changed the goalposts though, now switching to ‘ it’s all about housing costs’ etc
I responded to your pps about support
and
your posts blaming the elderly

There is much more support , including for childcare and I have explained already we cannot blame a demographic for being born at a boom post war time and the fallout from that

I have not denied the fallout exists , which is obvious if you actually rmps.

Why people twist stuff and misrepresent other's on these threads is very telling.

David Cameron introduced tax cuts. I got one while austerity was pursued relentlessly and public services were falling apart around us. That didn’t help, nor did Truss’s crazy ideas about slashing taxes, regulation and government spending. We are still suffering the effects of supporting the banks during the crash, years of under investment in pretty much everything that can stimulate an economy and of course, Brexit. I don’t envy anyone trying to sort it out, and anyone who claims it will be easy is a liar.

My parents didn’t have private pensions
They had no UC and were low earners so couldn’t afford it and
there was no compulsory employer contributions
so
Whats better than Nothing !!
Today employers pay money in. That’s again better than nothing

My pension is going well but that’s because I went for high risk investments. My husbands is utterly crap because he went safe
Private pensions were all over the place and vary hugely so we can’t compare
Nor can we compare when many of us went for many years with no employer contributions

Yes
We will have to work longer but the only big difference is for women with the jump from 60.

Which I absolutely agree with for the sake of equality

On balance whilst you say you are not young you don’t seem to remember what was available when older people were young.

As I said before. Ask an unmarried mother what is was like having to give up their child, how keeping one meant no one would give you a job. How there was actually no free childcare. It’s all not that long ago. Mother and baby slave camps for example were around into the 1990s.

Ps
I havent commented on MIRAS
I have never used it
I bought after 2000 so wouldn't know

There are loans now though dwp.

This doesn't relate to anything tree !

its more productive to tag the post you are referring to

Possibly but until then the companies ethos was handmade. We weren't planning on going mass production, but you have to respond to market forces.

There are examples in every area of business. My classic example is before minimum wage be used to have a tea trolley in the offices with a lady who went round giving out tea and was paid pin money effectively. The reason she did it was the social aspect. But minimum wage put an end to that - just couldn't justify and put a kettle in the kitchen for staff to make their own. That is an extreme because was it ever really a "real" job, probably not but it was a mutually beneficial arrangement.

@treeowl or any other mumsnetters to explain

Re your comments that there is
no free childcare

I have never had any Free childcare so can only go by the newer benefits and policies introduced

Here is a Google answer
Can anyone please explain why it is incorrect

if as you say there is no free childcare. This extract reads that , unlike in my kids nursery days, people aren’t paying for some hours whilst I paid for every hour.

’ In England, all 3 and 4-year-olds are entitled to 15 hours per week of free,
approved childcare for 38 weeks a year.
Eligible working families can access up to 30 hours, starting for children aged 9 months+ from September 2024/2025. Support is also available for 2-year-olds with specific government support.

3 & 4 Year Olds (Universal): 15 hours a week (570 hours/year) for all, regardless of income.

Working Parents (9 months to 4 years): Up to 30 hours a week for eligible families.

2 Year Olds (Support): 15 hours for families on specific benefits.

Eligibility Criteria (Working Families)
Each parent must earn at least 16 hours a week at the national minimum/living wage.
Neither parent can have an adjusted net income over £100,000 per year.
Valid for approved, Ofsted-registered providers.
What is Covered
The hours are free, but providers may charge for meals, nappies, or special activities.
Hours can be stretched over more than 38 weeks by using fewer hours per week.
Other UK Nations
Information for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland differs; check local government sites.

I would be very happy to see changed to tax loop holes that serve the better off in society

and other tax changes around properties and landlords (i am a landlord myself)

that isn’t far left politics

it’d a shame Labour are not taking these bold steps to make society fairer, they would absolutely win back voters, they have the mandate to do this with their large majority but instead have taken easier routes to raise tax

Agree. But we cannot keep handing pensioners perks such as the winter fuel allowance when they’re the demographic with the highest disposable income, and we have to ditch the triple lock. It was only ever meant to be a temporary solution.

Why are they selfish? They can’t make life work here. Housing is too expensive, tax is too high. Move to say Scandinavia and your tax may be a bit higher but your housing may well be less, you can afford to have kids, infrastructure works, your health system works and if you’re made redundant you get benefits that in some way reflect your previous salary, not the same as all the freeloaders that have never bothered to get a job. It’s not selfish to expect decent public services for the tax you pay.

I didn’t realise NHS recruitment was an issue though. I keep hearing about there being no jobs for nurses, midwives and medical students to go on to.

what I don't get is 16h requirement per parent.

With 32 hours of work between them they surely can cover 24/7, why do they need taxpayer sponsored childcare? when parents on 100k+ are nearly certain to work way much more than official 35-37h working week

Are we taxing earnings now not profits? And accounts already report earnings in the UK. What exactly are you proposing? You seem confused.

I’m not talking about younger people though. I’m talking about rich right wing older people who are ‘fleeing’ the government.

I don’t really give a shit about them, it’s so many of the future high earners (those that in 20 years time will be funding the entire nation) that are fleeing the country that’s the big issue.

Which loopholes? Which exactly? If you cannot name a loophole you want changed then you’re just blah, blah, blah ing because they don’t exist. You think there’s a magic money tree. There isn’t. It really annoys me because it’s just a way of sticking your head in the sand and ignoring reality. Oh we’ll cancel student debt and pay for it by closing a loophole. Oh we’ll pay the WASPI women by closing a loophole. Oh well keep the triple lock by closing a loophole. All sounds great but these loopholes just don’t exist.

And as an economist will tell you, taxing landlords never works. They pass the tax directly on to their tenant in increased rent. And due to the extra tax more landlords leave the business creating scarcity which again increases rent. And who are these renters? Those on housing benefit - so we pick up the extra tax in extra housing benefit - and young professionals with no bank of mum and dad to supply a deposit, who are trying to save up but are struggling due to ever increasing rents.

I have no issue with paying to support people who, through age, illness or disability can’t work. Or those who temporarily fall on hard times.

i have a problem with paying for people on a higher salary than I’m on to receive Universal Credit, or to pay landlords’ mortgages, or to support people who won’t - rather than can’t - work.

With a 170 seat majority what you care about OP is of no consequence.

I don’t think that’s true. Politicians care about votes, even the local, regional and by-elections.

An indication their policies aren’t going well will be felt.

What are you talking about there are numerous tax incentives that allow the wealthy and high earning business to pay less tax

laws regarding landlords increasing rent have been tightened along with landlords being able to just give notice to gain more rent to their next tenants

that landlords can pay low taxes on rent has been a large contributor to rent remaining high and pushing up the cost of housing, this also goes to the larger number of people who now own second home and more than one home they rent out (paying low taxes on the earnings)

its not going to fix issues over night but how things are now and the direction things have been going for the last 30 years, keeping wages down, low taxes for large corporations, middle classes (until recently) and the wealthy wealth increasing has only increased the divide in society and it has to change or it’s a society propped up by benefits