10 Sep
10:33am, 10 Sep 2024
25,540 posts
|
larkim
Wealth tax would take a long time to implement (and not be a disaster zone). Increase higher rate income taxes could be done quickly and whilst there would be some knock-on effects by people making "different" decisions as a consequence of tax changes, it should be able to match the £1.5bn saving needed pretty reliably, I'd have thought. But it's a slower thing to implement than simply not spending £1.5bn in November this year, a tax rate increase would take at least 12 months (if not longer) to be drawn down. They could borrow to offset this, but with an interest costs needing factoring in. I am perplexed why they have gone straight for this payment as option A, when there are other options on the table. Perhaps I need to read a little more to understand the "why". |
10 Sep
10:34am, 10 Sep 2024
21,969 posts
|
Dave W
"I think the media and public need to take a more grown up view of everyone" Would be nice, but never going to happen while the idiots of the RW Press stridently complain about anything and everything that a Labour Government does. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Nature of the beast. |
10 Sep
10:37am, 10 Sep 2024
6,393 posts
|
paulcook
Dave W wrote: "I think the media and public need to take a more grown up view of everyone" Would be nice, but never going to happen while the idiots of the RW Press stridently complain about anything and everything that a Labour Government does. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Nature of the beast. Whatever I think of the ideas of the WFA policy, and there's certainly plenty of nuance to be debated and or changed, I do hate the kind of media debate we end up which pitches pensioners vs train drivers, etc. Damned if you do, etc, certainly apt. Somebody else might call it simplism!! |
10 Sep
10:52am, 10 Sep 2024
17,777 posts
|
jda
The whole concept of a winter fuel allowance was childish nonsense anyway. Either increase the pension or don’t (and tax/means-test according to choice). Allocating specific tranches of money to particular costs is stupid. What next, a winter woolly hat allowance and a summer sun cream payment?
|
10 Sep
10:53am, 10 Sep 2024
22,988 posts
|
rf_fozzy
One way to implement a wealth tax would be to make pensioners pay NI. Would raise £15bn a year apparently. It's pointless labour trying to pander to this demographic too much. As a broad group, they're less likely to vote for labour than reform. Time to stop focussing on boomers and genXers and pivot to millennials and genZers - the future of this country. After all, once you get over about 47, you're basically done anyway (so most of this thread.... Ha!) |
|
10 Sep
10:59am, 10 Sep 2024
6,394 posts
|
paulcook
Bonus, I've got 13 months left!!
|
10 Sep
11:33am, 10 Sep 2024
11,609 posts
|
Fields
Shame Labour aren’t interested in taxing the rich. Should rename themselves to “Capital” |
10 Sep
12:19pm, 10 Sep 2024
22,967 posts
|
DeeGee
jda wrote: The whole concept of a winter fuel allowance was childish nonsense anyway. Either increase the pension or don’t (and tax/means-test according to choice). Allocating specific tranches of money to particular costs is stupid. What next, a winter woolly hat allowance and a summer sun cream payment? You don't need a £200 Winter fuel allowance if you're getting a £460 pension uplift, surely? You can then choose to spend your money as you wish. And if you get 460 quid and you haven't got £200 to spare by winter, you need some help budgeting rather than a big pile of cash. |
10 Sep
12:31pm, 10 Sep 2024
8,836 posts
|
um
That £460 is £9 per week from April next year. Not much help with this winter's bills. And less than half the pensioners get the max pension. If you need £200 this December, but only get £9 a week from next April, (or even £36 every 4 weeks from the end of April), I suspect budgeting won't help. I'm sure the energy corps will allow you to hold out and pay them later. The reality is that we should all expect to be paying more, whether to cover the costs of Covid, Russia/Ukraine, Truss etc etc and that's even before starting to improve services (like care, NHS, social services, etc etc) that most people seem to favour. (as long as someone else pays) |
10 Sep
12:43pm, 10 Sep 2024
1,304 posts
|
Spanners99
I agree with that statement we will all pay more. And all be worse off. Fact is not one single politician said that in the election. Labour currently are setting the scene so they can raise taxes have told everyone they would not raise any of the main tax raisers. The country is deeply in dept and whilst i could list 100 things it would be good for society to up spending on the money tree is withered. Tax rates are already at record highs and the public services provided at by all definitions struggling. Thats not seeking to pass blame but demand for services will never be satisfied. So we need a grown up debate about how we can do better with what we have. All tax changes coming will be peanuts in scheme of things. The winter fuel allowance is just a headline. |
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Sep 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
