Nah!🫣
Nah!🫣She’s got Starmer on the ropes
Nobody who is destitute will suffer from this!So much for “it’s just to win the election.”
*screams into void which is where Wesley's brain is supposed to be*
The public already don't like you Wesley
I wouldn’t worry about that. Plenty of taxes he can work on
None of which ever seems to be VATI wouldn’t worry about that. Plenty of taxes he can work on
You want to pay even more VAT?None of which ever seems to be VAT
They couldn’t possibly have done that. If they said everything was rosy as an inheritance from the Tories, Labour would have had to take the blame when it all goes tits up. Which it will.He followed the party line to be fair. I was just saying to a mate I still think they’ve dropped a bollock. I personally would’ve gone down the route of riding the new government positivity wave, say we’ve finally got government stability, inflation heading back to normal and some growth after 14 years of flatlining, we’re going to build on this in a fair way to clean up the public services mess the Tories have left.
Far better line of attack and message, also more likely to encourage more investment, help growth etc. They’ve ended up sucking the post election bounce/positivity out of the country….bit of a boob
Good grief, obviously less.You want to pay even more VAT?
From a logical point of view it makes more sense. You only pay the tax when you spend the money. You can only spend the money if you've got it. Therefore the more money you have the more tax you pay.You want to pay even more VAT?
No. I want it cutting to at least the 17.5% it was for many years. Think of how many everyday things and services you pay it on and the difference it would make to individuals and businesses alike to have a reduction.From a logical point of view it makes more sense. You only pay the tax when you spend the money. You can only spend the money if you've got it. Therefore the more money you have the more tax you pay.
Often wondered if they might consider bringing in bands for VAT, so the higher the value of the purchase the higher tax %.
No you're hoping here!They couldn’t possibly have done that. If they said everything was rosy as an inheritance from the Tories, Labour would have had to take the blame when it all goes tits up. Which it will.
But then you're edging into "why pay any tax at all and just let people spend what they want and let the private sector grow from the extra expenditure". It's been shown time and time again that doesn't work. I'm all for zero or reduced percentage on items that are necessities but anything else is fair game IMO.No. I want it cutting to at least the 17.5% it was for many years. Think of how many everyday things and services you pay it on and the difference it would make to individuals and businesses alike to have a reduction.
But then you're edging into "why pay any tax at all and just let people spend what they want and let the private sector grow from the extra expenditure". It's been shown time and time again that doesn't work. I'm all for zero or reduced percentage on items that are necessities but anything else is fair game IMO.
We've got a huge hole in the country's finances and you're saying 'tax cuts because it will lead to growth'. Which is standard Tory policy and was Truss' entire argument. What it inevitably leads to is cuts.
I was talking about the logic behind it rather than if I'd do it.So let’s increase VAT and wreck even more small businesses. Great plan that
You clearly don’t know me very well if you think I’m angling for a low/zero tax approach. For many years VAT was held at 17.5%, then very briefly dropped to 15% by Gordon Brown before jumping to 20 under Cameron.But then you're edging into "why pay any tax at all and just let people spend what they want and let the private sector grow from the extra expenditure". It's been shown time and time again that doesn't work. I'm all for zero or reduced percentage on items that are necessities but anything else is fair game IMO.
We've got a huge hole in the country's finances and you're saying 'tax cuts because it will lead to growth'. Which is standard Tory policy and was Truss' entire argument. What it inevitably leads to is cuts.
I was talking about the logic behind it rather than if I'd do it.
Like I said certain items I think should be lower tax or tax free. More expensive luxury items yes I'd consider a rate increase.
I know he's towing the party line but it's hardly a defence, the line is something him and his fellow cabinet members have created despite the wishes of the members.He followed the party line to be fair. I was just saying to a mate I still think they’ve dropped a bollock. I personally would’ve gone down the route of riding the new government positivity wave, say we’ve finally got government stability, inflation heading back to normal and some growth after 14 years of flatlining, we’re going to build on this in a fair way to clean up the public services mess the Tories have left.
Far better line of attack and message, also more likely to encourage more investment, help growth etc. They’ve ended up sucking the post election bounce/positivity out of the country….bit of a boob
We haven't got a huge hole in the public finances, fucking hell.But then you're edging into "why pay any tax at all and just let people spend what they want and let the private sector grow from the extra expenditure". It's been shown time and time again that doesn't work. I'm all for zero or reduced percentage on items that are necessities but anything else is fair game IMO.
We've got a huge hole in the country's finances and you're saying 'tax cuts because it will lead to growth'. Which is standard Tory policy and was Truss' entire argument. What it inevitably leads to is cuts.
But not enough to improve infrastructure!We haven't got a huge hole in the public finances, fucking hell.
Instead of that we’re going to see MPs having the whip taken for daring to defend pensioners. And for what? Less than 0.1% of total government spending?VAT should be dropped back to 15% similar to what happened at the end of the last Labour government, there is a desperate need for stimulus.
There have been more company insolvencies in recent years than there was immediately following the GFC.
*screams into void which is where Wesley's brain is supposed to be*
The public already don't like you Wesley
From a logical point of view it makes more sense. You only pay the tax when you spend the money. You can only spend the money if you've got it. Therefore the more money you have the more tax you pay.
Often wondered if they might consider bringing in bands for VAT, so the higher the value of the purchase the higher tax %.
A ten percent rise on fuel brings mine up to £60 a month hardly breaks the bank, usage, I'll Go resist the new meterage as long as I can ! Just over £2 per day for both fuel's around 3yrs ago that would have sounded obscene to me but not now, quite reasonable!Instead of that we’re going to see MPs having the whip taken for daring to defend pensioners. And for what? Less than 0.1% of total government spending?
Beats a 25% rise in mortgage payments at least!A ten percent rise on fuel brings mine up to £60 a month hardly breaks the bank, usage, I'll Go resist the new meterage as long as I can ! Just over £2 per day for both fuel's around 3yrs ago that would have sounded obscene to me but not now, quite reasonable!
Tell the BOE there behind the curve here,get the rates cut they're stretching it out too far!!Beats a 25% rise in mortgage payments at least!
Of course I know you're not a low/zero tax approach person. That's why I mentioned that the logical conclusion of your argument is exactly that, and I know you think that's a ridiculous proposition.You clearly don’t know me very well if you think I’m angling for a low/zero tax approach. For many years VAT was held at 17.5%, then very briefly dropped to 15% by Gordon Brown before jumping to 20 under Cameron.
A 2.5 point drop to the previous rate would make a noticeable cost of living difference to individuals and ease some pressure on businesses also.
Well that depends on if you consider them expensive, luxury items. I don't, so I wouldn't raise VAT on them.Increasing VAT let’s say on food items and beverages would potentially wreck independent coffee chains as one example.
Madness
That sounds like a slippery slope fallacy to me.Of course I know you're not a low/zero tax approach person. That's why I mentioned that the logical conclusion of your argument is exactly that, and I know you think that's a ridiculous proposition.
I do get the argument for it, but I think there are better ways to go about it. Having people earn a minimum wage they can actually live off for a start and then probably putting the tax free income at the value of rent, food + energy.
I don't get having high levels of income tax allied to high levels of sales tax as that's just double taxation. One or the other can be fine.VAT is a hugely regressive tax as it is.
Never got sales tax TBH. Why would you want fewer sales?
Maybe, but that's where the argument always ends up. You cut taxes and sales/growth goes up and the economic right say "well we should cut taxes even more".That sounds like a slippery slope fallacy to me.
You have jumped to this conclusion from me saying that VAT at 20% is too high.Maybe, but that's where the argument always ends up. You cut taxes and sales/growth goes up and the economic right say "well we should cut taxes even more".
Same with deregulation. You take away the regulation, the banks/industry makes more profits and it's "see, we told you you should cut the regulation and red tape" Only for the entire thing to go to shit a few years down the line because people have been doing shit that was always going to go wrong in the end.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?