National News Boris Johnson - Ousted Former PM

[QR]

The right taxation is the one that can be efficiently collected and goes in the pot.

The wrong taxation can be easily avoided/negated and doesn`t go in the pot.

And so it has always been.

It's only easy to avoid if the rules allow it.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

Let's just hope this extra taxation (why on earth not income tax?) is actually spent efficiency rather than it being creamed off by companies paying their care workers as little as possible (and not for their time or petrol between appointments).

 

[QR]

The big winners, surprise surprise, will be the housebuilding industry again. More money retained by children/grandchildren to enable moves up the ladder/first steps on the ladder. Move money chasing a resource growing at a slower pace = higher house prices.

 

[MC Yellow]

Increased taxation*, increased spend on health and social care.

You vote for Johnson and get Corbyn. Who'd have seen that coming.

*albeit the wrong taxation

I assume you don’t want to “chip in“ to support the NHS then?

 

[Peterdev]

Interesting the NI goes up 1.5%…which of course costs employers more money and their ability to recruit.
Working age employees will be up in arms as retired people won’t be affected.
Hang on no they won’t as the chancellor penalised pensioners with a suspension of the triple lock that pensioners have paid in all their lives too. All this was of course leaked to the press a month ago

 

[QR]

I assume you don’t want to “chip in“ to support the NHS then?

No problem at all. It's just an unavoidable* consequence.

*unavoidable given current rules. e.g if a cap was put in the price of land sold for housing and if the various conditions put in place to try and stop local authorities from building houses we're removed we might start actually addressing the housing problems this country has.

 

[Oufcrealist]

Interesting the NI goes up 1.5%…which of course costs employers more money and their ability to recruit.
Working age employees will be up in arms as retired people won’t be affected.
Hang on no they won’t as the chancellor penalised pensioners with a suspension of the triple lock that pensioners have paid in all their lives too. All this was of course leaked to the press a month ago

Yes TWO election promises broken in one day. But of course the government can find money down 'the back of the sofa' when it wants to!!

 

[Marked Ox]

Let's just hope this extra taxation (why on earth not income tax?) is actually spent efficiency rather than it being creamed off by companies paying their care workers as little as possible (and not for their time or petrol between appointments).

Because an income tax rise can be negated by utilising the tax free pension allowance based on examples I seen. They'd have to had changed the pension allowance rules as well.

 

[Peterdev]

I can understand broken promises in these unprecedented times. It looks like they’re doing the best to balance the books.
The suspension of the triple lock for a year probably means that they curry favour by reinstating the triple lock with pre election sweeteners before Christmas.
The government is fast running out of time and the tide could be turning. The last election was December 2019 and we are nearly two years in. I can’t see another election happening in December 2024. I rather suspect the election will be June 2024, before the people get their say.
I would be interested to know if they have recruited the number of police officers they promised they would. The NHS staff are clearly well down on numbers so I’d bet not much has happened there either.
What with the Afghanistan and boat people crises this government is rightly facing much criticism. That’s not to mention the driver shortages and the inaction of government to address the issue.
The pandemic is obviously a major factor, and it doesn’t look it’ll be gone any time soon.
Keir Starmer and Ed Daley don’t seem to have any idea of solutions either

 

[ZeroTheHero]

Because an income tax rise can be negated by utilising the tax free pension allowance based on examples I seen. They'd have to had changed the pension allowance rules as well.

Can't claim to be a tax expert (it makes my eyes glaze over!) but it just seems like income tax would have been a fairer way to do it. If that meant they had to change other allowances etc, then that's what they should have done. Although I suspect political considerations triumphed over fairness (as always).

 

[Marked Ox]

Can't claim to be a tax expert (it makes my eyes glaze over!) but it just seems like income tax would have been a fairer way to do it. If that meant they had to change other allowances etc, then that's what they should have done. Although I suspect political considerations triumphed over fairness (as always).

I agree on income tax being fairer but you probably right on political motives triumphing. As is though, income tax is too easy to get around in comparison and they might have to try to get a vote in Parliament* if they changed tax law rather than just a rate change for NI.

*The main opposition would be their own backbenchers unless Labour backed the Govt.

 

[MC Yellow]

Yes TWO election promises broken in one day. But of course the government can find money down 'the back of the sofa' when it wants to!!

The money was “borrowed“ and will be a burden for decades. It was found to support incomes for those who couldn’t work and to help businesses retain said employees.

Now that something needs to give, i.e a tax rise, and you are up in arms about election promises being broken.

Couldn't make it up.

 

[Essexyellows]

If difficult choices have to be made then so be it.
If that boils down to giving with one hand and taking with the other it is hardly a shock to most.
Unprecedented times and all that and the longer the ship is stable and steady as it goes the better for all.

 

[QR]

I can understand broken promises in these unprecedented times. It looks like they’re doing the best to balance the books.
The suspension of the triple lock for a year probably means that they curry favour by reinstating the triple lock with pre election sweeteners before Christmas.
The government is fast running out of time and the tide could be turning. The last election was December 2019 and we are nearly two years in. I can’t see another election happening in December 2024. I rather suspect the election will be June 2024, before the people get their say.
I would be interested to know if they have recruited the number of police officers they promised they would. The NHS staff are clearly well down on numbers so I’d bet not much has happened there either.
What with the Afghanistan and boat people crises this government is rightly facing much criticism. That’s not to mention the driver shortages and the inaction of government to address the issue.
The pandemic is obviously a major factor, and it doesn’t look it’ll be gone any time soon.Both
Keir Starmer and Ed Daley don’t seem to have any idea of solutions either

Both Labour and the Lib Dems should have put forward an alternatives. They look dithery not to have.

I would have liked to have seen the load spread more widely with a combination of changes.

A progressive increase in income tax.
A smaller increase in employers NI.
Increased tax on dividends
Wealth tax on the super rich. (Rishe and his mates)
A slight increase in inheritance tax over a certain value.

Clearly the balance across the options will depend on how much needs to be raised and how much each source could generate (I don't have access to such info ).

Increasing NI just looks the opposite to levelling up and I don't mean levelling down.

 

[MC Yellow]

Can't claim to be a tax expert (it makes my eyes glaze over!) but it just seems like income tax would have been a fairer way to do it. If that meant they had to change other allowances etc, then that's what they should have done. Although I suspect political considerations triumphed over fairness (as always).

Why is it not fair?

 

[Marked Ox]

Why is it not fair?

Because a NI increase disproportionately affects those on low/lower wages more than those on decent/good wages.

It may reduce real spend in the economy as those on low/lower wages tend to spend a greater, if not all, % of their take home pay.

 

[Peterdev]

Both Labour and the Lib Dems should have put forward an alternatives. They look dithery not to have.

I would have liked to have seen the load spread more widely with a combination of changes.

A progressive increase in income tax.
A smaller increase in employers NI.
Increased tax on dividends
Wealth tax on the super rich. (Rishe and his mates)
A slight increase in inheritance tax over a certain value.

Clearly the balance across the options will depend on how much needs to be raised and how much each source could generate (I don't have access to such info ).

Increasing NI just looks the opposite to levelling up and I don't mean levelling down.

I can understand the logic for most of what you say.
income tax increases are fairer if targeted correctly.
Increasing NI for employers will adversely affect recruitment.
Increased taxes for high earners, especially those in mega millions would be good, although there are a lot of loopholes.
I’m opposed to increasing taxes on dividends. Dividends have already been slashed. IAG, Lloyds FTSE 100 companies haven’t been renowned for paying much anyway and to reduce them still further will discourage investment. Many who invest in shares and investment companies do so often because they otherwise receive a paltry return elsewhere.
I think in many ways the government were wrong to give so many financial incentives to property buyers, particularly stamp duty. Property is something the government should look into. Too many bad landlords and bad tenants. It’s been an area that has long needed drastic reform

 

[Marked Ox]

I can understand the logic for most of what you say.
income tax increases are fairer if targeted correctly.
Increasing NI for employers will adversely affect recruitment.
Increased taxes for high earners, especially those in mega millions would be good, although there are a lot of loopholes.
I’m opposed to increasing taxes on dividends. Dividends have already been slashed. IAG, Lloyds FTSE 100 companies haven’t been renowned for paying much anyway and to reduce them still further will discourage investment. Many who invest in shares and investment companies do so often because they otherwise receive a paltry return elsewhere.
I think in many ways the government were wrong to give so many financial incentives to property buyers, particularly stamp duty. Property is something the government should look into. Too many bad landlords and bad tenants. It’s been an area that has long needed drastic reform

Yes, if somebody has more than 1 BTL property (as this may come about by a change in circumstance) then each additional property should have additional tax (on whatever happens currently) put on it. This may have the benefit of freeing up property for people wanting to buy their own.

Absent foreign property owners should be looked into as well for tax purposes and because the properties can often sit empty.

 

[LowerSouth]

The big winners, surprise surprise, will be the housebuilding industry again. More money retained by children/grandchildren to enable moves up the ladder/first steps on the ladder. Move money chasing a resource growing at a slower pace = higher house prices.

Sounds like envy politics.
Do you live in a commune?

 

[bazzer9461]

Increased taxation*, increased spend on health and social care.

You vote for Johnson and get Corbyn. Who'd have seen that coming.

*albeit the wrong taxation

What would Labour and God forbid if the Libdems had been in power do regarding this issue? How can money be raised to cover the spend because of covid.