I'm guessing he's also never heard of Margaret Thatcher!
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
I'm guessing he's also never heard of Margaret Thatcher!
He's not even heard of Liz Truss!
True, but Truss wasn't there long enough to be really remembered
I've never had a job where it's ok or even sensible to drink on the job. Do I not live in the 'real world'
Drinking impairs your judgement, hence why there's a drink driving limit.
Drink voting is not a problem for you then?
Tony Blair saying benefits to easy to game and need 'emergency handbrake' on the system.
Block people with anxiety and ADHD from claiming benefits, says Tony Blair
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/block-people-anxiety-adhd-claiming-050000167.html
I'm sure stopping benefits to people with anxiety will help get them right back on track!
‘Real world’ outside of Westminster. Clearly there are lost of different jobs, not some homogeneous blob.
There are lots of jobs where you go out for dinner and drinks and get business done. Do you go for a pint with your mechanic to discuss your MOT? Probably not.
What's the requirement for MP's to do it though?
They are closer to mechanic's than sales people.
Drinking should be banned whilst you are attending parliament. It's for their own good as much as anything!
feck Tony Blair so much. He destroyed the Labour Party.Tony Blair saying benefits to easy to game and need 'emergency handbrake' on the system.
Block people with anxiety and ADHD from claiming benefits, says Tony Blair
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/block-people-anxiety-adhd-claiming-050000167.html
Vote against Starmer has failed after he threatened suspension to any party member who voted against him and to refer him to committee for misleading Parliment.
15 Labour MPs rebelled, 53 abstained.
Wheres the list of who voted what? Currently on a train a few seats away from the rather awful Labour party Deputy Leader.
Unsurprisingly a no.
More surprising are some of the non-voters. Such as Jeremy Corbyn.
Last edited:
Just seen Morgan Mcsweeney say the other candidate for the US ambassador role was George Osborne.
Jesus, is the UK talent pool that thin?Just seen Morgan Mcsweeney say the other candidate for the US ambassador role was George Osborne.
Why was the other candidate not the one who was already there and was liked and respected by seemingly everyone?
Were they just looking for the absolute worst piece of human trash they could find? What weird ass hiring process comes up with them 2 top of the list?
Were they just looking for the absolute worst piece of human trash they could find? What weird ass hiring process comes up with them 2 top of the list?
Mandelson banked enough IOUs in 90s/00s with the Blairites to ensure he didn't completely disappear. His shared experience of Epstein's inner circle with Trump and his dealing with US business magnates made him a good conduit to this corrupt US administration. Can't admit that though.
I reckon Osbornes name was thrown in there to make it look like they where trying to get someone with cabinet level political experience in trade and economics to replace the diplomat that was apparently doing a very good job. They never had any serious consideration appointing him, just wanted to use it as cover to justify appointing Mandelson.
And how do you propose to support those who were not in your undiagnosed statistic? Or are they simply collateral damage and all benefits should be removed?
To what degree is important though. Is it 1% of claimants or 10%?
Do you also feel it's a sad truth that we lose more money through tax avoidance of businesses than we do through benefit fraud? What's your view on tackling that?
Gets better.Just seen Morgan Mcsweeney say the other candidate for the US ambassador role was George Osborne.
The shortlist was, Mandelson, Osbourne and Bear Grylls!
HMRC would have it that benefit fraud costs more than tax avoidance, but both are missing the point.
There are a hundreds of loopholes corporations can legally take advantage of, and does somebody with ADHD/anxiety/other truly need benefit payments? Both of those account for far more expenditure.
Ministers abandon attempt to tell pension funds how to invest
https://www.thetimes.com/article/bf...a?shareToken=e1339c344c4419e29cbe4dc291025774
Our pensions are relatively safe from Reeves…
This is a clear example of wasting everyone’s time. Mandating was never a good idea, it’s still lingering, but now toothless. Strange hill for Bell to die on.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/bf...a?shareToken=e1339c344c4419e29cbe4dc291025774
Our pensions are relatively safe from Reeves…
This is a clear example of wasting everyone’s time. Mandating was never a good idea, it’s still lingering, but now toothless. Strange hill for Bell to die on.
Just out of interest what do you class as "other"?
One man’s loophole is another man’s tax planning - especially when they are complying with what HMRC have deemed they should be doing.
Our tax system is far too complicated, after decades of tweaks, changes, and manipulation - all designed to change behaviours, which is undoubtedly what has been achieved.
I didn't mentioned the undiagnosed. That's a whole other issue.
You can end up in jail for benefit fraud. Which costs the tax payer even more than the fraudster got out of it ironically.
Tax avoidance is systemic. But accepted. Salary sacrificed benefits, capital gains (eg. payment in stocek), ISAs, corporate/private pensions etc are available to the masses now. And has been abused by companies to pay their employees less out of their own pocket, at the expense of the tax payer.
There is the lost tax revenue through (illegal) tax evasion take into account too.
These aren’t abuses - they are schemes that HMRC and successive governments have put in place.
You think ISA’s, pensions etc are systemic tax avoidance - that’s basic, and really basic tax planning.
Not at all I tried to explain to you lot before, the political scaremongering aside this was just about moving this into regulatory discussions.
None of the scare stories the papers fed you were ever going to happen. Regulatory change always goes through consultation after passage of legislation and gets watered down in the detail. Some of it has been front loaded into the act itself is all that's happened.
I know that's not quite as enjoyable as political football though.
Then why the provision?
It’s not going to be used they say… it’s clear government overreach.
It does highlight, the need for the House of Lords - at least in some capacity.
Depends on your definition of abuse, but they are not illegal if that's the criteria.
Yep, built into the system so it's systemic. These avenues to avoid tax only apply when you have enough excess income to exploit them just to add to the point. Even if it's a basic ISA.
On a technicality you could claim an ISA is tax avoidance - but that’s a genuinely ridiculous take.
It is a form of it. I'm as guilty as anyone else that's ever opened one and taken advantage of the tax exemption. But it is an exemption/tax break/tax avoidance or whatever you want to name it.
You think you are guilty (of what!!) of paying into an ISA to support your future, potentially support your retirement, thus reducing your dependency on the state for example. Or just to save up and buy a car, who cares…
It’s tax planning, it’s not avoidance, it’s complying with government policy, not an exemption - it’s there for a reason to support people saving.
Is this some sort of extreme socialist perspective?
Sounds like it is more of a semantics argument than an argument for or against anything. Just my reading, though.
Would be a brave position for a party to take to get rid of ISAs going into an election, anyway.
Benefits is complex as it's not really about benefit fraud, even as much as that costs us nearly a billion a year from a quick Google. it's about how many people are incentivised not to enter the work force because benefits are too generous or easy to obtain, it's about whether the reward for people who want to take advantage of the system is too tempting and - with horrendous rises in cost of living - it's something we are seeing more and more of. We're now at over a 10th of the population of the UK on Universal Credit, we're getting close to 5% of GDP in terms of broader beenfits per year. That's insane.
Re corp tax, of course. Though I get that one is a hard line to walk for the gov as - using an obvious example - Amazon was estimated to be skimping hundreds of millions on tax in 2024 but they also do pay many millions in tax. It's more of a balancing act of getting tougher on them without getting the backlash of them moving business out of the UK. I personally think they should just lower corp tax to try and stimulate some growth and then just ensure they are enforcing the big multi nationals to pay. If you start getting Amazon etc. to pay what they owe, it's much more valuable even if like 15% than screwing over SMEs at 25% and letting the big guys dodge tax.
You could say that about any investment to be fair. Regardless of what it is.
What is Tax planning? A plan to avoid as much tax as possible?
Not really. It's a critique on the fact some people can easily dismiss people that need support as a drain on tax payer money whilst doing all they can to avoid paying taxes. It applies to a much wider population that just the billionaires.
I don’t know whether you genuinely believe that what you’ve been writing or just trying to argue semantics? If you genuinely believe government policy on such mundane instruments like ISAs is tax avoidance - then it’s one of the most extreme perspectives I’ve heard.
I'm not suggesting we do away with fecking ISAs or whatever other "mundane" accounts anyone want to open. But why have an ISA?