Rishi Sunak - Prime Minister

[Ivan stewart]

captain_cynic said:

The pandemic, yes it's quite relevant... Conspiracy theories are not.

There’s no conspiracy , they didn’t listen to many scientists and they only want to blame each other
For their failings..

[119]

captain_cynic said:

Dunclane said:

z4RRSchris said:

They are not going to do that, they need to target floating voters so moving the bands from the bottom helps everyone.

15k bottom one
65k middle one
200k top one

Agreed something close to the above would definitely help but I don't think they'll do it to that level.

What they should look at is the Higher Income Child Benefit Charge it's a sneaky tax that normal PAYE wouldn't be aware of then get hit by.

Sneaky taxation is the Tory MO.

They like to claim they're lowering taxes but really are hitting you by raising things like insurance premium tax, air passenger duties, import duties, et al.

All of which are optional.

[captain_cynic]

119 said:

All of which are optional.

And that's the Tory excuse for stealth taxation.

Also if you don't drive in this country, it gets expensive fast. So not really optional.

[turbobloke]

captain_cynic said:

119 said:

All of which are optional.

And that's the Tory excuse for stealth taxation.

It looks like that'll be Labour's way under Rachel Reeves as well if John Rentoul is on the money. El Gordo was the king of stealth taxes.

Rachel Reeves will copy Gordon Brown’s stealth taxes and quite right too says the Indy

[vaud]

captain_cynic said:

119 said:

All of which are optional.

And that's the Tory excuse for stealth taxation.

Also if you don't drive in this country, it gets expensive fast. So not really optional.

New Labour were also great users of the stealth taxation. Not saying it is right, but it is a regular mechanism for a centrist party who don't want the optics of direct taxation.

[turbobloke]

vaud said:

captain_cynic said:

119 said:

All of which are optional.

And that's the Tory excuse for stealth taxation.

Also if you don't drive in this country, it gets expensive fast. So not really optional.

New Labour were also great users of the stealth taxation. Not saying it is right, but it is a regular mechanism for a centrist party who don't want the optics of direct taxation.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies catalogued the number of New Labour's stealth tax rises and their list totalled 157.

[S600BSB]

vaud said:

captain_cynic said:

119 said:

All of which are optional.

And that's the Tory excuse for stealth taxation.

Also if you don't drive in this country, it gets expensive fast. So not really optional.

New Labour were also great users of the stealth taxation. Not saying it is right, but it is a regular mechanism for a centrist party who don't want the optics of direct taxation.

Yep - both sides as bad as each other.

[Murph7355]

S600BSB said:

vaud said:

captain_cynic said:

119 said:

All of which are optional.

And that's the Tory excuse for stealth taxation.

Also if you don't drive in this country, it gets expensive fast. So not really optional.

New Labour were also great users of the stealth taxation. Not saying it is right, but it is a regular mechanism for a centrist party who don't want the optics of direct taxation.

Yep - both sides as bad as each other.

They are indeed. In every respect.

That said, I have no real problem with "stealth" taxes when activity is genuinely optional. I think the government should do much more with VAT, for example (would be an easy way to make sure the Big Bad Companies (Amazon, Starbucks etc) collect tax for HMRC where the product is sold).

I have more of a problem where the product is govt mandated (car insurance for example).

[Ivan stewart]

S600BSB said:

Yep - both sides as bad as each other.

I’m just amazed people are still thinking of voting labour or Tory !! What part of failed experiment don’t they understand??

[turbobloke]

Murph7355 said:

S600BSB said:

vaud said:

captain_cynic said:

119 said:

All of which are optional.

And that's the Tory excuse for stealth taxation.

Also if you don't drive in this country, it gets expensive fast. So not really optional.

New Labour were also great users of the stealth taxation. Not saying it is right, but it is a regular mechanism for a centrist party who don't want the optics of direct taxation.

Yep - both sides as bad as each other.

They are indeed. In every respect.

That said, I have no real problem with "stealth" taxes when activity is genuinely optional. I think the government should do much more with VAT, for example (would be an easy way to make sure the Big Bad Companies (Amazon, Starbucks etc) collect tax for HMRC where the product is sold).

I have more of a problem where the product is govt mandated (car insurance for example).

Yes fine, though to be completely OK the stealth bit needs removing by politicians being up-front, telling voters that headline tax rates may not be touched so much whereas dozens of other taxes will be ramped. Having checked the IFS account of Brownie Boy's stealth taxes, they got as far as 157 in a sub-total not the final total, which approached 200. We may get the chance to see if Reeves & Co can beat that without keeping the overall tax burden as high as now, and no higher than 35% of national income for starters. Back to the IFS who reckon it'll hit 37% under Sunak by the time of the GE.

[cirian75]

frisbee said:

turbobloke said:

You would still vote for them even if they introduced a 100% Turbobloke only tax.

Slanderous!!! Turbo would want at least 200%.

[turbobloke]

cirian75 said:

frisbee said:

turbobloke said:

You would still vote for them even if they introduced a 100% Turbobloke only tax.

Slanderous!!! Turbo would want at least 200%.

Equal opps applies, such taxes would need to be applied to naturally aspirated PHers. Non-starter.

[Rufus Stone]

Not sure it matters who has introduced the most stealth taxes. Our tax burden is at the highest for 70 years. That's down to the Tories.

[turbobloke]

Rufus Stone said:

Not sure it matters who has introduced the most stealth taxes. Our tax burden is at the highest for 70 years. That's down to the Tories.

Has anyone said otherwise?

Soon, paying for Covid, Putin-Ukraine may pass to Reeves.

Labour has refused to commit to tax cuts if it wins the next election. Next!

[Matthen]

Gecko1978 said:

turbobloke said:

JagLover said:

z4RRSchris said:

id take moving the bands up, helps everyone and even the rich get a nice bonus.

Yes.

all this talk of "tax cuts" (which will give back a little of what has been taken) and what is really needed is the routine raising of tax allowances in line with inflation.

100%

The 100 to 120k claw back needs to go. Either you get a tax free allowance or you don't taking it back takea the p

It really doesn't. The country is still destitute - the only place tax cuts really make sense are at the bottom, helping those who can't afford their rent. Cutting taxes for those on 100K or more would be another nail in the coffin of the Tory's.

Tax free allowance up to 14K would help the majority of people who need help.

So you can guarantee that they won't do that. (It'd cost billions regardless, so doubt they could even if they wanted to).

It'll be IHT - appeal to the grey vote, make no material difference to countries finances.

[Rufus Stone]

turbobloke said:

Has anyone said otherwise?

Soon, paying for Covid, Putin-Ukraine may pass to Reeves.

Labour has refused to commit to tax cuts if it wins the next election. Next!

Good for them.

Give the state of the Government finances due to the Tory mis-management and spiraling debt, they can't afford to and are being realistic. Somehow Rishi has found something down the back of the sofa to bribe voters with though.

[turbobloke]

Matthen said:

Gecko1978 said:

turbobloke said:

JagLover said:

z4RRSchris said:

id take moving the bands up, helps everyone and even the rich get a nice bonus.

Yes.

all this talk of "tax cuts" (which will give back a little of what has been taken) and what is really needed is the routine raising of tax allowances in line with inflation.

100%

The 100 to 120k claw back needs to go. Either you get a tax free allowance or you don't taking it back takea the p

It really doesn't. The country is still destitute - the only place tax cuts really make sense are at the bottom, helping those who can't afford their rent. Cutting taxes for those on 100K or more would be another nail in the coffin of the Tory's.

Tax free allowance up to 14K would help the majority of people who need help.

A nice round 15% would do nicely, given that inflation since the allowance freeze would imply £14,875 to catch up iirc.

[johnboy1975]

turbobloke said:

A nice round 15% would do nicely, given that inflation since the allowance freeze would imply £14,875 to catch up iirc.

But this is (or would be ) putting money back in my pocket in order to give me extra "spends". Whilst the BoE are seemingly determined to take it off me, to curtail my spending

[Mrr T]

Murph7355 said:

I think the government should do much more with VAT, for example (would be an easy way to make sure the Big Bad Companies (Amazon, Starbucks etc) collect tax for HMRC where the product is sold).

Amazon and Starbucks etc collect UK VAT on goods they sell in the UK. The corporation tax rules are more complex to make exporting easier.

[turbobloke]

The scene, as set approx one month ago.

https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-and-boris-j...