Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] The Labour Government



A mex eyecan

Well-known member
Nov 3, 2011
3,878
Before the election Starmer clearly defined working people as those who couldn't just write a cheque to cover problems. I would suggest that under that definition people earning over £100,000 a year (about 4% of the workforce) would not be in that definition.

View attachment 190631
Perhaps then he thinks working class people are on quite a bit less than 100k. If so there could be many many more people about to see their taxes go up
 




fly high

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2011
1,728
in a house
Before the election Starmer clearly defined working people as those who couldn't just write a cheque to cover problems. I would suggest that under that definition people earning over £100,000 a year (about 4% of the workforce) would not be in that definition.

View attachment 190631
Didn't he also at one time say 'workers don't have savings'. That statement pretty much says that. This allows him to target anyone who does have savings & people who earn less than £100k will be in that bracket.
 




Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
14,262
Cumbria
Didn't he also at one time say 'workers don't have savings'. That statement pretty much says that. This allows him to target anyone who does have savings & people who earn less than £100k will be in that bracket.
The only way of doing that would be to increase tax paid on savings, remove the £1,000 threshold, or remove the tax-free ISA.
 








A mex eyecan

Well-known member
Nov 3, 2011
3,878
The only way of doing that would be to increase tax paid on savings, remove the £1,000 threshold, or remove the tax-free ISA.
or increase tax % on earnings over whatever he thinks is above ‘working class’
 














fly high

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2011
1,728
in a house
The only way of doing that would be to increase tax paid on savings, remove the £1,000 threshold, or remove the tax-free ISA.
What's to say they won't? Guess we just have to wait and see.
 


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
17,773
Fiveways
4% of the workforce.
Those that are responding to you fall into one, some or all of the following categories:
-- they don't earn over £100k a year
-- they don't work, because they've retired
-- they don't live in the UK, so won't be hit by taxes on work in the UK
-- they've somehow been convinced that because they've got savings or assets in excess of £100k, this means that it'll fall under proposed taxes on those earning over £100k a year (even though such a taxation hasn't been leaked to a reliable source -- unlike, for instance, the proposed rise in employer contribution to NI).

But, they'll go on and on on this thread, complaining about things, wanting lower taxes, public debt to fall to zero, and public services to improve. That's how this thread has played out in recent months.
 


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
17,773
Fiveways
They’re long gone, history.

I was told of a world of milk and honey with the ‘grown-ups’ back in the room.
More bolleaux. Starmer couldn't have been clearer: tough times are ahead, he doesn't have a magic wand, etc -- all stated prior to the election.
But you can provide some links to counter this, and to support your claim that there was 'a world of milk and honey' ahead. Go on, you know you want to.
 




chip

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
1,314
Glorious Goodwood
Didn't he also at one time say 'workers don't have savings'. That statement pretty much says that. This allows him to target anyone who does have savings & people who earn less than £100k will be in that bracket.
I'm sure that this means that MPs aren't "working people"
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,706
The Fatherland
More bolleaux. Starmer couldn't have been clearer: tough times are ahead, he doesn't have a magic wand, etc -- all stated prior to the election.
But you can provide some links to counter this, and to support your claim that there was 'a world of milk and honey' ahead. Go on, you know you want to.
:lolol:
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,706
The Fatherland
They’re long gone, history.

I was told of a world of milk and honey with the ‘grown-ups’ back in the room.
You really are a plum.
 


dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,625
The only way of doing that would be to increase tax paid on savings, remove the £1,000 threshold, or remove the tax-free ISA.
Pensions are savings too. Plenty to go at among the people who have saved for a pension, and of course retired people (as he clearly implied) are fair game for tax rises.
 




Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
14,262
Cumbria
Pensions are savings too. Plenty to go at among the people who have saved for a pension, and of course retired people (as he clearly implied) are fair game for tax rises.
You don't get interest added onto savings pots do you? (i'm not sure). Or do you mean people have saved in an interest-bearing account to help them when they have retired. In which case - they may well be paying some tax on their savings already?
 


nevergoagain

Well-known member
Jul 28, 2005
1,535
nowhere near Burgess Hill

I presume all those who moaned about corrupt Tory donors will be screaming for Labour to sever ties and repay donations from Unite if they are found to have broken the law ?.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here