[Politics] Are Labour going to turn this country around?

[WATFORD zero]

Dear @cjd

I think you need this:

View attachment 194733

You have been laughing so much that your sides must truly be split asunder.

What is your view?
Farmers should be given special status over inheritance tax?
Anyone who disagrees is hilariously funny?
Pray tell.

I think you misunderstand. It means I would really like to contribute but don't think I can without appearing completely stupid. We have seen it a few times before

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think you misunderstand. It means I would really like to contribute but don't think I can without appearing completely stupid. We have seen it a few times before

What like when people back in the 1970s would piss themselves if someone suggested that men and women are equal, and that black people can be intelligent?

Oh well. Never mind

 

[Rdodge30]

If we really are going to turn this country round, we should really stop tax dodgers and everyone needs to pay their way

The multi millionaire farmers dodging IHT ? - NO NOT THEM !
The Schools dodging VAT by claiming to be Charities ? - NO NOT THEM !
The very rich Pensioners who still claim WFA ? - NO NOT THEM !

But everyone should pay taxes fairly

Actually … believe it or not YES ALL OF THEM … but when you introduce legislation to target them make sure you don’t hit all the low hanging fruit in your way. Show some political competence because we’ve just had a decade or more of incompetence and this is amateur hour.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Actually … believe it or not YES ALL OF THEM … but when you introduce legislation to target them make sure you don’t hit all the low hanging fruit in your way. Show some political competence because we’ve just had a decade or more of incompetence and this is amateur hour.

So you object to farmers paying less inheritance tax than the rest of us because you object to the inheritance tax that the rest of us have to pay?

So why are you getting your knickers in a twist about the farmers?
Why aren't you complaining that by charging farmers less inheritance tax than you and I the government are showing favouritism towards farmers?

I don't think your position, whether it be the one I thought it was initially or the one it now transpires to be makes any sense.

It makes the least sense of all when used as a stick with which to beat Starmer.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Actually … believe it or not YES ALL OF THEM … but when you introduce legislation to target them make sure you don’t hit all the low hanging fruit in your way. Show some political competence because we’ve just had a decade or more of incompetence and this is amateur hour.

What exactly is amateur about allowing anyone who owns a farm to hand over £3m to their offspring completely tax free (three times what the rest of society gets tax free) and then get taxed 20% (half of what the rest of society gets taxed) and then get given 10 years interest free to pay it off (which nobody in the rest of society gets) because your business is in one specific sector ?

The rest of us have to undertake some sort of financial planning

And what about 'family run' pubs, restaurants, hotels, B&Bs or any other 'family business' where their home is used for security

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think you misunderstand. It means I would really like to contribute but don't think I can without appearing completely stupid. We have seen it a few times before

To add, CJD shrieking with laughter at a discussion about farmers is a tad disconcerting.

"In variant CJD, symptoms that affect a person's behaviour and emotions (psychological symptoms) will usually develop first. (Tick)
These are then followed by neurological symptoms around 4 months later, which get worse over the following few months. "

If there is dribbling and nodding, perhaps someone ought to phone for an ambulance.

 

[Rdodge30]

So you object to farmers paying less inheritance tax than the rest of us because you object to the inheritance tax that the rest of us have to pay?

So why are you getting your knickers in a twist about the farmers?
Why aren't you complaining that by charging farmers less inheritance tax than you and I the government are showing favouritism towards farmers?

I don't think your position, whether it be the one I thought it was initially or the one it now transpires to be makes any sense.

It makes the least sense of all when used as a stick with which to beat Starmer.

It’s not that difficult to understand, you have to want to understand though… it can’t just be the internet version of not listening to someone but simply waiting for them to finish talking so you can talk. Which is what this discussion with you feels like.

I think inheritance tax is terrible. Of course I don’t think the trawlerman should have to pay inheritance tax any more than the farmer, for you to suggest that I would it seems that you are currently just off on one and not listening


Like I said in the case of farmers, educate yourself- look at the returns per acre and the costs per acre in different areas of the country. Many many farmers will have to sell their farms to pay the Government as will many people who inherit houses. It’s just wrong and the only people who will benefit are the ones who can actually afford to buy £2m houses and farms



As for Starmer and Reeves Harry, for me it is simply not enough to be better than Boris and Truss.

Could we possibly have set the bar any lower??


**incidently, the litmus test on the failure of Truss’s budget was that UK bond yields went up so high (4.3%?)

After Reeves budget they are now higher**

 

[Rdodge30]

What exactly is amateur about allowing anyone who owns a farm to hand over £3m to their offspring completely tax free (three times what the rest of society gets tax free) and then get taxed 20% (half of what the rest of society gets taxed) and then get given 10 years interest free to pay it off (which nobody in the rest of society gets) because your business is in one specific sector ?

The rest of us have to undertake some sort of financial planning

And what about 'family run' pubs, restaurants, hotels, B&Bs or any other 'family business' where their home is used for security

I honestly don’t know how many times I can keep saying this - especially after my last reply to you saying yes I agree

Absolutely agree, I think I’ve said already. Inheritance tax is awful and should be being reduced/abolished for most … not adding to the people paying it


In almost every conversation I have had on here with you and Harry I have stated that I think it’s wrong for people to have to sell the house they inherit as well as people having to sell the farm they inherit. I honestly have said that over and over.


Incidentally Reeves budget sent the UK bonds yields over 4.3% which is apparently worse than the effect of Trusses budget and was the reason she had to go.


Reeves wont see October’25 as Chancellor and the party will have Starmer out not long after.

 

[Bozza]

If we really are going to turn this country round, we should really stop tax dodgers and everyone needs to pay their way

The very rich Pensioners who still claim WFA ? - NO NOT THEM !

For someone who says they understand the WFA and think the threshold is too low, that is really very poor indeed.

Please highlight anyone who thinks wealthy pensioners should continue to receive it.

You know full well no one, not on here anyway, thinks that. And I don't think I've read it anywhere else, either. The removal of the universality of the benefit is a sensible and prudent measure if appropriate consideration is given to the poor and vulnerable. It hasn't and you've essentially acknowledged that yourself previously.

Concern has been exclusively for the poor pensioners who either should get Pension Credit payments, but don't for a variety of reasons, thus also lose their WFA, and those who sit just a few quid above the Pension Credit threshold.

In short, poor and vulnerable pensioners with meagre incomes, no savings who live in real fear of turning their heating on and are in very real risk of serious poor health, or worse.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It’s not that difficult to understand, you have to want to understand though… it can’t just be the internet version of not listening to someone but simply waiting for them to finish talking so you can talk. Which is what this discussion with you feels like.

I think inheritance tax is terrible. Of course I don’t think the trawlerman should have to pay inheritance tax any more than the farmer, for you to suggest that I would it seems that you are currently just off on one and not listening


Like I said in the case of farmers, educate yourself- look at the returns per acre and the costs per acre in different areas of the country. Many many farmers will have to sell their farms to pay the Government as will many people who inherit houses. It’s just wrong and the only people who will benefit are the ones who can actually afford to buy £2m houses and farms



As for Starmer and Reeves Harry, for me it is simply not enough to be better than Boris and Truss.

Could we possibly have set the bar any lower??


**incidently, the litmus test on the failure of Truss’s budget was that UK bond yields went up so high (4.3%?)

After Reeves budget they are now higher**

I didn't suggest anything of the sort.
I assumed you thought the farmers should have a special deal better than the rest of us.
Which would be weird given that they already do have a special deal.
But not quite as special as it had been.
You made several posts criticizing the re-introduction of a weak form of inheritance tax on farmers without making it clear you object to all inheritance tax.

And as I said if you object to all inheritance tax then you should be focusing on the rest of us, not farmers.
The rest of us who pay a higher % with a lower threshold.

And then you go on again about how unfair the new tax is on farmers.

I think you have allowed you outrage after misunderstanding my post to undermine your reasoning.
I want inheritance tax to be the same for us all, not charged at a reduced rate only for farmers.
I am not necessarily opposed to what you appear to favour - no inheritance tax for anyone.

But you keep banging on about the farmers, thereby undermining your position.
They are not a special case.....
...other than that presently they get a much better inheritance tax deal than the rest of us.

Maybe @WATFORD zero can explain it to you if my posts are annoying you so much you cant' focus on what I'm saying..

Anyway footy becons. Enjoy your evening

 

[beorhthelm]

<sigh>

The ones that aren't rich won't be affected.

think point is a £2m farm is not "rich", it's about average size farm, 100-150 acre depending on location, land quality and building values.

it's fine though because they can sell some of the acres to developers, which should help with housing. joined up policy.

 

[WATFORD zero]

It’s not that difficult to understand, you have to want to understand though… it can’t just be the internet version of not listening to someone but simply waiting for them to finish talking so you can talk. Which is what this discussion with you feels like.

I think inheritance tax is terrible. Of course I don’t think the trawlerman should have to pay inheritance tax any more than the farmer, for you to suggest that I would it seems that you are currently just off on one and not listening


Like I said in the case of farmers, educate yourself- look at the returns per acre and the costs per acre in different areas of the country. Many many farmers will have to sell their farms to pay the Government as will many people who inherit houses. It’s just wrong and the only people who will benefit are the ones who can actually afford to buy £2m houses and farms



As for Starmer and Reeves Harry, for me it is simply not enough to be better than Boris and Truss.

Could we possibly have set the bar any lower??


**incidently, the litmus test on the failure of Truss’s budget was that UK bond yields went up so high (4.3%?)

After Reeves budget they are now higher**

Well that seems a very focused post on the subject being discussed

 

[WATFORD zero]

For someone who says they understand the WFA and think the threshold is too low, that is really very poor indeed.

Please highlight anyone who thinks wealthy pensioners should continue to receive it.

You know full well no one, not on here anyway, thinks that. And I don't think I've read it anywhere else, either. The removal of the universality of the benefit is a sensible and prudent measure if appropriate consideration is given to the poor and vulnerable. It hasn't and you've essentially acknowledged that yourself previously.

Concern has been exclusively for the poor pensioners who either should get Pension Credit payments, but don't for a variety of reasons, thus also lose their WFA, and those who sit just a few quid above the Pension Credit threshold.

In short, poor and vulnerable pensioners with meagre incomes, no savings who live in real fear of turning their heating on and are in very real risk of serious poor health, or worse.

As I have posted numerous times before, I agree completely that it is the right policy with the cut off at the wrong level. However it is taking free money away from many very wealthy pensioners who continued to get it.

And, as I've mentioned before, my 92 year old mother on the basic state pension (no benefits, so no WFA) and living in a one bedroomed council property believes it should go to young families with kids who are struggling and really need it. I think she is the very definition of 'just above the Pension credit threshold'.

The cut off has been set too low and has left some people at risk, mainly those who should claim pension credit and don't, but there are a significant majority who were getting it and never needed it. That loophole should be closed.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I honestly don’t know how many times I can keep saying this - especially after my last reply to you saying yes I agree

Absolutely agree, I think I’ve said already. Inheritance tax is awful and should be being reduced/abolished for most … not adding to the people paying it


In almost every conversation I have had on here with you and Harry I have stated that I think it’s wrong for people to have to sell the house they inherit as well as people having to sell the farm they inherit. I honestly have said that over and over.


Incidentally Reeves budget sent the UK bonds yields over 4.3% which is apparently worse than the effect of Trusses budget and was the reason she had to go.


Reeves wont see October’25 as Chancellor and the party will have Starmer out not long after.

So where will you replace the £6B raised or where will you cut spending ? It's very easy to cut taxes if you don't have to replace them

(I'll be paying IHT, and far more after the last budget changes to pensions. But as I have said throughout, if we are going to turn it around, we all have to pay our way).

 

[Bozza]

As I have posted numerous times before, I agree completely that it is the right policy with the cut off at the wrong level. However it is taking free money away from many very wealthy pensioners who continued to get it.

And, as I've mentioned before, my 92 year old mother on the basic state pension (no benefits, so no WFA) and living in a one bedroomed council property believes it should go to young families with kids who are struggling and really need it.

The cut off has been set too low and has left some people at risk but there are a significant majority who were getting it and don't need it.

So can you please highlight where this is being said:

"The very rich Pensioners who still claim WFA ? - NO NOT THEM !"

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

Q: Is Labour going to turn the country around?

A: No

Give people a reason to have some genuine hope and improvement or embrace Farage/Badenoch 2029.

 

[WATFORD zero]

So can you please highlight where this is being said:

"The very rich Pensioners who still claim WFA ? - NO NOT THEM !"

Well from the last 24 hrs

Why are the BBC complicit in perpetuating lies?
This makes out an elderly couple are so cold, the only heat they have is from their dogs.

'We lost out winter fuel payment - now we take our dogs to bed to stay warm'

It is £5 that separates John and Wenefreda Dockree from receiving the winter fuel payment.

www.bbc.co.uk

In reality, John Dockree is a retired Vice President of Mercedes Benz Philippines, returning back to the UK in 2022. His wife, aged 57, works part-time, but was also a UKIP candidate.
I very much doubt he is on the breadline, nor turning his heat off.

I accept that this isn't the 'norm' but it's certainly not unusual of the lies surrounding WFA that are being published and repeated (in this instance by the State Broadcaster).

And this is no way belittles or doesn't recognise those who should be claiming benefits and WFA.

 

[LamieRobertson]

This isn’t going to help

The economists’ warning came as the cost of long-term government borrowing surged to its highest level since 1998, dealing a blow to Rachel Reeves as interest rates are expected to fall at a slower pace this year.

The yield on 30-year UK bonds - the return the Government promises to buyers of its debt - rose to 5.22pc today for the first time in more than a quarter of a century.

i seem to recall Truss got blasted for upsetting the ‘money markets’ …she didn’t seem to achieve this

 

[LamieRobertson]

As I have posted numerous times before, I agree completely that it is the right policy with the cut off at the wrong level. However it is taking free money away from many very wealthy pensioners who continued to get it.

And, as I've mentioned before, my 92 year old mother on the basic state pension (no benefits, so no WFA) and living in a one bedroomed council property believes it should go to young families with kids who are struggling and really need it. I think she is the very definition of 'just above the Pension credit threshold'.

The cut off has been set too low and has left some people at risk, mainly those who should claim pension credit and don't, but there are a significant majority who were getting it and never needed it. That loophole should be closed.

I think most old people would think of the ‘young’ rather than themselves and your Mum sounds no different …they’ll think they’ve had there time……not sure that makes it ok then…and I’m 100% certain you would make sure she could turn her heating on without fear of not paying the bill

 

[cunning fergus]

So where will you replace the £6B raised or where will you cut spending ? It's very easy to cut taxes if you don't have to replace them

(I'll be paying IHT, and far more after the last budget changes to pensions. But as I have said throughout, if we are going to turn it around, we all have to pay our way).

According to the Government’s own figures (as below) I can see a very easy way to save £9.4bn, not just £6bn. In these difficult times before Rachel fixes the foundations the Government just need to prioritise the interests of British citizens welfare above other interests. Next question.

2.4 Pressures on public spending due to recent events​

In addition to pressures from inflation and pay, recent events have increased pressures significantly on public spending since SR21, including:

• Military assistance to Ukraine – The UK has committed £3 billion of military assistance to Ukraine in 2024-25 including £1.5 billion RDEL, in response to its invasion by Russia.
• Asylum – Asylum seeker arrivals, and the costs associated with supporting them in the UK, have exceeded SR21 forecasts. As a result spending on asylum support has increased seven-fold in the last three years, with asylum and immigration resulting in a pressure of £6.4 billion in 2024-25. The Rwanda migration partnership and Illegal Migration Act would have caused these spending pressures to continue rising even faster than before.
• Rail services – Pressures have emerged on rail finances, primarily due to the weaker-than-expected recovery in passenger demand following the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to a pressure of £1.6 billion in 2024-25.

These events have all taken place against a challenging fiscal backdrop, with public debt at its highest level since the early 1960s.[footnote 10]