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

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

No really think this should happen, I was shocked when I got free prescriptions after 60 will still in full employment. About time it was brought into alignment with pension age. It was difficult when it was still a sliding scale but now both men & women at 66 that should be the cut off.

I started getting free prescriptions when I was 65 while in full time employment. Won't grumble about the perk but wouldn't grumble if it disappeared either. Agree that getting this from 60 would be barking. I went skiing when I was 62. But if at 60 now I assume this would be women.anyone is getting free scripts

Of course Labour would lose votes, but mainly from people who would never vote for them anyway, like the FeMail 'nobody told me the pension age for women had changed' contingent.

If the free prescription age is equalized (I have no idea when it starts for women presently) it will be done exactly the same way the pension ages were equalized - announced many years in advance.

 

[Bodian]

I started getting free prescriptions when I was 65 while in full time employment. Won't grumble about the perk but wouldn't grumble if it disappeared either. Agree that getting this from 60 would be barking. I went skiing when I was 62. But if at 60 now I assume this would be women.anyone is getting free scripts

Of course Labour would lose votes, but mainly from people who would never vote for them anyway, like the FeMail 'nobody told me the pension age for women had changed' contingent.

If the free prescription age is equalized (I have no idea when it starts for women presently) it will be done exactly the same way the pension ages were equalized - announced many years in advance.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60e455b08fa8f50c7683861d/changes-to-giving-free-prescriptions-to-people-aged-60-and-over_easy-read.pdf

 

[jcdenton08]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60e455b08fa8f50c7683861d/changes-to-giving-free-prescriptions-to-people-aged-60-and-over_easy-read.pdf

What’s going on here?!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I appreciate your considered response. It is an emotive issue amongst the farming industry because it will simply mark the end of many family farms.

The owners may be asset rich but their asset is the land, animals and machinery that enable them to farm. If they pay IHT on passing the business down to the next generation then they will have to sell the assets and that is the end. The average family farming business does not generate enough income to borrow the IHT and service it. The IHT exemption was less a tax 'break' and more a necessity.

But in truth, this issue is the final straw for an industry that has been hammered by successive governments and legislators who have no policy for the future of food production. Food production in the UK is becoming unviable, which is an extremely serious problem for us all and will eventually see higher prices and shortages. So you are right in suggesting (I think) that there needs to be a coordinated approach to solving this problem. If changes to IHT were part of an overall policy that could deliver sustainable (financial and eco) food production then fair enough. This is, of course, not the case.

Sadly, neither this or previous governments understand what 'coordinated' means.

I understand your overall views about IHT in general but you might consider whether it is right to lump the farming issue in with the wider one?

When you put it like that, in a measured way, providing some informed context . . . .

My posts were reactive, triggered to a large degree by another poster who doesn't think anyone should pay inheritance tax, and other poster gleefully piling into Starmer as part of a narrative.

Stepping back from that, I would like everyone to be on the same playing field, but I am happy to have tweaks and variations if justified (for the greater good, not just for the benefit of selected sectors). I accept that farming is strategic.

(and in that regard, I have never bought into this 'working people' mantra of labour).

So whether the inheritance tax, winter fuel allowance and women's state pension are issue with correct policies or not, there is a whiff of 'blunt instrument' about them all right now. Perhaps this is merely bad communication. On the other hand, of course if they had a latter-day Mandleson to mansplain it all to the electorate they would be accused of talking down to people.

As far as farming is concerned, I used to read Private eye whose farming correspondent seemed to think that farmers were playing brinkmanship with EU subsidies (now gone) but it was never clear to me whether their target for criticism was small farms or big corporate concerns. I am also aware that supermarkets 'squeeze' British farmers and have done so for decades.

Stepping back from that again, farming seems like a weird mix of business and way of life. Part of me sympathizes, especially as food is a national requirement. Part of me thinks 'what about the miners?'. Their importance was simply redefined by Thatcher and the business (nationalized) and the way of life (rather grubby, but it put food on t'table) were relegated to collateral damage when it all vanished.

I am a big fan of 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' but I admit I don't understand what is good for the gander here.

I will keep an eye out for your posts on the subject. Enjoy your evening

 

[nevergoagain]

I started getting free prescriptions when I was 65 while in full time employment. Won't grumble about the perk but wouldn't grumble if it disappeared either. Agree that getting this from 60 would be barking. I went skiing when I was 62. But if at 60 now I assume this would be women.anyone is getting free scripts

Of course Labour would lose votes, but mainly from people who would never vote for them anyway, like the FeMail 'nobody told me the pension age for women had changed' contingent.

If the free prescription age is equalized (I have no idea when it starts for women presently) it will be done exactly the same way the pension ages were equalized - announced many years in advance.

How do you lose votes from people who would never vote for you anyway ?. Still, F**k em eh Harry.

 

[Rdodge30]

Well I certainly wouldn't have thought that you'd be online at the same time to back up @Is it PotG? and quote one another.

Just one of those happy coincidences

Whatever are you talking about? I mean I’ve seen you on here going on and on about people having multiple accounts, very often making yourself look a right clown but you can’t in all seriousness be suggesting that is the case here?

 

[Rdodge30]

So whether the inheritance tax, winter fuel allowance and women's state pension are issue with correct policies or not, there is a whiff of 'blunt instrument' about them all right now.

That we do agree on

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That we do agree on

I imagine we agree on a lot. This medium of communication filters out tone and emphasis, to the detriment of nuance.

 

[ac gull]

Pound falls as borrowing costs rise to highest since 2008

Economists have warned the rise could ultimately mean further tax rises or cuts to spending plans.

www.bbc.com

 

[AstroSloth]

But a South African man on copious amounts of ketamine told me the opposite is true?

 

[BadFish]

Of course I have an agenda, I see British Governments of all flavours taking a shit on British taxpayers, and their interests more widely.

The immigration costs are just the pointy end of this shithousery, but there are plenty of others like care costs for the elderly and energy prices. The social contract between Governments and citizens has been under strain for a while but lot will oversee its break if they continue to indulge pet projects that are not in the interests of British taxpayers.

It’s that simple.

Your arguments are so skewed it's not funny.

Immigration as a whole has a new positive effect on the economy as has been explained endlessly.

What you are complaining about is asylum seekers, which has been appallingly managed and used as a political tool to fool the gullible (quite successfully) by the Tories for years.


I would suggest that properly processing asylum seekers is the most cost effective way of dealing with the situation, whilst also providing support and help to people in need.

What is your solution?


For me though all this pales into fiscal insignificance when compared with the inequitable division of resources in a top ten world economy. My suggestion would be to look at the billionaires instead of the poor saps in blow up boats with nothing.

I find it weird that your richeous indignation is directed in this way. I wonder who it is that benefits from this?

 

[dsr-burnley]

For me though all this pales into fiscal insignificance when compared with the inequitable division of resources in a top ten world economy. My suggestion would be to look at the billionaires instead of the poor saps in blow up boats with nothing.

I find it weird that your richeous indignation is directed in this way. I wonder who it is that benefits from this?

What do you do with the billionaires, though? According to the Independent last April, there are 55 UK billionaires with total wealth of about $240 billion between them. If their entire worldwide wealth was confiscated, it would still cover government spending for less than 10 weeks, with the collateral damage that obviously they would pay no tax at all in future.

We can't tax them out of their overseas income. All we can do is expel them, or else make the tax so onerous that they would leave anyway (those that haven't already - for example, Jim Radcliffe is on the list even though he is resident in Monaco). We can and do tax them on UK income, and on worldwide income when it is remitted to the UK, but have you any practical suggestions beyond that?

 

[Ike and Tina Burner]

Immigration as a whole has a new positive effect on the economy as has been explained endlessly.
What you are complaining about is asylum seekers, which has been appallingly managed and used as a political tool to fool the gullible (quite successfully) by the Tories for years.

The Tories, despite appearances, were as pro mass immigration as any party has ever been. That should be a clue to everyone on the left. They focused so much on the boats because the numbers were relatively small so it served as a useful and harmless distraction to the insane amount of low skilled workers and their families that they invited in on various visas.
Those migrants allow the rich to continue being rich and for the GDP line to go up, whilst at the same time GDP per person goes down and the bottom of the ladder gets more crowded. I mean, do you really think it's a coincidence that these super wealthy companies and individuals have thrived at the same time as unprecedented levels of immigration?

 

[BadFish]

What do you do with the billionaires, though? According to the Independent last April, there are 55 UK billionaires with total wealth of about $240 billion between them. If their entire worldwide wealth was confiscated, it would still cover government spending for less than 10 weeks, with the collateral damage that obviously they would pay no tax at all in future.

We can't tax them out of their overseas income. All we can do is expel them, or else make the tax so onerous that they would leave anyway (those that haven't already - for example, Jim Radcliffe is on the list even though he is resident in Monaco). We can and do tax them on UK income, and on worldwide income when it is remitted to the UK, but have you any practical suggestions beyond that?

To be clear, I am not suggesting that dealing with the billionaires is some silver bullet to solve thr inequality in the UK. My point is that they are more of a burden on the working classes than asylum seekers.

You mention Jim Radcliffe who despite all his billions and the millions earned by his players has put the reposobility on his lower paid staff, concession ticket purchasers and the disability supports club (so far).

To me this is a perfect example of how these people operate. I don't think a more equitable model needs explaining but off the top of my head I would:

Tighten the loop holes used to avoid paying tax. This is probably more a out big companies taking the piss but there toy go.

Increase tax for the mega rich.

I would investigate methods to close the gap between what Ceos and shareholders take from a company and what the workers are paid.

I would demand that all the banks and bankers involved in the 2008 stock market crash pay back their bonuses paid for at that time.

Ensure that they do not and cannot use their wealth to influcencd decision making in government. Or if this is too extreme insist that donations are published when legislation is being considered.

Unionise the f*** out of the work forces and improve the power balance between boss and worker.

I am sure there are plenty of others things that can be done and I recognise that I am no expert in this area so don't have the answers.

Brilliant discussion though, what should we do with the billionaires is a question I believe we should be asking.

 

[BadFish]

The Tories, despite appearances, were as pro mass immigration as any party has ever been. That should be a clue to everyone on the left. They focused so much on the boats because the numbers were relatively small so it served as a useful and harmless distraction to the insane amount of low skilled workers and their families that they invited in on various visas.
Those migrants allow the rich to continue being rich and for the GDP line to go up, whilst at the same time GDP per person goes down and the bottom of the ladder gets more crowded. I mean, do you really think it's a coincidence that these super wealthy companies and individuals have thrived at the same time as unprecedented levels of immigration?

Excellent point.

Nothing the superweatlhy like more than cheap labour.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Some great posts above - great polylogue

 

[abc]

When you put it like that, in a measured way, providing some informed context . . . .

My posts were reactive, triggered to a large degree by another poster who doesn't think anyone should pay inheritance tax, and other poster gleefully piling into Starmer as part of a narrative.

Stepping back from that, I would like everyone to be on the same playing field, but I am happy to have tweaks and variations if justified (for the greater good, not just for the benefit of selected sectors). I accept that farming is strategic.

(and in that regard, I have never bought into this 'working people' mantra of labour).

So whether the inheritance tax, winter fuel allowance and women's state pension are issue with correct policies or not, there is a whiff of 'blunt instrument' about them all right now. Perhaps this is merely bad communication. On the other hand, of course if they had a latter-day Mandleson to mansplain it all to the electorate they would be accused of talking down to people.

As far as farming is concerned, I used to read Private eye whose farming correspondent seemed to think that farmers were playing brinkmanship with EU subsidies (now gone) but it was never clear to me whether their target for criticism was small farms or big corporate concerns. I am also aware that supermarkets 'squeeze' British farmers and have done so for decades.

Stepping back from that again, farming seems like a weird mix of business and way of life. Part of me sympathizes, especially as food is a national requirement. Part of me thinks 'what about the miners?'. Their importance was simply redefined by Thatcher and the business (nationalized) and the way of life (rather grubby, but it put food on t'table) were relegated to collateral damage when it all vanished.

I am a big fan of 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' but I admit I don't understand what is good for the gander here.

I will keep an eye out for your posts on the subject. Enjoy your evening

I appreciate the above, thank you.

You make an important point about differentiating between small farms and corporate concerns. Britain's largest farm business is Dyson Farming owned by James Dyson of vacuum fame. He owns 35000 acres and I can guarantee he has never driven a tractor in earnest! He has bought up farmland steadily over the last so many years, no doubt as a good investment, the ability to roll over capital gains made elsewhere (ie save paying tax), and to benefit from the IHT exemption. All totally legitimate but a world away from the reality of ordinary farmers.

What constitutes a 'small' farmer is open to debate partly because different types of farming need more or less ground to be viable: e.g. 20 acres of intensive vegetables will deliver a similar turnover to c. 500 acres of say wheat and grazing sheep on good quality lowland grass will require a fraction of the area compared to the same on say the Scottish highlands. However, there is a clear difference between a 'working farmer' and someone like Dyson. Leaving aside the fact that Starmer doesn't consider farmers and other self employed people to qualify as 'working people', I would like to see some form of criteria that separates 'working farmers' from investors, institutions etc. This could enable some IHT mitigation for real farmers but not for those that use farming entirely as a tax dodge.

I don't have much knowledge about the miners but I can see a unique parallel with farming as to how the job was 'in the blood' and held communities together. I guess the difference is that we don't NEED coal but we all need food. But I am sure there are some lessons that politicians could learn from that part of history, but wont.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I appreciate the above, thank you.

You make an important point about differentiating between small farms and corporate concerns. Britain's largest farm business is Dyson Farming owned by James Dyson of vacuum fame. He owns 35000 acres and I can guarantee he has never driven a tractor in earnest! He has bought up farmland steadily over the last so many years, no doubt as a good investment, the ability to roll over capital gains made elsewhere (ie save paying tax), and to benefit from the IHT exemption. All totally legitimate but a world away from the reality of ordinary farmers.

What constitutes a 'small' farmer is open to debate partly because different types of farming need more or less ground to be viable: e.g. 20 acres of intensive vegetables will deliver a similar turnover to c. 500 acres of say wheat and grazing sheep on good quality lowland grass will require a fraction of the area compared to the same on say the Scottish highlands. However, there is a clear difference between a 'working farmer' and someone like Dyson. Leaving aside the fact that Starmer doesn't consider farmers and other self employed people to qualify as 'working people', I would like to see some form of criteria that separates 'working farmers' from investors, institutions etc. This could enable some IHT mitigation for real farmers but not for those that use farming entirely as a tax dodge.

I don't have much knowledge about the miners but I can see a unique parallel with farming as to how the job was 'in the blood' and held communities together. I guess the difference is that we don't NEED coal but we all need food. But I am sure there are some lessons that politicians could learn from that part of history, but wont.

Many thanks. That's instructive.

One would hope that Starmer will reconsider the detail of this, keeping in mind that he cannot change the plan now without being accused of 'U turning'. Politics is so tiresomely confrontational.

The wider issue - I am not sure what to make of Starmer yet. I personally liked the era of Campbell and Mandleson who knew how to spin a difficult policy. Starmer doesn't do that, and yet this legislation seems rushed.

And although I still feel that a business that requires massive tax breaks to be 'viable' needs to reconsider it's trajectory, I take your point that a sudden relocation of tax goalposts to a new stadium is a bit harsh.

I get the impression your job is linked to all this somehow. All power to you

 

[beorhthelm]

The Tories, despite appearances, were as pro mass immigration as any party has ever been. That should be a clue to everyone on the left. They focused so much on the boats because the numbers were relatively small so it served as a useful and harmless distraction to the insane amount of low skilled workers and their families that they invited in on various visas.
Those migrants allow the rich to continue being rich and for the GDP line to go up, whilst at the same time GDP per person goes down and the bottom of the ladder gets more crowded. I mean, do you really think it's a coincidence that these super wealthy companies and individuals have thrived at the same time as unprecedented levels of immigration?

given the increased productivity from technology and effects of quantative easing on asset prices in similar period, yes, it's probably a conincidence.

saying that we are poorer individually due to migration, and highlighting the low skills of migrants, doesn't really make a case for migration make rich people richer.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

given the increased productivity from technology and effects of quantative easing on asset prices in similar period, yes, it's probably a conincidence.

saying that we are poorer individually due to migration, and highlighting the low skills of migrants, doesn't really make a case for migration make rich people richer.

Immigrants accept lower wages, which in turn means more profits for the CEOs.