He's done an excellent job as Health Secretary, although I personally
would like Labour to go a little bit more to the left, helping the
ordinary man (and woman) in the street to have a better quality of life.
On 14/05/2026 14:11, John wrote:
He's done an excellent job as Health Secretary, although I personally
would like Labour to go a little bit more to the left, helping the
ordinary man (and woman) in the street to have a better quality of life.
Ah yes, as an ordinary man, I have distinctly noticed the better quality
of my life under Labour. Taxes have gone up or are going up, I didn't
get a winter fuel payment last year, Rhyl town centre is a waste land
due to all the shops that have been taxed out of existence, fuel duty is going up, now there's a holiday tax which will cripple the remaining
B&Bs in Wales (fortunately I can't afford a holiday, so am not affected directly), and that's just a few of the many ways in which this
government has improved my life.
On 14/05/2026 14:11, John wrote:
He's done an excellent job as Health Secretary, although I personally
would like Labour to go a little bit more to the left, helping the
ordinary man (and woman) in the street to have a better quality of life.
Ah yes, as an ordinary man, I have distinctly noticed the better quality
of my life under Labour. Taxes have gone up or are going up, I didn't
get a winter fuel payment last year, Rhyl town centre is a waste land
due to all the shops that have been taxed out of existence, fuel duty is going up, now there's a holiday tax which will cripple the remaining
B&Bs in Wales (fortunately I can't afford a holiday, so am not affected directly), and that's just a few of the many ways in which this
government has improved my life.
On 15/05/2026 07:11, Kendall K. Down wrote:
On 14/05/2026 14:11, John wrote:
He's done an excellent job as Health Secretary, although I personally
would like Labour to go a little bit more to the left, helping the
ordinary man (and woman) in the street to have a better quality of life.
Ah yes, as an ordinary man, I have distinctly noticed the better
quality of my life under Labour. Taxes have gone up or are going up, I
didn't get a winter fuel payment last year, Rhyl town centre is a
waste land due to all the shops that have been taxed out of existence,
fuel duty is going up, now there's a holiday tax which will cripple
the remaining B&Bs in Wales (fortunately I can't afford a holiday, so
am not affected directly), and that's just a few of the many ways in
which this government has improved my life.
To lose the winter fuel payment, you need to have a taxable income of
over -u35,000?
On 15/05/2026 10:24, GB wrote:
On 15/05/2026 07:11, Kendall K. Down wrote:
On 14/05/2026 14:11, John wrote:
He's done an excellent job as Health Secretary, although I
personally would like Labour to go a little bit more to the left,
helping the ordinary man (and woman) in the street to have a better
quality of life.
Ah yes, as an ordinary man, I have distinctly noticed the better
quality of my life under Labour. Taxes have gone up or are going up,
I didn't get a winter fuel payment last year, Rhyl town centre is a
waste land due to all the shops that have been taxed out of
existence, fuel duty is going up, now there's a holiday tax which
will cripple the remaining B&Bs in Wales (fortunately I can't afford
a holiday, so am not affected directly), and that's just a few of the
many ways in which this government has improved my life.
To lose the winter fuel payment, you need to have a taxable income of
over -u35,000?
I think he meant winter 2024/25, if not he has a very good pension.
I think he meant winter 2024/25,
if not he has a very good pension.I should be so lucky!
To lose the winter fuel payment, you need to have a taxable income ofThat may be the case this year; last year you simply had to be on income support to qualify. I wasn't.
over -u35,000?
And that was my point Ken. Labour, who should be championing the man on
the street, hasn't helped much this time round. Hopefully a fresh leader
at the helm will bring better results.
But hey, you forgot you still have the benefit of the triple lock,so
you're better off than most who earn -u30k a year or less.-a The removal
of the winter fuel allowance was an unmitigated disaster, and I'm glad
it has been fully restored for those under -u35k, which is what they
should have done in the first place (although I would have tapered it
from -u25k.
I don't think you can blame labour for the fuel increases though ( which
I'm directly affected as I have had a 50p a litre (now 40p) in the cost
of my diesl car, and I do approx 15k a year.
Still Andy Burnham looks like he could be a strong contender, so there's hope yet.If he's left wing he'll be as mad and as bad as the rest of them.
He's done an excellent job as Health Secretary, although I personally
would like Labour to go a little bit more to the left, helping the
ordinary man (and woman) in the street to have a better quality of life.
On 15/05/2026 12:59, John wrote:
I think he meant winter 2024/25,
Was that the year they cancelled the winter fuel payment for just about everyone?
if not he has a very good pension.I should be so lucky!
On 15/05/2026 12:57, John wrote:
And that was my point Ken. Labour, who should be championing the man
on the street, hasn't helped much this time round. Hopefully a fresh
leader at the helm will bring better results.
Only if you are a trades union leader. Or someone else who doles out big money to the Labour Party.
But hey, you forgot you still have the benefit of the triple lock,so
you're better off than most who earn -u30k a year or less.-a The removal
of the winter fuel allowance was an unmitigated disaster, and I'm glad
it has been fully restored for those under -u35k, which is what they
should have done in the first place (although I would have tapered it
from -u25k.
I'm duly grateful for the triple lock.
I don't think you can blame labour for the fuel increases though
( which I'm directly affected as I have had a 50p a litre (now 40p) in
the cost of my diesl car, and I do approx 15k a year.
No, Labour is not to blame for the price increases due to the war with
Iran. But it is to blame for reinstating or increasing fuel duty, which
is what they are proposing to do - as well as raising every other tax
they can think of.
Still Andy Burnham looks like he could be a strong contender, so
there's hope yet.
If he's left wing he'll be as mad and as bad as the rest of them.
On 14/05/2026 14:11, John wrote:
He's done an excellent job as Health Secretary, although I personally
would like Labour to go a little bit more to the left, helping the
ordinary man (and woman) in the street to have a better quality of life.
The Labour mantra of "tax the rich" is pure nonsense. Let's look at the mathematics.
Let us supose that we have a population of 6,000 who each earn -u100. However 5% of that number - 300 - are rich and earn twenty times as much
as the average, which means that they earn -u2,000. The figures therefore look like this:
5,700 = -u57,000
300 =-a -u60,000
That will get the left-wing foaming at the mouth, so let's hit these
rich ones with a swinging 80% tax.
-u60,000 *80% = -u48,000
Each worker then potentially gets an additional -u8.42
Which I suppose would be a useful 12% increase in the worker's earnings.
However, in real life the system would have administrative costs, both
to collect the taxes and to redistribute them. In real life the tax
income from the wealthy would be split between other costs such as
defence, roads maintenance, MPs' salaries, health care, and so on. So
each worker is likely to get very much less than -u8.42.
And then, in real life, such a high rate of tax would drive the rich
people away. Some would retire to live in luxury, a larger number would emigrate and take their skills and earning potential somewhere else
(very likely causing their businesses to collapse and their employees to lose their -u100 wages), and the largest number would hire an accountant
and find creative ways to reduce their tax burden.
In actual fact, the figure of 5% for the very rich is vastly inflated.
The head of Tescos earns a huge bonus every year, but how many employees does he have? Divide his bonus by the number of employees ...
I picked Tesco because he is in the papers today for receiving
-u10,000,000 this year. According to chatgpt, Tesco has 300,000 employees
in the UK. Do your sums and if his salary and bonus was divided up among
his workforce, each person would receive an extra 64p per week. Better
in my pockets than in his, of course, but hardly life-changing. However
over half of that eye-watering salary consists of shares and as we keep being reminded, shares can go down as well as up. Furthermore, if that
64p per week keeps him in charge, and he keeps Tesco in business instead
of failing and making me unemployed, it may be money well-spent!
On 14/05/2026 14:11, John wrote:
He's done an excellent job as Health Secretary, although I personally
would like Labour to go a little bit more to the left, helping the
ordinary man (and woman) in the street to have a better quality of life.
The Labour mantra of "tax the rich" is pure nonsense. Let's look at the mathematics.
Let us supose that we have a population of 6,000 who each earn -u100. However 5% of that number - 300 - are rich and earn twenty times as much
as the average, which means that they earn -u2,000. The figures therefore look like this:
5,700 = -u57,000
300 =-a -u60,000
That will get the left-wing foaming at the mouth, so let's hit these
rich ones with a swinging 80% tax.
-u60,000 *80% = -u48,000
Each worker then potentially gets an additional -u8.42
Which I suppose would be a useful 12% increase in the worker's earnings.
However, in real life the system would have administrative costs, both
to collect the taxes and to redistribute them. In real life the tax
income from the wealthy would be split between other costs such as
defence, roads maintenance, MPs' salaries, health care, and so on. So
each worker is likely to get very much less than -u8.42.
And then, in real life, such a high rate of tax would drive the rich
people away. Some would retire to live in luxury, a larger number would emigrate and take their skills and earning potential somewhere else
(very likely causing their businesses to collapse and their employees to lose their -u100 wages), and the largest number would hire an accountant
and find creative ways to reduce their tax burden.
In actual fact, the figure of 5% for the very rich is vastly inflated.
The head of Tescos earns a huge bonus every year, but how many employees does he have? Divide his bonus by the number of employees ...
I picked Tesco because he is in the papers today for receiving
-u10,000,000 this year. According to chatgpt, Tesco has 300,000 employees
in the UK. Do your sums and if his salary and bonus was divided up among
his workforce, each person would receive an extra 64p per week. Better
in my pockets than in his, of course, but hardly life-changing. However
over half of that eye-watering salary consists of shares and as we keep being reminded, shares can go down as well as up. Furthermore, if that
64p per week keeps him in charge, and he keeps Tesco in business instead
of failing and making me unemployed, it may be money well-spent!
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 16/05/2026 04:43, Kendall K. Down wrote:
However, in real life the system would have administrative costs, both
to collect the taxes and to redistribute them. In real life the tax
income from the wealthy would be split between other costs such as
defence, roads maintenance, MPs' salaries, health care, and so on. So
each worker is likely to get very much less than -u8.42.
And then, in real life, such a high rate of tax would drive the rich
people away. Some would retire to live in luxury, a larger number
would emigrate and take their skills and earning potential somewhere
else (very likely causing their businesses to collapse and their
employees to lose their -u100 wages), and the largest number would hire
an accountant and find creative ways to reduce their tax burden.
I vaguely remember the days when the top rate of income tax was 83%, and there was an unearned income surcharge of 15%, making it 98% for some people.
The result was not a mass exodus, but very very careful tax planning. It distorted the way wealthy people were paid and the way they invested
(for capital gains rather than income). Where they could, they kept
their money offshore. And, of course, there must have been a fair amount
of straightforward tax evasion.
I was tempted to post the sond but I don't think you would have
appreciated bubblegum pop :-)
The trade unions fund the Labour party, it's how it started in the first place.
Which hasn't come in yet, but the proposal is a 1p increase in
September, a 2p increase in December, and a further 2p in March.-a You
have to remember that this only puts it back to what it was in 2022,
when a 5p temporary cut was announced because of fuel rocketing (pun unintended) in price due to the Ukraine war, although I don't think that will go ahead if prices remain high.
Not true, If they were raising every other tax they can think of the
obvious one would be income tax, yet they haven't (although to be fair
they did moot it, with a move to reduce nat ins by the same amount)
Incidentally I'm as dismayed as you probably are that they haven't
increased personal allowance, instead extending the freeze by a further
3 years.
Soft left, which is where I would imagine Jesus would be.-a AB's doneI see no reason to suspect that the left-wing can in any way be an improvement, even on the apalling mess that we now have.
some good work in Manchester, lets put it this way, it should be an improvement on what we have now.
Under the previous Government the rich got richer and the poor got
poorer.
I'm not a tax the rich to extinction believer but I do believe
in fairer distribution of wealth.-a If the poorer people get a fairer distribution they will spend that money and help the economy grow.-a The rich won't do that, because they already have what they need.
Long gone are the days of 80% tax, the maximum is 45% on earned income nowadays, on anyone who earns more than -u125,000 a year-a (although you lose -u1 of personal allowance for every -u2 earned over 100k, which is an effective tax rate of up to 60%)
There is no extra adminstrative cost in collecting extra taxes.-a It is collected by the Employer or paid through self assessment.
Existing tax law is very complicated and runs to over 6,000 pages. I'm a
big believer in simplifying tax and closing any loopholes that avoid the rich exploiting those loopholes.-a I also believe that Companies like
Amazon etc should pay Corporation Tax on all money earned in the UK, and
the banning of royalties paid to a subsidiary outside the UK.
Not really a good example. Mr Murphy earns about -u5 million a year including bonuses.-a If he was paid (say) a million, the extra wouldn't
go to workers wages, it would be dished out to it's shareholders. To be
fair to Tesco, they do pay their staff above minimum wage.-a They
recently announced a 5.1% pay increase, which cost them approx -u200 million, and it's workers also shared a -u65 million bonus.-a At the same time they could afford to do it, because they are probably the most successful of all the supermarkets, with profit exceeding -u3 billion, producing -u750 million to HMRC in Corporation Tax. Mr Murphy will
himself pay over 2 million in tax.
That's a success story, everyone benefits.-a But lets say we ask Mr-u250,000 is peanuts. Exactly how would that "invest in growth"? How many apprenticeships, for example, would that paltry sum provide?
Murphy to pay an extra 250,000 in tax. He's still comfortably rich, and
that 1/4 million, when combined with taking a bit extra of all rich
people, gives the Government additional money to invest in growth, which
in turn allows smaller business to increase profits and pay better wages.
I vaguely remember the days when the top rate of income tax was 83%, and there was an unearned income surcharge of 15%, making it 98% for some people.
The result was not a mass exodus, but very very careful tax planning. It distorted the way wealthy people were paid and the way they invested
(for capital gains rather than income). Where they could, they kept
their money offshore. And, of course, there must have been a fair amount
of straightforward tax evasion.
On 16/05/2026 14:05, John wrote:
The trade unions fund the Labour party, it's how it started in the
first place.
Indeed, but it's a pity that voters fail to realise that the Labour
Party only exists for the unions, especially the big unions, and if you
are outside the big unions you should expect to be screwed.
Which hasn't come in yet, but the proposal is a 1p increase in
September, a 2p increase in December, and a further 2p in March.-a You
have to remember that this only puts it back to what it was in 2022,
when a 5p temporary cut was announced because of fuel rocketing (pun
unintended) in price due to the Ukraine war, although I don't think
that will go ahead if prices remain high.
Even an extra 2p will make a hole in my pocket.
Not true, If they were raising every other tax they can think of the
obvious one would be income tax, yet they haven't (although to be fair
they did moot it, with a move to reduce nat ins by the same amount)
Taxing private schools, taxing hotel stays, the ridiculous exorbitant
tax on new vehicles, and many others.
Incidentally I'm as dismayed as you probably are that they haven't
increased personal allowance, instead extending the freeze by a
further 3 years.
So they have increased income tax (by stealth and only so that it will affect the poorest, not the richest).
Soft left, which is where I would imagine Jesus would be.-a AB's done
some good work in Manchester, lets put it this way, it should be an
improvement on what we have now.
I see no reason to suspect that the left-wing can in any way be an improvement, even on the apalling mess that we now have.
On 16/05/2026 14:50, John wrote:
Under the previous Government the rich got richer and the poor got
poorer.
The rich got richer, but so did the poorer, provided they worked.
I'm not a tax the rich to extinction believer but I do believe in
fairer distribution of wealth.-a If the poorer people get a fairer
distribution they will spend that money and help the economy grow.
The rich won't do that, because they already have what they need.
My point is that tax does not make the poor richer, it merely penalises
the wealth-creators.
Long gone are the days of 80% tax, the maximum is 45% on earned income
nowadays, on anyone who earns more than -u125,000 a year-a (although you
lose -u1 of personal allowance for every -u2 earned over 100k, which is
an effective tax rate of up to 60%)
So at 45% instead of my notional 80%, the amount the poor will get in my highly hypothetical situation is reduced to 36p instead of 64p. That is really going to help the economy grow!
[Tesco is] a success story, everyone benefits.-a But lets say we ask Mr
Murphy to pay an extra 250,000 in tax. He's still comfortably rich,
and that 1/4 million, when combined with taking a bit extra of all
rich people, gives the Government additional money to invest in
growth, which in turn allows smaller business to increase profits and
pay better wages.
-u250,000 is peanuts. Exactly how would that "invest in growth"? How many apprenticeships, for example, would that paltry sum provide?
On 16/05/2026 17:21, GB wrote:
I vaguely remember the days when the top rate of income tax was 83%,
and there was an unearned income surcharge of 15%, making it 98% for
some people.
In fact I am told that during the first World War the government played
on patriotic feelings and at least some landed gentry were paying
something like 105% income tax - ie. more than their income.
The result was not a mass exodus, but very very careful tax planning.
It distorted the way wealthy people were paid and the way they
invested (for capital gains rather than income). Where they could,
they kept their money offshore. And, of course, there must have been a
fair amount of straightforward tax evasion.
And thereby the tax was avoided and the alleged redistribution of wealth
did not take place.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 09:00:08 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (6,679K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,062 |