Forum Topic

I can recommend an article by Daniel Hannan in today’s ’Sunday Telegraph’ in which he makes several interesting points about Labour’s financial plans:1) Labour plans to impose tax rises beyond the three mentioned in the manifesto: VAT on private schools, a levy on energy companies and ending tax exemptions for non-doms.2) Labour seeks to justify this U-turn by claiming that they have opened the books and found a ‘black hole’ to the tune of £10 billion in the nation’s finances. This claim is nonsense. There are no secret ‘books’ and for 14 years fiscal policy has been subject to independent oversight by the OBR. Rachel Reeves was perfectly aware of the financial situation when she repeatedly promised during the election campaign that there would be no additional tax rises beyond the three given above, insisting that their programme was ‘fully  funded and costed - no ifs, no ands and no buts’.3) In fact, far from deteriorating since Labour drew up its plans, the economic situation has improved: unemployment is at 4.4%, inflation is at 2.2% and the deficit as a proportion of GDP stands at 3.1% (compared, respectively, to 8%, 3.4% and 10% in 2010).4) The coming tax rises are likely to affect homes, savings and inheritance in the form of council tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. Labour claims that these taxes don’t affect ‘working people’ but of course they do, just as much as income tax rises. They also impede economic growth since taxpayers have less disposable income.5) According to Mark Littlewood, recently Head of the Institute of Economic Affairs, it is ‘damn near impossible to get more than about 38% of National Income in tax receipts’.  Unfortunately our spending is currently at 44.5% of National Income.6) The solution is either to cut spending, which Labour won’t do, or grow the economy, which Labour can’t do since its union paymasters are opposed to market reform.

Steven Rose ● 555d

"Mr AinsworthI assume you are talking about the Equality Trust.Does not always practice what it preaches as it states its Male-to-Female pay ratio is 0.79 to 1 !"As it states the pay ratio openly, then it is obviously checking it, with a view, I'd guess, to work to improve it.You ask questions about the Equality Trust's claims. It would help you to find answers if you look at their site:-https://equalitytrust.org.uk/"The UK has very high inequality of income compared to other developed countries; the 9th most unequal incomes of 38 OECD countries (OECD, 2022).The UK’s wealth inequality is much more severe than income inequality, with the top fifth taking 36% of the country’s income and 63% of the country’s wealth, while the bottom fifth have only 8% of the income and only 0.5% of the wealth according to the Office for National Statistics.Inequality of wealth and income fell during the 20th century, but began rising again in the 1980s."You write "The average top rate of tax in Europe is 42.8% whilst in the UK it is 45%."But we are 16th out of 35 in "Highest statutory income tax rates in Europe in 2024, by country". See:-https://www.statista.com/statistics/1455011/highest-statutory-income-tax-rates-europe/#:~:text=Denmark%20is%20the%20European%20country,taxation%20band%20of%2055.9%20percent.UK is 26th out of 38 ln "Safest countries in Europe 2024":-https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/safest-countries-in-europe"Overall, available data indicate that levels of inequality in life expectancy are higher in the UK than in other comparable countries, for example Italy and the Netherlands, but lower than in others, including the US and some Eastern European countries."https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/charts-and-infographics/inequalities-in-life-expectancy-how-the-uk-compares#:~:text=The%20UK%27s%20life%20disparity%20is,Canada%20between%202015%20and%202019.I'm not happy with trusting a happiness index. Finland is number 1, Israel is number 5, UK 20, Russia 72, State of Palestine is 103 and Ukraine is 105. I'm not sure that it is a comparable thing. Still "Norway, Sweden, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Spain are countries where the old are now significantly happier than the young". https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2024/happiness-of-the-younger-the-older-and-those-in-between/#ranking-of-happiness-2021-2023Anyway, do you see what can be done with your queries, if you try?------------------------------"The daily pay of a Private in the British army at the time of the Second World War was two shillings."Tough, eh? Life just ain't fair. Spending six war years in the British Army as my father did was no way to get rich for most people. He even had to hand in his Italian sub-machine gun.

David Ainsworth ● 556d

Mr AinsworthI assume you are talking about the Equality Trust.Does not always practice what it preaches as it states its Male-to-Female pay ratio is 0.79 to 1 !Bit misandrist what !They claim -'“Inequality has made the UK more unhealthy, unhappy and unsafe than our more equal peers,” said Priya Sahni-Nicholas, the co-executive director of the trust.Is this proven and how was it measured ?“It is also causing huge damage to our economy: we have shorter healthy working lives, poorer education systems, more crime and less happy societies.”Again, compared to who ?The average top rate of tax in Europe is 42.8% whilst in the UK it is 45%.Do you have any views as to whether this rate should be higher and what level of income should attract a higher rate of income tax ?Also apparently Colombia, France, Norway, Spain and Switzerland have a Wealth Tax (though somehow I doubt if any Colombian pays it!).Would you suggest we should have one and if so at what amount of wealth should the tax start ?Then there is Inheritance Tax which at the moment is levied at 40% and cuts in, with an exception of wealth left to spouses at an inheritance amount of more than £325K.So pretty much anyone owning a house in Putney could be vulnerable to this and any possible Wealth Tax.My personal view is that only Income Tax should be levied and not at a punitive rate but one sufficient to pay for key public services.And you should not be punished for leaving your 'wealth' to your family descendants.Mr Rose has pointed out how much 'the wealthy' are funding public services.And as a final point it seems to me people think that if you have 'wealth' then you have ten pound notes hidden under the mattress.If you have bank savings then this money is presumably being put to good investment use by them allowing borrowing to support business and commerce.If you own shares you have chosen to help fund the business enterprises of companies.If you own a second property and let it you are making accommodation available to another (and then paying tax on the income). It seems to me that a lot of criticism of 'wealth' can just be envy and or an unwillingness to recognise that 'life just ain't fair'.

John Hawkes ● 556d

"Did Jeremy Corbyn read Hamas’ genocidal Charter (1988) before inviting its representatives to Parliament and calling them his ‘friends’? Probably not, as he is lazy and ignorant. His biographer, Tom Bower, claims that Corbyn has never actually read a book."I'd imagine that some Native Americans will have expresed hatred for their white replacers and destroyers.But Churchill:-"In 1937, he told the Palestine Royal Commission, external: "I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.""Tom Bower - what a choice.Peter Oborne:-"Those of us who report on politics are at liberty to express, within limits, whatever opinions we like. These limits include an obligation to observe standards. We should strive to be accurate. We can make strong arguments but ought not to distort the truth or suppress relevant information to make our point.Writer Tom Bower fails catastrophically to meet these standards. It is not only that Dangerous Hero: Corbyn's Ruthless Plot For Power, his new book on Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, contains numerous falsehoods. It systematically omits relevant facts in order to portray Corbyn as a ruthless Marxist and anti-semite hell-bent on destroying Western liberal values." https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/tom-bower-book-dangerous-hero-jeremy-corbyn-labour-leader-truth

David Ainsworth ● 558d

Mr Ainsworth'Meanwhile in the real world, our real "friends":-"“We’re not only protecting ourselves. We’re protecting you … Our enemies are your enemy, our fight is your fight, and our victory will be your victory,” Netanyahu shouted, as House and Senate Republicans rose to their feet to applaud the Israeli prime minister." (Gdn 24/7/24)'Well we all know, based on your comments on the Israel-Arab conflict and the UK and US support for Israel, who you think are our 'friends and enemies'.They seem the same as those supported or decried by Corbyn.Whilst not crediting you in any way as being a member of the 'intelligentsia', nor knowing your culinary taste, and substituting Arabs and Arab countries for Russians and Russia, it seems to me George Orwell summed up the likes of you quite well.“In intention, at any rate, the English intelligentsia are Europeanized. 
(Now 'INTERNATIONALIST) They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow. In the 
general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident 
thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals 
are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always 
felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman 
and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse 
racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably 
true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of 
standing to attention during ‘God save the King’ than of stealing from a 
poor box. All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping 
away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes 
squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always 
anti-British.”

John Hawkes ● 558d

Jeremy Corbyn is certainly consistent. "Russia's new premier made a swift visit to the UK, where he met Prime Minister Tony Blair, British businessmen and attended a private audience with the Queen.Many people felt uncomfortable about Mr Putin's trip, as Russian troops continue their intense military campaign in Chechnya.Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn branded the visit "premature and inappropriate", while the Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain accused the government of doing business with a man who had "blood on his hands".However Tony Blair insisted that he intended to register UK concern over Chechnya "clearly and frankly" with the Russian leader." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/716427.stm-------------------------------------------------"UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has praised Russia's acting President Vladimir Putin as an impressive man with a clear vision of what he wants to achieve in his country.He was speaking on his way back to London after talks with Mr Putin in Russia which focused on the war in Chechnya.He was highly intelligent and with a focused view of what he wants to achieve in RussiaTony BlairMr Blair said he regards Mr Putin, the favourite in this month's election to find a successor to Boris Yelstin, as a quick learner with a strong sense of Russia's place in the world."He was highly intelligent and with a focused view of what he wants to achieve in Russia," Mr Blair told the BBC.He said he believes Mr Putin wants to modernise the Russian economy and open up Russia for investment.In his talks with Mr Blair, Mr Putin indicated that he wished to encourage British expertise and investment, particularly in developing Russian oil and gas resources and in aerospace projects.Mr Blair and his wife Cherie spent a day in St Petersburg as guests of Mr Putin, rounding off their visit on Saturday night with a visit to a production of Sergei Prokofiev's War and Peace, a stirring tale of Russian resistance in wartime.Stengthening tiesThe UK prime minister was the first western leader to meet the former KGB man since he came to office.One of Mr Blair's main aims on the visit was to "renew and strengthen" Britain's ties with Russia.Mr Blair said he was convinced that Mr Putin would open up access to Chechnya for international bodies seeking to provide relief and to investigate claims of atrocities.The West believes Russia is using disproportionate force and killing civilians in its campaign against Chechen separatists.But Western leaders have been anxious to temper their criticism to avoid alienating the new Russian leader.Mr Putin said Russia was willing to let the Organization for Co-operation and Security in Europe (OSCE) or the Council of Europe play a role in Chechnya, without specifying what such organisations would do, according to Interfax news agency.But the acting president reiterated his staunch defence of the military offensive there."http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/674480.stmHmmm? "Mr Blair said he was convinced that Mr Putin would open up access to Chechnya for international bodies seeking to provide relief and to investigate claims of atrocities."Didn't Mr Blair have confidence in our own security services then? So different 3 years later when we were misled into a disastrous war.

David Ainsworth ● 558d