Ot government cuts

[Spuddy Speight]

Re; Withdrawal of Winter Fuel Allowance for lots of pensioners.
"Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite, reiterated her union’s call for the decision to be reversed, and for efforts to plug what Reeves says is an unexpected £22bn deficit left by the last government to be focused instead on ideas like a wealth tax."

Paul Nowak, the TUC general secretary, said he too had “real concerns about this decision” to remove the previously universal payment from all but the poorest pensioners, those who receive pension credit.

Ooer! Two tier Kier might need to have a word or two with his Chancellor, Ms Rachel Reeves. And PDQ!

[Brin]

It's a good point raised about the Pensioner winter fuel allowance but here's a positive sounding note if it comes off.

Rachel Reeves has been urged to start charging capital gains tax on 'second' homes after their owners die. According to the IFS it would raise approximately £2 Billion a year and drive economic growth.

Only asking a question, If anyone owns a second home, are they too well off to start with? My view is if they own more than one home they may well have worked damn hard to build up that portfolio in order to leave it to their loved ones when they pass. Why should the Government take anything from it?

How about the Government start smashing the likes of Amazon, Costa Coffee, Starbucks, IKEA etc for paying the correct taxation instead of making a mockery what they pay in tax here because their head offices are abroad?

[UlleyMiller]

Only asking a question, If anyone owns a second home, are they too well off to start with? My view is if they own more than one home they may well have worked damn hard to build up that portfolio in order to leave it to their loved ones when they pass. Why should the Government take anything from it?

Always been conflicted on this point. On the one hand, as a parent I want to leave as much as possible to my kids, but on the other (taking my own situation aside) I'm not wholly comfortable with the idea that wealth can drop into a person's life and more so that there's little or no tax. Ultimately I think policy should always be anchored to ethics more than economics or political gain, and if me and mine take some collateral damage then I guess that's the price of aiming for a more just society.

(I'm not suggesting RR is aiming for anything on ethical grounds BTW)

[howdydoo]

Always been conflicted on this point. On the one hand, as a parent I want to leave as much as possible to my kids, but on the other (taking my own situation aside) I'm not wholly comfortable with the idea that wealth can drop into a person's life and more so that there's little or no tax. Ultimately I think policy should always be anchored to ethics more than economics or political gain, and if me and mine take some collateral damage then I guess that's the price of aiming for a more just society.

(I'm not suggesting RR is aiming for anything on ethical grounds BTW)

I think your definition of wealth is skewed.

By all means target the wealthy. Particularly inherited wealth.

Having a second home or passing on reasonable assets, if people have worked hard all their lives isn't a bad thing. Nor are these people wealthy. They might have forsaken holidays, cars, luxuries to ensure they have put something aside for their kids. Having paid tax on their income already. Life choices and all that. They're the type of people you want in a just society.

Target your Super Yacht and Private Jet Owners. property magnates, aristocracy by all means. They're the tax avoiders.

Not your shopkeepers, small business owners, average employees, who already pay every tax there is.

[UlleyMiller]

I think your definition of wealth is skewed.

By all means target the wealthy. Particularly inherited wealth.

Having a second home or passing on reasonable assets, if people have worked hard all their lives isn't a bad thing. Nor are these people wealthy. They might have forsaken holidays, cars, luxuries to ensure they have put something aside for their kids. Having paid tax on their income already. Life choices and all that. They're the type of people you want in a just society.

Target your Super Yacht and Private Jet Owners. property magnates, aristocracy by all means. They're the tax avoiders.

Not your shopkeepers, small business owners, average employees, who already pay every tax there is.

Wealth is abundance. A spare room is abundance for 99% of people because it's not required. Second homes will always be abundance, and any assets passed on would almost always be seen as abundance because of that very transaction. Greater abundance held by a few does not mean others don't also have an abundance, or wealth.

[howdydoo]

How very spiritual.

ZZzzzzz

[KerrAvon]

Reality's a bitch isn't it?

We can all list the things that we think society should provide. Off the top of my head, my top picks are:

1. A decent education.
2. Quality health care when it's needed.
3. Roads that aren't full of potholes.
4. Support for the less well off.
5. Armed forces that are capable of protecting the country.
6. An energy policy that provides security and begins to address climate change.
7. Rivers and seas that aren't full of untreated sh1t.

But we are willing to look at our shoes and point sideways when it comes to the taxation that's needed to pay for it. We have constantly voted for governments that make promises without any real idea of how to pay for them.

[KerrAvon]

8. A functioning criminal justice system where victims of crime and defendants don't have to wait years for cases to be heard and where there are enough prison spaces for those deemed to require remands and prison sentences.

Can't believe I forgot that one.

[Brin]

8. A functioning criminal justice system where victims of crime and defendants don't have to wait years for cases to be heard and where there are enough prison spaces for those deemed to require remands and prison sentences.

Can't believe I forgot that one.

I am!

Makes you wonder what exactly this present Government are going to do about building new prisons for the constant inflow of convicted criminals with nowhere to put them, while the major factor of building new by the Government, is to provide affordable housing.

Which do we all think is deemed the most necessary by those in power?

[KerrAvon]

I am!

Makes you wonder what exactly this present Government are going to do about building new prisons for the constant inflow of convicted criminals with nowhere to put them, while the major factor of building new by the Government, is to provide affordable housing.

Which do we all think is deemed the most necessary by those in power?

I am, what?

Prisons and housing isn't an 'either or' issue.

It will take years to plan and build new prisons. I don't think the current government can be blamed for that - it's down to the one run by the party that vowed to cut taxes as a bribe in the GE.

And any new prisons will need to be staffed. From what I've heard, the prison service is struggling to recruit and retain the staff it needs to run the existing estate.