Mini Budget

[Unknown user]

53 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Both - but most governments since WW2 have been Tory 

There have only EVER been 6 Labour PMs. England is Tory with occasional blips, that's just a fact.

[vegas-voss]

2 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Just wish they would put Investment banker's bonuses as pretty sure average punter in a bank branch won't be anywhere near that.

I have friends who work in banks and they always laugh when the million pound bonuses are mentioned.

Just like everywhere else the higher you are the bigger the bonuses I suppose.

 

I don't really care what anybody gets as long as they are paying the taxes including on bonuses.Folk start feeling aggrieved when these guys on the big bucks don't.

[vegas-voss]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

There have only EVER been 6 Labour PMs. England is Tory with occasional blips, that's just a fact.

Which is just fecking mental 

[SwindonJambo]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

There have only EVER been 6 Labour PMs. England is Tory with occasional blips, that's just a fact.

3 of those 6 never actually an election!

 

 

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said:

3 of those 6 never actually an election!

 

Crazy

[SwindonJambo]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Crazy

The first Labour PM, Ramsey McDonald led a minority government in the 1930s.

 

Jim Callaghan and Gordon Brown served out the unexpired part of terms won by their respective predecessors, before losing elections.

 

Only Clem Attlee (2), Harold Wilson (4) and Tony Blair (3) have ever won elections for Labour. 

 

As long as they keep their noses clean, they are on course to win a huge majority next time, just by not being Conservative. You can be sure that the current shower will ensure that the worst financial pain will happen on Labour's watch so they get back in again next time. 

[Malinga the Swinga]

25 minutes ago, vegas-voss said:

Just like everywhere else the higher you are the bigger the bonuses I suppose.

 

I don't really care what anybody gets as long as they are paying the taxes including on bonuses.Folk start feeling aggrieved when these guys on the big bucks don't.

Need a general review of tax legislation to simplify law and make it harder to avoid taxes. Less loopholes and taxing at source would ensure tax intake up and more funds available for public services.

[Malinga the Swinga]

15 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said:

The first Labour PM, Ramsey McDonald led a minority government in the 1930s.

 

Jim Callaghan and Gordon Brown served out the unexpired part of terms won by their respective predecessors, before losing elections.

 

Only Clem Attlee (2), Harold Wilson (4) and Tony Blair (3) have ever won elections for Labour. 

 

As long as they keep their noses clean, they are on course to win a huge majority next time, just by not being Conservative. You can be sure that the current shower will ensure that the worst financial pain will happen on Labour's watch so they get back in again next time. 

Would require a **** up of epic proportions to lose from this position. 

Labour play it smart and they could be in power for a few terms of parliament. Lose from here and they'll struggle to ever get opportunity again.

[Lone Striker]

1 hour ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Yep, I agree. I'm in the middle and being spit roasted while those at top and bottom are okay.

 

  Those at the bottom are "okay", aye ?       In what way are you (in the middle) being "spit-roasted" ?   

[Janbo1874]

1 hour ago, That thing you do said:

Met John Swinney last week at a conference. Also Ivan McKee and Brian Taylor from the BBC.

 

Interesting seeing the dyamic between Taylor and Swinney as he was interviewed on stage about the outlook for our industry. Taylor seems far more agreeing with the SNP position that basically theres only so much patching up they can do on a fixed budget. I never took him as soft SNP but he comes across much more sympathetic than he does on the BBC.

 

Also interesting just how many people in the audience were happier with the SNP than westminster.

Brian "neckless" Taylor retired from the BBC a wee while back.

He writes a column for the Weegie Herald these days.

[WorldChampions1902]

19 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Need a general review of tax legislation to simplify law and make it harder to avoid taxes. Less loopholes and taxing at source would ensure tax intake up and more funds available for public services.

In order to achieve the bit in bold, you need a political will. Those in power have a reluctance to clampdown on certain tax legislation - especially if it penalises the powerful, wealthy and corrupt. The Panama, Pandora and Paradise Papers are prime examples.
 

With regard to the former, HMRC is still to publish data on recovered taxes, penalties and interest etc. The recovered tax yield will run into hundreds of £millions. All three data leaks ran to many millions of diverse documents, presenting HMRC with an analytical nightmare. Having had to develop bespoke software and systems to get to grips with the volume of data, it slowly started to bring tax avoiders to account. If HMRC invested much more heavily in developing those systems, it could generate much greater tax yields, much more quickly. Furthermore, if it were to aggressively enhance those new systems to future-proof them in readiness for the next “Panama Papers” scandal, the Exchequer would benefit hugely.
 

I’ll leave you to work out why these things are the way they are.

[Cade]

The UK's tax code is the most convoluted, complicated and byzantine in the world by design.

The whole thing is set up so that if you are rich enough to pay an accountant, you can then pay no tax.

If you're not, then you get hammered.

 

It's quite deliberate.

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Cade

[Lone Striker]

1 hour ago, That thing you do said:

Met John Swinney last week at a conference. Also Ivan McKee and Brian Taylor from the BBC.

 

Interesting seeing the dyamic between Taylor and Swinney as he was interviewed on stage about the outlook for our industry. Taylor seems far more agreeing with the SNP position that basically theres only so much patching up they can do on a fixed budget. I never took him as soft SNP but he comes across much more sympathetic than he does on the BBC.

 

Also interesting just how many people in the audience were happier with the SNP than westminster.

Fat Brian always struggled to hide his pro-SNP bias when he was on the BBC.   Very much a Salmond admirer.

[Mikey1874]

Poor not to explicitly mention this in speech.

 

 

[Mikey1874]

 

[The Mighty Thor]

2 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Poor not to explicitly mention this in speech.

 

 

Wait til this gets out and it dawns on yer average punter. 

 

12p per litre on top of inflation on top of another 4 months of interest rate rises on top of energy cap increases. 

 

 

[Taffin]

Just now, The Mighty Thor said:

Wait til this gets out and it dawns on yer average punter. 

 

12p per litre on top of inflation on top of another 4 months of interest rate rises on top of energy cap increases. 

 

 

 

I'm pretty pleased about that part (not much else!) if I'm honest. Additional tax take from a largely damaging activity is a positive to me.

[The Mighty Thor]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

I'm pretty pleased about that part (not much else!) if I'm honest. Additional tax take from a largely damaging activity is a positive to me.

It'll certainly be positive in terms of increasing the prices of everything you buy or whichever transport you use. 

It'll ram inflation up yet further which will have the BoE firing up interest rates in a death spiral for our economy. 

 

I'm glad someone is getting a positive from it all. 

[Mikey1874]

12 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Poor not to explicitly mention this in speech.

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Wait til this gets out and it dawns on yer average punter. 

 

12p per litre on top of inflation on top of another 4 months of interest rate rises on top of energy cap increases. 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I'm pretty pleased about that part (not much else!) if I'm honest. Additional tax take from a largely damaging activity is a positive to me.

 

Actually now reading decision on fuel duty NOT made yet. It was in the papers but it's an indication based on previous plans. Government has to decide not to impose planned increase. It has cancelled last 7 years increases. 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Mikey1874

[Malinga the Swinga]

44 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

In order to achieve the bit in bold, you need a political will. Those in power have a reluctance to clampdown on certain tax legislation - especially if it penalises the powerful, wealthy and corrupt. The Panama, Pandora and Paradise Papers are prime examples.
 

With regard to the former, HMRC is still to publish data on recovered taxes, penalties and interest etc. The recovered tax yield will run into hundreds of £millions. All three data leaks ran to many millions of diverse documents, presenting HMRC with an analytical nightmare. Having had to develop bespoke software and systems to get to grips with the volume of data, it slowly started to bring tax avoiders to account. If HMRC invested much more heavily in developing those systems, it could generate much greater tax yields, much more quickly. Furthermore, if it were to aggressively enhance those new systems to future-proof them in readiness for the next “Panama Papers” scandal, the Exchequer would benefit hugely.
 

I’ll leave you to work out why these things are the way they are.

I don't know what your suggesting! I also read there's a problem where the staff that write the legislation leave, join private tax avoidance firms, and are of course experts in finding the very loopholes that their legislation has left.

You would have thought that tightening up the tax quagmire would be vote winner for party with guts to tackle it, but as almost every politician of every persuasion will be utilising accountants to massage their income, then nothing will change.

[Malinga the Swinga]

10 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

 

 

Actually now reading decision on fuel duty NOT made yet. It was in the papers but it's an indication based on previous plans. Government has to decide not to impose planned increase. It has cancelled last 7 years increases. 

Just have to wait and see I guess. Second guessing politicians is a dangerous game.

[Malinga the Swinga]

1 hour ago, Lone Striker said:

  Those at the bottom are "okay", aye ?       In what way are you (in the middle) being "spit-roasted" ?   

Those at bottom seeing benefits rising, by a decent 10%, and having additional support for energy paid for by those in middle who are seeing support withdrawn for same costs. The good Doctor Jambo explained it better than me.

Those at top will have sufficient to cope.

 

[That thing you do]

This is a huge squeeze on the middle classes as has already been seen in our big brother and cult leader we follow like lemmings, The US of A.

 

There wont be a middle class. There will be very wealthy and the rest. The days of Middle classes feeling like they are doing ok are over for a very long time.

 

Household incomes under 60k will struggle in my opinion, households under 100k even if one person loses their job will also be pulled into it.

 

You have to be top 1% to not be affected day to day. 

[Victorian]

I think some errantly envious people are being confused by the 10% uplift in benefits.  Possibly confusing themselves by comparing the rate of increase to what a working person might receive in the way of additional income by way of a similar rate of increase.

 

Let's avoid doubt.  A 10% increase on benefits = not very much extra cash.  They get **** all to live on.  They face the same extra energy costs as working people.  Comparatively their extra outgoings on energy and inflated food prices is utterly crippling.  

 

Let's no grudge people an extra what?  £10 or £12 a week?

[Malinga the Swinga]

2 minutes ago, Victorian said:

I think some errantly envious people are being confused by the 10% uplift in benefits.  Possibly confusing themselves by comparing the rate of increase to what a working person might receive in the way of additional income by way of a similar rate of increase.

 

Let's avoid doubt.  A 10% increase on benefits = not very much extra cash.  They get **** all to live on.  They face the same extra energy costs as working people.  Comparatively their extra outgoings on energy and inflated food prices is utterly crippling.  

 

Let's no grudge people an extra what?  £10 or £12 a week?

That might well be the case but some, not all, have the option of going out and grafting for a living.

[Cade]

All the extra benefit money will be immediately taken by the power companies, landlords, vehicle fuel and basic food bill.

Those living hand to mouth on universal credit will continue to live hand to mouth on universal credit.

In fact, as this rise is well below real world inflation (not that bullshite rate the government pretend is actual inflation), they'll be worse off than ever before.

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

That might well be the case but some, not all, have the option of going out and grafting for a living.

 

Some.  But it's much harder to avoid work and remain in receipt of benefits than most imagine.  

 

Plus,  you have to design a system around those in genuine need.  

[The Mighty Thor]

12 minutes ago, Cade said:

All the extra benefit money will be immediately taken by the power companies, landlords, vehicle fuel and basic food bill.

Those living hand to mouth on universal credit will continue to live hand to mouth on universal credit.

In fact, as this rise is well below real world inflation (not that bullshite rate the government pretend is actual inflation), they'll be worse off than ever before.

 

9 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Some.  But it's much harder to avoid work and remain in receipt of benefits than most imagine.  

 

Plus,  you have to design a system around those in genuine need.  

Unbelievably there's still people out there who think benefits are a lifestyle choice. 

 

They've swallowed the finely honed narrative of the Daily Nazi and no doubt Facebook pages that talk about dole spongers and them immigrants. 

 

Morons. 

[Victorian]

15 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

 

Unbelievably there's still people out there who think benefits are a lifestyle choice. 

 

They've swallowed the finely honed narrative of the Daily Nazi and no doubt Facebook pages that talk about dole spongers and them immigrants. 

 

Morons. 

 

Yeah unreal.  It's actually massively more difficult to rely on and live on benefits now than 10,  20,  30 years ago.  It was a possible choice years ago.  Today it's a very poor choice,  if chosen.

[Taffin]

1 hour ago, The Mighty Thor said:

It'll certainly be positive in terms of increasing the prices of everything you buy or whichever transport you use. 

It'll ram inflation up yet further which will have the BoE firing up interest rates in a death spiral for our economy. 

 

I'm glad someone is getting a positive from it all. 

 

Alternatively we don't use cars to travel as much and consume things produced locally. The lifestyle we're all living is unsustainable imo. Sorry for not giving a shit if your Amazon deliveries and out of season fruits go up in price 🤷🏻‍♂️

[Lone Striker]

52 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Those at bottom seeing benefits rising, by a decent 10%, and having additional support for energy paid for by those in middle who are seeing support withdrawn for same costs. The good Doctor Jambo explained it better than me.

Those at top will have sufficient to cope.

 

1. If you're genuinely in "the middle", your need tor energy bill support from the government is nowhere near as vital as it is for those struggling at "the bottom".   

 

2.  Why is that so hard to understand ?    

 

[The Mighty Thor]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Alternatively we don't use cars to travel as much and consume things produced locally. The lifestyle we're all living is unsustainable imo. Sorry for not giving a shit if your Amazon deliveries and out of season fruits go up in price 🤷🏻‍♂️

Luckily we've got a fabulous public transport infrastructure we've invested heavily in over the last 40 years. 

 

Of course these blunt instruments only target Chinese tat delivered by Ford transit and avocados. 

 

You've got me there. Good man. 

[The Mighty Thor]

9 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Yeah unreal.  It's actually massively more difficult to rely on and live on benefits now than 10,  20,  30 years ago.  It was a possible choice years ago.  Today it's a very poor choice,  if chosen.

Sadly these types hark back to the incredibly tough times of buying their house when it was 2-3 times a salary not the 8-10 times it us now. 

 

Get a joab likesy. High on their own supply of idiocy. 

[The Mighty Thor]

As if by magic. 

 

They're emptying malingas pockets these welfare spongers 

 

[Lone Striker]

4 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Alternatively we don't use cars to travel as much and consume things produced locally. The lifestyle we're all living is unsustainable imo. Sorry for not giving a shit if your Amazon deliveries and out of season fruits go up in price 🤷🏻‍♂️

I tend to agree with your view regarding lifestyle - at least for many folk.  It should only take 30 minutes to jot down all the things you spend money on in a typical year, and identify the ones which you'd be willing to cut down on if push came to shove.     A sort of league table - first to go, second to go, third to go etc  

 

As you say, try to cut down on car journeys ....... reduce the use of the tumble dryer ..... spend less on takeaways....... cancel any subscriptions/contracts you hardly use .......  make fewer visits to pub/nail bar/tattoo parlour ........  "trade down" on some foodstuffs ..... stop buying stuff you don't actually need.

 

Draw the line at not renewing  your Hearts ST though 😎

 

 

[Taffin]

8 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Luckily we've got a fabulous public transport infrastructure we've invested heavily in over the last 40 years. 

 

Of course these blunt instruments only target Chinese tat delivered by Ford transit and avocados. 

 

You've got me there. Good man. 

 

Hard to track what you believe in Thor, I'll be honest. On one hand your posts seem anti-capitalist, then on the other post like the above suggest you're not.

 

We have simply no need to move ourselves, others or products around anywhere near as much as we do. We do so to allow people to make money. Those spending enough on fuel for this to be problematic for and those buying the goods that will go up as a result are all part of the problem imo.

 

Agree about public transport though, needs to be a lot more accessible in this country. Fortunately we've two legs for walking and there was a great invention over 200 years ago that made self propulsion even easier 

 

[Taffin]

1 minute ago, Lone Striker said:

I tend to agree with your view regarding lifestyle - at least for many folk.  It should only take 30 minutes to jot down all the things you spend money on in a typical year, and identify the ones which you'd be willing to cut down on if push came to shove.     A sort of league table - first to go, second to go, third to go etc  

 

As you say, try to cut down on car journeys ....... reduce the use of the tumble dryer ..... spend less on takeaways....... cancel any subscriptions/contracts you hardly use .......  make fewer visits to pub/nail bar/tattoo parlour ........  "trade down" on some foodstuffs ..... stop buying stuff you don't actually need.

 

Draw the line at not renewing  your Hearts ST though 😎

 

 

 

I'm not super frugal. I could cut back if needed, I just mean more in terms of the excess mileage we do personally and the mileage of our products to make them cheap and disposable. For me, get your food locally, have less concentration of jobs so that people can walk or cycle to their employment, buy less tat that's travelled around the world and waste less of everything and we'd be in a better place in my view.

 

It's not for everyone, I appreciate, but there's a cost to the frivolous capitalist lifestyle and it's now coming home to roost. 

[Malinga the Swinga]

Tumble dryer was lobbed out a few years back as it's a pointless invention. Don't see the benefit of it as it costs money and putting stuff on clothes horse does job well enough.

Walking more and shopping local also helps.

Foreign holidays abroad will also be shelved as just not worth it and there's loads of stuff to do in Scotland and UK.

There are loads of jobs out there, people just need to be willing to go out and work.

 

 

 

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

12 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Tumble dryer was lobbed out a few years back as it's a pointless invention. Don't see the benefit of it as it costs money and putting stuff on clothes horse does job well enough.

Walking more and shopping local also helps.

Foreign holidays abroad will also be shelved as just not worth it and there's loads of stuff to do in Scotland and UK.

There are loads of jobs out there, people just need to be willing to go out and work.

 

 

 

if you were on benefits and a realistically attainable job left you £50 better off for 30 hours or something would you not be tempted to keep your 30 hours ?

 

 

 

[Jambof3tornado]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

Some.  But it's much harder to avoid work and remain in receipt of benefits than most imagine.  

 

Plus,  you have to design a system around those in genuine need.  

Plenty people seem quite capable of avoiding work, know lots of people local to me in their 40s who havent worked the last 16 years!!!

[Thunder and Lightning]

24 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Plenty people seem quite capable of avoiding work, know lots of people local to me in their 40s who havent worked the last 16 years!!!

 

Is that true? Are people not attempting to find any work? I mean there is many a job from home now.

 

Even simple typing can be done.

 

Mind you, we have have loads on here that are on 24/7 that could spend some of that time productively as opposed to sitting on their arse posting constantly. Or do they have very understanding employers? 

[AlphonseCapone]

2 hours ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Those at bottom seeing benefits rising, by a decent 10%, and having additional support for energy paid for by those in middle who are seeing support withdrawn for same costs. The good Doctor Jambo explained it better than me.

Those at top will have sufficient to cope.

 

 

You do understand that for many of the people on benefits that these increases can literally be the difference between freezing or starving? It's not extra pocket money to subscribe to Disney Plus. 

[AlphonseCapone]

20 minutes ago, Thunder and Lightning said:

 

Is that true? Are people not attempting to find any work? I mean there is many a job from home now.

 

Even simple typing can be done.

 

Mind you, we have have loads on here that are on 24/7 that could spend some of that time productively as opposed to sitting on their arse posting constantly. Or do they have very understanding employers? 

 

That's offensive, I sometimes stand up while posting. 

[Thunder and Lightning]

38 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

That's offensive, I sometimes stand up while posting. 

Clearly a man of many talents. 😂 

[Dazo]

7 hours ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

if you were on benefits and a realistically attainable job left you £50 better off for 30 hours or something would you not be tempted to keep your 30 hours ?

 

 

 

Lifestyle on benefits isn’t a choice apparently according to the non expert experts on jkb. 😂

 

They get just about everything wrong so I wouldn’t back that horse. 

[ri Alban]

8 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said:

 

Unbelievably there's still people out there who think benefits are a lifestyle choice. 

 

They've swallowed the finely honed narrative of the Daily Nazi and no doubt Facebook pages that talk about dole spongers and them immigrants. 

 

Morons. 

Most don't need any persuasion.

[The Mighty Thor]

4 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Lifestyle on benefits isn’t a choice apparently according to the non expert experts on jkb. 😂

 

They get just about everything wrong so I wouldn’t back that horse. 

Says the guy who backed the last mini budget as it 'was only 48 hours, give it time' 

 

£30 billion later.........

 

I'd pipe down after that kind of showing. 

[ri Alban]

What's UC £66 a week.  Robbing *******s . 

 

Gie yersel peace. Living is hardly the description of people on UC. The benefit cheats at the other end, well that's a different story. I'd cut their fecking hands off.

[Dazo]

9 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Says the guy who backed the last mini budget as it 'was only 48 hours, give it time' 

 

£30 billion later.........

 

I'd pipe down after that kind of showing. 

I didn’t say I wasn’t one of those no experts Thor. 😊

 

Anyway how was that fictional rise in fuel duty you were seething over earlier going ? 😂

[The Mighty Thor]

8 hours ago, Taffin said:

 

Hard to track what you believe in Thor, I'll be honest. On one hand your posts seem anti-capitalist, then on the other post like the above suggest you're not.

 

We have simply no need to move ourselves, others or products around anywhere near as much as we do. We do so to allow people to make money. Those spending enough on fuel for this to be problematic for and those buying the goods that will go up as a result are all part of the problem imo.

 

Agree about public transport though, needs to be a lot more accessible in this country. Fortunately we've two legs for walking and there was a great invention over 200 years ago that made self propulsion even easier 

 

I'm glad it's hard to track what I believe in because I believe in a lot of very different and contradictory things. I think we all do.

 

Unfortunately I disagree. We do need to move people and goods around as much as we do because our whole economic model has built it and depends on it.

 

Take people. I moved out to East Lothian 10 years ago, partly from choice and partly to get the kind of property I needed and could afford. As a result I could not work, nor could my wife without a car. Public transport starts late and finishes early down here and there's no connectivity between buses and trains. It's not an integrated transport system.

 

Major cities are emptying because people can't afford to live in them. Edinurgh is full of Air BnB and Student accommodation. Anything that comes on the market is generally gone quickly for well over the asking price. How do the people who can't afford to live in them get to their workplaces which are generally still in them?

 

Basics like food. It's not about 'out of season' foods. It's about staples. The food you eat day to day isn't grown where you live. It isn't even sold where you live any more. The supermarkets took out the greengrocer, the butcher, the baker, the local shop and everything is now in one location, which isn't local to where most people live. 

 

Like it or not everything around you has food miles or miles attached to it. That's just reality. 

 

I respect what you're saying and it may indicate your own circumstances but for me shank's pony or the humble bike isn't getting me to where I need to be to provide for my family. 

 

The one constant in my beliefs is this: I hate the Tories and everything that they stand for.