Best Of

I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.

If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate

You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.

Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.

You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.

He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.

I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority

Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.

I have made no attempt to avoid tax

I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)

I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.


Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:

- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)

- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else

- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)

- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.

Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.

In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.

There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.

It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy


PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.

PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?

WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.

The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.

Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you

Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.

Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.

Doesn't stop the likes of kjh giving back their WFA if their use of such legal tax avoidance keeps them under the WFA taxable income threshold

We discussed this last:

a) I will give it to charity

b) What about all the thousands and thousands of others who won't who should not be getting it?

And I didn't use and f***ing tax avoidance schemes* did I?

* if you class ISAs as tax avoidance (I don't) I am still in exactly the same position without them as it only represents 2% of what I have.

@kjh

I heard that yesterday you passed a shop without buying anything. You evaded paying VAT, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I actually agree with the Lord Elon over the America Party. Their 2 party system is utterly corrupted and needs challenging. With the Democrats struggling with "do we select mentalists or the corrupt elite" and the Republicans now cheering on having their own faces eaten by leopards, the time is right for a challenge.

Helps that the challenger has previously been in both party's orbits and accidentally has a bazillion dollars to spend and a major social media platform to use.

PR is the main way to replace a 2 party dominated system

It's the sensible way, my friend. Which is why the Septics, in their current mindset, won't do it.

On a different subject, as an OAP, there have been, so far anyway, two stages in the Cole's pensioner life.
The first was the first fifteen or so after retirement/ We were reasonably fit, felt we'd enough money to go where we wanted to, and wanted to see more of the world. This was helped/hindered by one of our sons settling in Thailand and starting a family there. Grandchildren are an attraction for OAP travel! So we travelled. Spent a bit on the house and garden, but not a lot..... if I have a regret it's not getting solar panels fitted years ago. We invested prudently and lived off our income.
The second stage has been a lot less fun as it's included a significant spell in hospital and severely reduced mobility for me, and we're now wondering about what happens if Mrs C becomes unable to look after me. We've got carer support and we could always increase that, but more of that and we're going to have to look at our savings and investments.
I hope that I'll sign off here for good ...... I've left instructions for whichever of the grandchildren sorts out my computer to let you know ...... before I'm needing even more support. Mrs C feel the same about herself. We both want to go to sleep one night and not wake up, but ......

Long may that time be delayed, your majesty.

Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.

Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement

So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off

One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -

Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.

So the critics need to suggest solutions instead of being like Labour MPs who are being the problem rather than the solution.

My top three tax increases would be:

1. Merge income tax and national insurance (thereby increasing tax on pensioner income).
2. Restrict tax relief on pension contributions to the basic rate (given how wealthy some pensioners are it's arguable that higher rate taxpayers are saving too much for their retirement).
3. Replace council tax and stamp duty with a proportional property tax, land value tax, or similar tax on property wealth.

I'm sure all of these would provoke howls of outrage to make the kerfuffle over WFA look like the newest political ripple, but fixing the situation isn't going to be done without, as the politicians like to say, hard choices. And on spending, too.

In the end I think Leon is right, the mood music in the country has turned decisively against immigration and asylum seekers, it is only going to get more negative towards it as Labour are unable to deport the illegal immigrants or stop the boats so of Reform don't have the stomach then the public will inevitably vote in a party that does or the Tories will step in and become that party.

The prevailing view when the modern experiment in mass migration began was that people might be a bit angry in the short term, but they'll get over it and we'll all be better off in the long run, so any opposition should just be ignored or managed. It's proving to have been a terrible mistake.

I think if immigration had been limited to people with earnings over the higher rate threshold then this might have been the case. As it is with millions of people arriving on unskilled, student and dependent visas who contribute far, far less than they receive in state services it has been an unmitigated disaster since about 2005. Wrt illegal immigration the current or next government will need to get a Rwanda style agreement up and running, clear any and all legal hurdles with primary legislation, abrogating treaties and agreements if necessary and just putting people on planes and deporting them to somewhere not the UK or giving them a chance to self deport if they don't want to do that (see the illegal immigrants in the US self deporting rather than risk ending up in El Salvador).

Make clear that there is no chance of staying in the UK under any circumstances so it's go home on a commercial flight or go to Rwanda, if they've burned their passports etc... then it's go to Rwanda by default unless they can arrange for a new passport to be issued by their home country.

There is an argument that high-skilled migration crowds out the current population from the best paying jobs. Instead of having a half-decent education system or allowing people to progress from the bottom rung to the top, just get some foreign graduate in to do the job instead.

Both my grandfathers did not have degrees yet ended up in relatively senior positions in international firms. One literally started washing windows aged 16, the other on the factory floor. Both were trained up by their firms, sent abroad to get some experience, had their childcare and sometimes housing paid for etc etc. That must be pretty rare nowadays.

Wages are far too crude a measure anyway. I like the idea of a visa that allows people to install solar panels for four years. That won't be particularly well-paid, but it will mean we get over the hump of the Green transition more quickly and cheaply than otherwise. Then we can have a smaller workforce of technicians who replace them when need or fix any problems for the next 30+ years.

Yes, I don't understand the fetishization of high-paid immigration. Isn't that basically reproducing the Norman Conquest all over again in the modern world?

I feel like a lot of contemporary British politics can be understood by reference to the country having failed to overthrow Norman oppression, and so internalising it, and similarly not wanting to feel a scintilla of regret for the British Empire.

It creates uniquely British neuroses about class stratification, a preference for importing a boss class for the indigenous population to serve, and the assumption that if Britain wasn't ruling the EU, then the EU was ruling Britain - not being able to see it as a cooperative endeavour.

Yes, I

In the end I think Leon is right, the mood music in the country has turned decisively against immigration and asylum seekers, it is only going to get more negative towards it as Labour are unable to deport the illegal immigrants or stop the boats so of Reform don't have the stomach then the public will inevitably vote in a party that does or the Tories will step in and become that party.

The prevailing view when the modern experiment in mass migration began was that people might be a bit angry in the short term, but they'll get over it and we'll all be better off in the long run, so any opposition should just be ignored or managed. It's proving to have been a terrible mistake.

I think if immigration had been limited to people with earnings over the higher rate threshold then this might have been the case. As it is with millions of people arriving on unskilled, student and dependent visas who contribute far, far less than they receive in state services it has been an unmitigated disaster since about 2005. Wrt illegal immigration the current or next government will need to get a Rwanda style agreement up and running, clear any and all legal hurdles with primary legislation, abrogating treaties and agreements if necessary and just putting people on planes and deporting them to somewhere not the UK or giving them a chance to self deport if they don't want to do that (see the illegal immigrants in the US self deporting rather than risk ending up in El Salvador).

Make clear that there is no chance of staying in the UK under any circumstances so it's go home on a commercial flight or go to Rwanda, if they've burned their passports etc... then it's go to Rwanda by default unless they can arrange for a new passport to be issued by their home country.

I write this with some regret, but this is where I've ended up. And I'm a centrist dad type in the process of marrying an immigrant. So the policies described above are never gonna happen under labour, and nothing I've seen from Reform leads me to believe they would be competent to deliver, at least while Farage remains at the helm. So is the country in for a brush with the hard right in the next 10 years? It's not especially in my interests, but maybe the best thing for the UK in the round?

Rwanda was never a free for all dumping ground for failed British immigrants. The proposal was to pay them to take a limited amount

That's how it started with the equivalent Australian scheme, pay to take some. Then once the scheme was off the ground, it became pay to take all - and once it was take all, people stopped making the journey, so not many had to be sent.

There is no reason why the same couldn't have happened, except our own domestic politics. Rwanda are quite happy to take our money.

There were two important reasons why the Rwanda scheme was and is wrong and cannot be compared to the Australian scheme (which incidently is also a breach of article 31 of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees)

Firstly the Australian used places that were either their own territory or were stable and safe. Rwanda certainly was not stable or safe.

Secondly, and most importantly, the Australian centres are for processing. Successful adylum seekers are then taken back to the mainland and sette in Australia. The Rwanda scheme was clear that even if you were processed and accepted as an asylum seeker you could not return to the UK.

The Rwanda scheme was immoral and deserved to be scrapped.

It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.

The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.

'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?

Should we get pensioners back into work?

£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.

Cut the triple lock entirely.

£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.

NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.

50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).

Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.

Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.

I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.

And means test the NHS for the wealthy

Define wealthy.

Otherwise people like me will either die because they can't afford treatment (and I am already at high risk of early death because of the NHS's failures to spot stages 1, 2 or 3 of my cancer) - and I can't - or be bankrupted and made homeless.

As for the state pension, it gets taxed if the pensioner has other income.

One of the reasons for the deficit is the amount spent on furlough during Covid - money largely spent on those in jobs and to keep them in jobs. It was about £140 billion. They too should contribute.

- 1p on income tax.
- Extend VAT to food, books/newspapers & children's clothes.
- NI for everyone who works.
- Limit or abolish tax relief for those giving to charity and place an upper limit on the tax saved by those contributing to charity whether alive or after death.
- Limit tax relief for pension contributions to the basic rate.
- Extend VAT on education to all education providers, including universities.
- Freeze thresholds.
- Place a limit on public sector pay increases (the amount shovelled at train drivers by Reeves never gets mentioned here but it was a stupid move).
- Abolish the WFA and other pension-specific benefits. Aim for the state pension to be the same as the tax free income as and when we can afford it.
- Abolish the triple lock.
- Those with assets should contribute something towards social care.
- Introduce council tax bands for higher value houses.
- Increase or widen the charges for council services beyond the basic.
- Ensure that overseas visitors pay for the NHS. Other countries manage this. So can we.
- Limit tax relief for private equity companies loading companies up with debt, taking dividends and asset stripping. (Thames Water and other companies in a similar position should be allowed to go bust and then nationalised for a £. Too often asset stripping has been presented as overseas investment. It is a gigantic con.)

And so on.

There is a nasty streak among some of the commentary on here. Everyone seems to want others to pay taxes and those who work on here seem to think that they should be exempt from any measures to help pay down the deficit, thinking it must all be done by the poor and the old. It also gives the impression that some welcome AD because they will be able to pressure the old and sick into killing themselves to save money or withhold treatment so that they suffer. It is disgustingly frankly. I am surprised to see @Big_G_NorthWales among their number

One reason that I am opposed to the assisted dying stuff is that I have met several people in healthcare who were against the continued existence of others, who they deemed "a waste of resources".

I could see them telling a blind person who wanted a ramp to her door - "Have you considered killing yourself". Yes, very easily.

There was an instance of exactly that with a paralympic athlete in Canada.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/paralympian-trying-to-get-wheelchair-ramp-says-veterans-affairs-employee-offered-her-assisted-dying/

If I live that long and the AD Bill becomes law, that is exactly what I fear too - that some NHS manager will decide my life is not worth living and will instruct doctors to stop treatment. I will be lied to just as I was lied to by the screening programme.

I have nothing but contempt for those promoting this Bill, including those on here wittering about choice and autonomy. I will face an added worry on top of what I already have to face and will be denied the choice, if I need it, of palliative care by a hospice which promises not to kill me. Plus the trust I ought to be able to have in those providing me with care will be broken if they now decide to suggest suicide to me.

Oh and the recent 10 year plan for the NHS mentioned palliative care once - in 170 pages or however long it was.

I'm glad some days I won't live long because society is becoming nastier and more selfish and lacking in any sense of decency or morality and I see no reason why this will not continue and worsen. There is very little that is hopeful on the horizon.