|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 27, 2021 21:05:51 GMT
Budget due soon, Times is reporting a freezing of the Lifetime Allowance (pension related) and higher rate income tax. Personal Allowance to stay at £12,500 and Corporation tax to increase over time from 19% to 25%. The article states it will raise £3bn for each 1% increase. Other press reports have suggested freezes to stamp duty as well as beers, wines and spirits. Will certainly be looking at this with keen eyes. From an electoral point of view, the Tories lost a lot of support with their reaction to the pandemic. I haven't seen anything, but I assume they clawed some of that support back with the vaccinations. I think the budget could be a nail in the coffin each way - get it wrong and I'm not sure the voters will come back (EG, if they raise income tax and not corporation). Get it right, and it could well cement a strong Tory position. Personally I hope they bring back stamp duty. We've been wanting to buy a house for a while but houses are getting a bit silly in their valuations. I'd rather pay the £5k+ on stamp duty and not pay the bank an extra £50k over 25 years. Never mind the fact that if you buy now, within a year (when prices drop) it'll be worth less immediately. |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,502 
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Feb 27, 2021 22:01:31 GMT
Budget due soon, Times is reporting a freezing of the Lifetime Allowance (pension related) and higher rate income tax. Personal Allowance to stay at £12,500 and Corporation tax to increase over time from 19% to 25%. The article states it will raise £3bn for each 1% increase. Other press reports have suggested freezes to stamp duty as well as beers, wines and spirits. Will certainly be looking at this with keen eyes. From an electoral point of view, the Tories lost a lot of support with their reaction to the pandemic. I haven't seen anything, but I assume they clawed some of that support back with the vaccinations. I think the budget could be a nail in the coffin each way - get it wrong and I'm not sure the voters will come back (EG, if they raise income tax and not corporation). Get it right, and it could well cement a strong Tory position. Personally I hope they bring back stamp duty. We've been wanting to buy a house for a while but houses are getting a bit silly in their valuations. I'd rather pay the £5k+ on stamp duty and not pay the bank an extra £50k over 25 years. Never mind the fact that if you buy now, within a year (when prices drop) it'll be worth less immediately. The housing market is a joke.... it’s been propped up so many times in so many different ways over the yrs, what is the real value of a house in the UK ? Whilst all logic says it should of dropped during this pandemic , it’s actually gone up. That’s not right , how long can this charade continue? I’m quids in but it’s wrong on so many levels. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Mar 1, 2021 18:45:03 GMT
Planning to cut aid to Yemen. "Speaking to Sky News before the decision was announced, former international development secretary Andrew Mitchell said: "Any cut, let alone one of nearly 50%, will mean that four million Yemenis - mainly children - will continue the slow, agonising and obscene process of starving to death." He also predicted the government would have the greatest difficulty pushing its wider foreign aid cut through parliament." "We are a generous country and every single elected member of the House of Commons promised in their manifesto just over a year ago not to cut the 0.7% spending on development," said Mr Mitchell. news.sky.com/story/utterly-appalling-criticism-as-uk-announces-it-will-cut-aid-to-yemen-by-more-than-half-12232890 |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Mar 1, 2021 18:47:58 GMT
Planning to cut aid to Yemen. "Speaking to Sky News before the decision was announced, former international development secretary Andrew Mitchell said: "Any cut, let alone one of nearly 50%, will mean that four million Yemenis - mainly children - will continue the slow, agonising and obscene process of starving to death." He also predicted the government would have the greatest difficulty pushing its wider foreign aid cut through parliament." "We are a generous country and every single elected member of the House of Commons promised in their manifesto just over a year ago not to cut the 0.7% spending on development," said Mr Mitchell. news.sky.com/story/utterly-appalling-criticism-as-uk-announces-it-will-cut-aid-to-yemen-by-more-than-half-12232890Ultimately Stuart its very easy for you to criticise the government, but somebody needs to pay for this pandemic dont they, and it should be starving children in Yemen. |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,502
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 3, 2021 8:15:16 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2021 8:37:06 GMT
Hahaha that is amazing. This round of Tory scum can't even do corruption competently. A huge failure on every level. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Mar 3, 2021 20:31:33 GMT
It doesn't matter, it'll be ignored. Look how much of an issue this isn't, already. Imagine if this was Labour - the outcry. |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,502
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 3, 2021 23:47:36 GMT
We need to cut taxes as this generates more tax from wealth earners as this improves the tax take overall , we’ve been told this for the last 10 yrs or so........ so why are they putting them up now ?
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Mar 4, 2021 15:40:32 GMT
Nothing to see here, move along please. "The government has settled with with former civil servant Sir Philip Rutnam over his claim for unfair dismissal. The ex-Home Office official quit last February, amid bullying claims against Home Secretary Priti Patel, which she denies. He said he had been the victims of a "vicious and orchestrated" briefing campaign after trying to get Ms Patel to change her behaviour. The claims had been due to be heard at an employment tribunal this September." www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56281781 |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Mar 4, 2021 15:42:36 GMT
Nothing to see here, move along please. "The government has settled with with former civil servant Sir Philip Rutnam over his claim for unfair dismissal. The ex-Home Office official quit last February, amid bullying claims against Home Secretary Priti Patel, which she denies. He said he had been the victims of a "vicious and orchestrated" briefing campaign after trying to get Ms Patel to change her behaviour. The claims had been due to be heard at an employment tribunal this September." www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56281781Admittance of guilt or brush under the carpet? |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Mar 4, 2021 15:43:35 GMT
Nothing to see here, move along please. "The government has settled with with former civil servant Sir Philip Rutnam over his claim for unfair dismissal. The ex-Home Office official quit last February, amid bullying claims against Home Secretary Priti Patel, which she denies. He said he had been the victims of a "vicious and orchestrated" briefing campaign after trying to get Ms Patel to change her behaviour. The claims had been due to be heard at an employment tribunal this September." www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56281781Took a bung and ran,what about fighting for you principles, bah. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Mar 4, 2021 15:45:42 GMT
Nothing to see here, move along please. "The government has settled with with former civil servant Sir Philip Rutnam over his claim for unfair dismissal. The ex-Home Office official quit last February, amid bullying claims against Home Secretary Priti Patel, which she denies. He said he had been the victims of a "vicious and orchestrated" briefing campaign after trying to get Ms Patel to change her behaviour. The claims had been due to be heard at an employment tribunal this September." www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56281781Admittance of guilt or brush under the carpet? Or he wanted a bit of dosh ? |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Mar 4, 2021 15:47:48 GMT
Coincidence? Happens regardless of who is in government of course, but hardly subtle. Of 45 towns (and 56 constituencies) involved: "Forty-seven are Conservative constituencies - including 14 gained from Labour at the 2019 election plus quite a few more recent Conservative gains, while nine are Labour constituencies. Fifty-three of the constituencies voted "leave" at the EU referendum. Three voted "remain". In a way that's not very surprising - Labour seats and "remain" areas are concentrated in cities - but it's still pretty striking." www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56281774 |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Mar 4, 2021 15:56:35 GMT
Admittance of guilt or brush under the carpet? Or he wanted a bit of dosh ? Makes no difference really, he obviously had a case and paying out is an admission of guilt whilst keeping it as quiet as possible - whether he wanted a payout or not. Who pays for this btw? The tax payer? If so what a complete farce. |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,502
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 4, 2021 17:15:25 GMT
Or he wanted a bit of dosh ? Makes no difference really, he obviously had a case and paying out is an admission of guilt whilst keeping it as quiet as possible - whether he wanted a payout or not. Who pays for this btw? The tax payer? If so what a complete farce. I’m sure the tax payers alliance will have plenty to say on this scandalous waste of tax payers money....... |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Mar 4, 2021 18:21:06 GMT
Or he wanted a bit of dosh ? Makes no difference really, he obviously had a case and paying out is an admission of guilt whilst keeping it as quiet as possible - whether he wanted a payout or not. Who pays for this btw? The tax payer? If so what a complete farce. It's not actually, there is no admission of guilt or liability by the government who were happy to defend the case,having been involved in loads of these it used to pee me off when the Bank would pay out rather than defend as it was cheaper even though they were allmost certain to win the case. |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,502
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 4, 2021 18:25:57 GMT
Makes no difference really, he obviously had a case and paying out is an admission of guilt whilst keeping it as quiet as possible - whether he wanted a payout or not. Who pays for this btw? The tax payer? If so what a complete farce. It's not actually, there is no admission of guilt or liability by the government who were happy to defend the case,having been involved in loads of these it used to pee me off when the Bank would pay out rather than defend as it was cheaper even though they were allmost certain to win the case. It’s only 370k plus 30k costs ..... I’m sure they settled for this paltry sum because they thought they had no case to answer 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Mar 4, 2021 18:46:25 GMT
Makes no difference really, he obviously had a case and paying out is an admission of guilt whilst keeping it as quiet as possible - whether he wanted a payout or not. Who pays for this btw? The tax payer? If so what a complete farce. It's not actually, there is no admission of guilt or liability by the government who were happy to defend the case,having been involved in loads of these it used to pee me off when the Bank would pay out rather than defend as it was cheaper even though they were allmost certain to win the case. Fair enough, still begs the question why the tax payer should pay out for her bullying? |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Mar 4, 2021 18:49:45 GMT
It's not actually, there is no admission of guilt or liability by the government who were happy to defend the case,having been involved in loads of these it used to pee me off when the Bank would pay out rather than defend as it was cheaper even though they were allmost certain to win the case. It’s only 370k plus 30k costs ..... I’m sure they settled for this paltry sum because they thought they had no case to answer 😂 Sorry to say it is a paltry sum,just think of the costs a Senior Barrister and his team would cost to not only defend the case but all the prep work,if it's 370k that's a result. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Mar 4, 2021 18:54:24 GMT
It's not actually, there is no admission of guilt or liability by the government who were happy to defend the case,having been involved in loads of these it used to pee me off when the Bank would pay out rather than defend as it was cheaper even though they were allmost certain to win the case. Fair enough, still begs the question why the tax payer should pay out for her bullying? It's a good point,unfortunately as there has been no case then there is no decision on whether she is guilty or not,we all are entitled to our opinion on that score however innocent until proven guilty and on that basis the only source of payment is the government and ultimately the tax payer. |
|
