Keir Starmer - and his miserable government

(19-12-2024 00:56 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  

(18-12-2024 23:13 )southsidestu Wrote:  The majority of pensioners today are Boomers, who are the richest generation ever to exist, 27% just over 1 in 4 are millionaires.

Ah statistics.

Except your interpretation is flawed...

Also how is the wealth broken down? i.e assets v disposable income.

No comeback? Ok, let's have look at a few of your points.

27% of pensioner households are millionaires. So a pensioner couple living together are not necessarily millionaires individually.
Also, the latest figures are for 2018 - 2020. i.e. pre fuel crisis, pre cost of living crisis, pre Truss, and pre (what I think will become known as) the Reeves Recession.
The next set of figures may be somewhat different.

The richest generation ever to exist? I should fucking hope so, taking into account inflation and the length of time they've worked. A millionaire isn't what it used to be.
Let's see where you are by the time you reach retirement.

(18-12-2024 23:13 )southsidestu Wrote:  our pensioners aren't retired coal miners & dock wokers, anyone who wasn't a gangster in Peaky Blinders, they're IT consultants & Human Resources middle managers.

What utter nonsense. Who exactly were all these HR middle managers managing? Other HR middle managers?

(18-12-2024 23:13 )southsidestu Wrote:  Even for the ones that aren't millionaires they still find themselves sitting on considerable assets, many boomers, like my parents & aunts/uncles are just themselves still living in the 3+ bedroom houses they raised their families in.

Yes, houses they probably spent most of their working lives paying for...

(18-12-2024 23:13 )southsidestu Wrote:  the price of a house has gone from 4× the average salary in the 80s to 8× today.

Maybe so. But Boomers were buying their houses in the 80's. Prices may have been much lower but mortgage rates were in double figures. The peak was over 18% in 1981. 18%, just think about that for a minute.

(18-12-2024 23:13 )southsidestu Wrote:  I don't see the priority in them giving millionaires and the many other well off pensioners £400 given everything else they get.

I don't disagree with this, but I think the threshold should have been higher and tapered.

(18-12-2024 23:13 )southsidestu Wrote:  People talk about taxing the rich, pensioners are the richest among us. The Corbyn and Sanders lot in The Guardian would have you believe that we could become a utopian society by skimming a little extra off the top of the 1% and becoming Scandanavia but that isnt how it works. Yes they should pay more but in the Scandanavian countries they have higher taxes across the board, thats the reality of effectively funding a state: everyone has to pay more.

You do realise pensioners pay income tax the same as everyone else.
A large amount of these 'rich' pensioners wealth is tied up in assets. Their house, in most cases.
Do you think assets should be taxed? Say you bought your house for £150k, and it's now worth £200k. Does that mean you now have £50k sloshing around to spend?
Let's say Reeves decides to hit you with a £10k windfall tax. No problem, right? After all you have this £50k spare to pay it from...

Assets should only be taxed at the point of sale. Because that's the only point at which the cash is available to pay the tax.
Taxing standing assets (like those held by 'rich' pensioners) basically destroys lives. It's that simple, and it's part of the reason the economy is starting to tank under Labour.
It depresess aspiration, business investment, and growth. The immediate tax take will be worth fuck all, in the grand scheme of things, but the reduced tax take going forward will be many times more.

Farmers have a saying "You can shear a sheep every year, but you only slaughter it once..."

Each generation has to deal with the hand it's dealt. Do you think the Boomers paying 18% mortgage rates looked back at the war generation and said they had it easy?

BBC News - Sue Gray among 30 newly appointed Labour peers
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1ln8z0jdz3o

Mandelson and Trump.

What could possibly go wrong...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyx9kplge8o

So my point in that post, as stated at the beginning with the Maitlis quote, was about how the discourse around pensioners pointed to a certain perception one of which i think is in some way removed from reality and i pointed out certain reasons why.

Of course many of these individuals are millionaires through asset wealth & not just cash in the bank and yes a million isn't what it used to be but they are still significantly better off than the average. Millionaires make up 4.5% of British residents, however you classify it and whatever the worth you ascribe to being a millionaire the number of pensioners that meet that criteria is six times the average.

I do not begrudge them their wealth, I am not advocating for those assets to be taxed i am merely stating that i feel that when the issue is discussed its done so in the same vain as cuts under The Tories & i think that it is a misnomer to correlate moving from a system of universality to means tested on the wealthiest age group in society to Osborne austerity

(20-12-2024 20:42 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  Mandelson and Trump.

What could possibly go wrong...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyx9kplge8o

I wonder now who is the bigger moron of the two got a horrible feeling that isn't going down too well with Trump... and might not end well for Mandelson.

(20-12-2024 20:42 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  Mandelson and Trump.

What could possibly go wrong...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyx9kplge8o

Rarely do I agree with any of Trump's mob (and I use that term deliberately) but this guy has got Mandelson's number. Moron is actually an understatement.

I wonder if they had actually scrutinised Mandelson's political career in ther US extensively enough.

I fear Mandelson won't be UK ambassador in US for very long.

(23-12-2024 21:43 )southsidestu Wrote:  Snip

Just popped in to catch up on some voting. I'll be back...

(23-12-2024 21:43 )southsidestu Wrote:  I do not begrudge them their wealth, I am not advocating for those assets to be taxed i am merely stating that i feel that when the issue is discussed its done so in the same vain as cuts under The Tories & i think that it is a misnomer to correlate moving from a system of universality to means tested on the wealthiest age group in society to Osborne austerity

So it was just a long winded way of saying the state pension should be means tested.
Fair point. Pity you de-railed it by making it look like you were having a pop at pensioners for having the temerity to carry on living in their own houses 'for free'.

The problem with the state pension is, it's viewed as an entitlement, rather than a benefit, by virtue of paying nat ins over your working life.
It's not just as simple as starting means testing. You would need to abolish nat ins and start again with a new pension regime. Employers nat ins would need to change to an employee tax. That wouldn't be a problem for them as long as their bottom line remained the same.
The problem comes with abolishing employee nat ins and increasing income tax to compensate. Even if it was a cost neutral change, a lot of people wouldn't be able to see past 'income tax rise'.

To make such a fundemental change the government would need a huge majority to get it through Parliament (check), the competance to design a new system that was fair, with the correct threshholds and tapers (oh dear...) and the skill to communicate the change in such a way that people would understand without creating a WASPI on steroids situation (oh dear, oh dear...)

The opposition would have a field day with the government 'who took away the pension', and it would stick with this government, given their track record.

In short, no politician will have the balls to touch it, any more than NHS and social care reform.
Starmer might as well have a go though. Because he's going to be fucked anyway, by the time this recession takes hold.

Hard to see what the 2029 election will bring. But I wouldn't bet against a Tory/Reform coalition, after this shitshow.

(31-12-2024 08:37 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  

(23-12-2024 21:43 )southsidestu Wrote:  I do not begrudge them their wealth, I am not advocating for those assets to be taxed i am merely stating that i feel that when the issue is discussed its done so in the same vain as cuts under The Tories & i think that it is a misnomer to correlate moving from a system of universality to means tested on the wealthiest age group in society to Osborne austerity

So it was just a long winded way of saying the state pension should be means tested.
Fair point. Pity you de-railed it by making it look like you were having a pop at pensioners for having the temerity to carry on living in their own houses 'for free'.

The problem with the state pension is, it's viewed as an entitlement, rather than a benefit, by virtue of paying nat ins over your working life.
It's not just as simple as starting means testing. You would need to abolish nat ins and start again with a new pension regime. Employers nat ins would need to change to an employee tax. That wouldn't be a problem for them as long as their bottom line remained the same.
The problem comes with abolishing employee nat ins and increasing income tax to compensate. Even if it was a cost neutral change, a lot of people wouldn't be able to see past 'income tax rise'.

To make such a fundemental change the government would need a huge majority to get it through Parliament (check), the competance to design a new system that was fair, with the correct threshholds and tapers (oh dear...) and the skill to communicate the change in such a way that people would understand without creating a WASPI on steroids situation (oh dear, oh dear...)

The opposition would have a field day with the government 'who took away the pension', and it would stick with this government, given their track record.

In short, no politician will have the balls to touch it, any more than NHS and social care reform.
Starmer might as well have a go though. Because he's going to be fucked anyway, by the time this recession takes hold.

Hard to see what the 2029 election will bring. But I wouldn't bet against a Tory/Reform coalition, after this shitshow.

Having read your post you have absolutely no hope that Labour can cut the mustard,but they seem very able to cut and bodge everything else.