Forum Message

Topic: Re:Re:Envy and/or an unwillingness to recognise that 'life just ain't fair'
Posted by: Steven Rose
Date/Time: 28/07/24 17:33:00

I can recommend an article by Daniel Hannan in today’s ’Sunday Telegraph’ in which he makes several interesting points about Labour’s financial plans:

1) Labour plans to impose tax rises beyond the three mentioned in the manifesto: VAT on private schools, a levy on energy companies and ending tax exemptions for non-doms.

2) Labour seeks to justify this U-turn by claiming that they have opened the books and found a ‘black hole’ to the tune of £10 billion in the nation’s finances. This claim is nonsense. There are no secret ‘books’ and for 14 years fiscal policy has been subject to independent oversight by the OBR. Rachel Reeves was perfectly aware of the financial situation when she repeatedly promised during the election campaign that there would be no additional tax rises beyond the three given above, insisting that their programme was ‘fully  funded and costed - no ifs, no ands and no buts’.

3) In fact, far from deteriorating since Labour drew up its plans, the economic situation has improved: unemployment is at 4.4%, inflation is at 2.2% and the deficit as a proportion of GDP stands at 3.1% (compared, respectively, to 8%, 3.4% and 10% in 2010).

4) The coming tax rises are likely to affect homes, savings and inheritance in the form of council tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. Labour claims that these taxes don’t affect ‘working people’ but of course they do, just as much as income tax rises. They also impede economic growth since taxpayers have less disposable income.

5) According to Mark Littlewood, recently Head of the Institute of Economic Affairs, it is ‘damn near impossible to get more than about 38% of National Income in tax receipts’.  Unfortunately our spending is currently at 44.5% of National Income.

6) The solution is either to cut spending, which Labour won’t do, or grow the economy, which Labour can’t do since its union paymasters are opposed to market reform.



Entire Thread
TopicDate PostedPosted By
7 Labour MPs have whip rempved24/07/24 11:51:00 Andy Pike
   Re:7 Labour MPs have whip rempved24/07/24 12:05:00 John Kettlekey
      Re:Re:7 Labour MPs have whip rempved24/07/24 12:07:00 Michael Brigo
         Re:Re:Re:7 Labour MPs have whip rempved24/07/24 12:34:00 Steven Rose
      Re:Re:7 Labour MPs have whip rempved24/07/24 12:29:00 David Ainsworth
         Reply24/07/24 12:40:00 Michael Ixer
            Re:Reply24/07/24 12:54:00 David Ainsworth
               Reply24/07/24 13:49:00 Michael Ixer
                  Re:Reply24/07/24 16:25:00 Robert Wheeler
                     Re:Re:Reply24/07/24 18:03:00 Gerry Boyce
                        Re:Re:Re:Reply25/07/24 09:12:00 John Kettlekey
                  Re:Reply24/07/24 17:59:00 David Ainsworth
               Re:Re:Reply25/07/24 11:23:00 John Hawkes
                  Re:Re:Re:Reply25/07/24 12:51:00 David Ainsworth
            Re:Reply24/07/24 18:22:00 Ivonne Holliday
               Re:Re:Reply24/07/24 20:21:00 Philippa Bond
               Re:Re:Reply24/07/24 20:28:00 Ed Robinson
               Reply24/07/24 21:59:00 Michael Ixer
   Re:7 Labour MPs have whip rempved24/07/24 20:48:00 Steven Rose
      Re:Re:7 Labour MPs have whip rempved24/07/24 21:52:00 Ed Robinson
   Re:7 Labour MPs have whip rempved24/07/24 21:55:00 Sue Hammond
      Reply24/07/24 22:08:00 Michael Ixer
         Re:Reply24/07/24 22:26:00 Ed Robinson
            Re:Re:Reply24/07/24 23:53:00 Steven Rose
               38,000 gone25/07/24 10:00:00 David Ainsworth
                  Re:38,000 gone25/07/24 11:47:00 John Hawkes
                     Re:Re:38,000 gone25/07/24 13:55:00 David Ainsworth
                        Re:Re:Re:38,000 gone26/07/24 14:19:00 John Hawkes
                           Re:Re:Re:Re:38,000 gone26/07/24 15:40:00 David Ainsworth
               Would you buy a used car ... ?25/07/24 10:14:00 David Ainsworth
               41 For, 195? Against25/07/24 10:39:00 David Ainsworth
               Putin visit "premature and inappropriate" 200025/07/24 11:11:00 David Ainsworth
            Reply25/07/24 00:15:00 Michael Ixer
               Re:Reply25/07/24 11:57:00 Steven Rose
                  Re:Re:Reply25/07/24 12:35:00 Sue Hammond
                     Re:Re:Re:Reply25/07/24 12:48:00 David Ainsworth
                  Re:Re:Reply25/07/24 15:39:00 David Ainsworth
                     Re:Re:Re:Reply26/07/24 14:33:00 John Hawkes
                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply26/07/24 15:18:00 David Ainsworth
                        Oh time is a great healer, or not. 26/07/24 15:32:00 David Ainsworth
                           Re:Oh time is a great healer, or not. 26/07/24 15:36:00 Philippa Bond
                              Re:Re:Oh time is a great healer, or not. 26/07/24 15:49:00 David Ainsworth
                           Re:Oh time is a great healer, or not. 27/07/24 11:07:00 John Hawkes
   Reply25/07/24 12:28:00 Michael Ixer
      Re:Reply25/07/24 14:05:00 David Ainsworth
         Reply25/07/24 15:00:00 Michael Ixer
      Pre-emptive strike then?25/07/24 14:52:00 David Ainsworth
         Re:Pre-emptive strike then?26/07/24 18:43:00 Philippa Bond
            Hole-digging stop26/07/24 18:45:00 David Ainsworth
   Re:7 Labour MPs have whip rempved26/07/24 16:07:00 Philippa Bond
      Re:Re:7 Labour MPs have whip rempved26/07/24 16:58:00 John Kettlekey
         Re:Re:Re:7 Labour MPs have whip rempved26/07/24 17:44:00 Robert Wheeler
         Re:Re:Re:7 Labour MPs have whip rempved26/07/24 20:23:00 Ed Robinson
            Re:Re:Re:Re:7 Labour MPs have whip rempved27/07/24 11:50:00 Steven Rose
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:7 Labour MPs have whip rempved27/07/24 12:11:00 John Kettlekey
                  Subsidising the cost of structural inequality in favour of the rich27/07/24 12:28:00 David Ainsworth
                     Re:Subsidising the cost of structural inequality in favour of the rich27/07/24 13:36:00 Steven Rose
                        Re:Re:Subsidising the cost of structural inequality in favour of the rich27/07/24 13:53:00 David Ainsworth
                           Re:Re:Re:Subsidising the cost of structural inequality in favour of the rich27/07/24 14:35:00 Steven Rose
                              Reply27/07/24 14:52:00 Michael Ixer
                                 Re:Reply27/07/24 16:06:00 Steven Rose
                                    Reply27/07/24 16:59:00 Michael Ixer
                     Re:Subsidising the cost of structural inequality in favour of the rich27/07/24 16:17:00 John Hawkes
                        Re:Re:Subsidising the cost of structural inequality in favour of the rich27/07/24 19:33:00 Ed Robinson
                           Reply27/07/24 19:51:00 Sue Hammond
                              Re:Reply27/07/24 20:04:00 David Ainsworth
                              Re:Reply28/07/24 11:06:00 Ed Robinson
                        Envy and/or an unwillingness to recognise that 'life just ain't fair'27/07/24 20:01:00 David Ainsworth
                           Re:Envy and/or an unwillingness to recognise that 'life just ain't fair'28/07/24 12:11:00 John Hawkes
                              Re:Re:Envy and/or an unwillingness to recognise that 'life just ain't fair'28/07/24 17:33:00 Steven Rose
                                 Re:Re:Reeves Caving In To The Unions Already?28/07/24 22:00:00 Sue Hammond
                                 Re:Re:Re:Envy and/or an unwillingness to recognise that 'life just ain't fair'29/07/24 12:28:00 John Hawkes
                                    Re:Re:Re:Re:Envy and/or an unwillingness to recognise that 'life just ain't fair'30/07/24 10:04:00 Philippa Bond

Forum Home