Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Xizor]

£50,000 isn't much in London.

Well yeah, I doubt a family in London with a household income of "only" £110k are looking at private schools and buying a 2nd home either.

Ultimately I think the point of the detractors is that the Telegraph have tried to craft this mythical 'average' middle class family to make an alarmist point and it looks a bit silly because the vast majority of UK voters (even in the middle classes) aren't actually affected by some o fthe tax rises they've listed.

Your overall comments on high taxation and the waste of it are a separate matter, but not unwarranted.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It wasn’t an answer to the question, it was a commentary on allocation of taxes.

Are you in favour of a progressive taxation system?

Yes, I am. I don't think this government has invented progressive taxation and not raising taxes as they have wouldn't make our tax system suddenly regressive.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Well yeah, I doubt a family in London with a household income of "only" £110k are looking at private schools and buying a 2nd home either.

Ultimately I think the point of the detractors is that the Telegraph have tried to craft this mythical 'average' middle class family to make an alarmist point and it looks a bit silly because the vast majority of UK voters (even in the middle classes) aren't actually affected by some o fthe tax rises they've listed.

Your overall comments on high taxation and the waste of it are a separate matter, but not unwarranted.

You might be surprised. My other half teaches at a private school and it's not the preserve of the super rich. A lot of middle class people pump all they have into their kids. A friend does that and generally has much less disposable income than I do (which is practically nothing to begin with)

 

[Amw79]

Yes, I am. I don't think this government has invented progressive taxation and not raising taxes as they have wouldn't make our tax system suddenly regressive.

I don’t think I made that claim.

So you agree that those who earn more, should pay proportionally more of their income in taxes, than those on lower income. As do I. I think this could, and should, go a lot further than it does. Including scenarios in which I would end up paying more tax.

I am fine with private schooling and second homes being taxed more, but this is not related to the fact that I am not personally affected by these.

(Edited for clarity)

 

[Rita_Poon]

UK and EU look to 2025 as year of reset but with little room for trade-offs

Sir Keir Starmer is invited to an EU summit in February - the first of its type since the Brexit negotiations.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I don’t think I made that claim.

So you agree that those who earn more, should pay proportionally more of their income in taxes, than those on lower income. As do I. I think this could, and should, go a lot further than it does. Including scenarios in which I would end up paying more tax.

I am fine with private schooling and second homes being taxed more, but this is not related to the fact that I am not personally affected by these.

(Edited for clarity)

So should public sector workers be stripped of final salary pensions to fall into line with poorer members of society?

 

[Amw79]

So should public sector workers be stripped of final salary pensions to fall into line with poorer members of society?

I thought public sector pensions were now based on average salary, not final?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I thought public sector pensions were now based on average salary, not final?

Even so, they're still considerably more generous than defined contribution pensions. Should we also crack down on this opulence in the name of progressiveness?

 

[Amw79]

Even so, they're still considerably more generous than defined contribution pensions. Should we also crack down on this opulence in the name of progressiveness?

You’ve lost me now. You’ve tried, in vain, to gotcha me on some perceived hypocrisy or inconsistency.

I’m assuming you are affected by private school or second home taxes, and are smarting about it. In which case, suck it up.

Either that, or you’re valiantly fighting the cause on behalf of the wealthiest 10% of the country. In which case, I’m sure they’re grateful for your support.

 

[Xizor]

You might be surprised. My other half teaches at a private school and it's not the preserve of the super rich. A lot of middle class people pump all they have into their kids. A friend does that and generally has much less disposable income than I do (which is practically nothing to begin with)

Well, you've got me all tied up. £50k is both "not much" in London and apparently enough to look into private education for the kids. I'll bow to your superior knowledge of the capital as almost every branch of my Londoners-on-both-sides family has now emigrated out into the surrounding areas like my parents did, just a few pensioners in Croydon remain I think.

I don't see it having much to do with the article though, as 'most' people still don't have that kind of money in the first place, aren't looking at that sort of expenditure anyway and don't live in London.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

You’ve lost me now. You’ve tried, in vain, to gotcha me on some perceived hypocrisy or inconsistency.

I’m assuming you are affected by private school or second home taxes, and are smarting about it. In which case, suck it up.

Either that, or you’re valiantly fighting the cause on behalf of the wealthiest 10% of the country. In which case, I’m sure they’re grateful for your support.

I just find it interesting that society deems some forms of wealth acceptable (defined benefit pensions) but other forms unacceptable (having two properties). My parents have two properties on account of a parent passing away. I believe their income from it and their other pensions is ~25,000. They're far from the breadline but they're also a million miles from this wealthiest 10% you talk about. I dare say if they were both on a public sector pension, their income would be 2 or 3 times as much, if not higher. Who is the wealthy one again?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Well, you've got me all tied up. £50k is both "not much" in London and apparently enough to look into private education for the kids. I'll bow to your superior knowledge of the capital as almost every branch of my Londoners-on-both-sides family has now emigrated out into the surrounding areas like my parents did, just a few pensioners in Croydon remain I think.

I don't see it having much to do with the article though, as 'most' people still don't have that kind of money in the first place, aren't looking at that sort of expenditure anyway and don't live in London.

My friend and his wife will earn a lot more than that, I'm sure (and also pay a lot more in tax) but my point is that don't have much spare and would probably argue that they're spending their money on the right things rather than boats and hoes, yet might be "punished".

(my understanding is that those on nearer to 50k will use some kind of bursary. The point is that while there are undoubtedly millionaire bankers attending these schools, there are also a lot of middle class kids)

 

[Amw79]

I just find it interesting that society deems some forms of wealth acceptable (defined benefit pensions) but other forms unacceptable (having two properties). My parents have two properties on account of a parent passing away. I believe their income from it and their other pensions is ~25,000. They're far from the breadline but they're also a million miles from this wealthiest 10% you talk about. I dare say if they were both on a public sector pension, their income would be 2 or 3 times as much, if not higher. Who is the wealthy one again?

Nonsense. Half the country is constantly berating public sector pay and pensions as unacceptable.

Just sounds like you’re in that half, so have at it.

 

[Xizor]

they're spending their money on the right things rather than boats and hoes

 

[Amw79]