| Reform Policies 18:44 - Jul 13 with 1541 views | johnlangy |
They haven't come out with many actual policies but the one that's easiest to remember is raising the tax threshold to £20,000. It's a laudable thing to aspire to as it would benefit the lowest paid the most. As well as that idea, the way Farage and Tice and all the rest of them are talking it's as if they're saying ‘vote us in and there’ll be a revolution’. The British people will finally get what they’ve been demanding for so long and which Labour and the Conservatives never delivered.
It's such an easy thing to say and I believe they're saying it knowing that there'd be a huge number of people whose knee jerk reaction would be positive. They'd be about £1500 a year better off and many wouldn't think past that.
We can all agree there's not much money around and the UK is in an incredibly difficult financial situation. And whatever party is in Government they would have a hell of a job on their hands.
So, let's imagine Reform are in power now and not Labour. And this tax cut is their flagship policy. We know that Labour have claimed that a major problem they've had to deal with is the £20 billion black hole they claim the Conservatives left (accurate or not that's what they say).
The black hole created in the countries tax revenue of raising the threshold to £20,000 is £51 billion a year. But, to give them the benefit of the doubt let’s imagine that Reform would say we can't afford to do it in one go. People would probably accept the logic of that - initially.
So they may say we'll do it in three chunks - from £12,500 to £15,000 then £17,500 and then £20,000. The first rise would put an extra £500 in people's pockets. That’s £10 a week. And let’s say they had to wait for another year for another £10 and another year for the last £10. People would say, hang on Nige, this isn't a revolution. You gave us the impression that you could just push a few buttons and our lives would change.
And then they'd say, in the parallel universe where Labour are in power, we got a 6.7% rise (National Living Wage). So how is this better Nige ?
So they've implemented the first rise but now they've got a £17 billion black hole in the finances. And this is a REAL black hole. So what are they going to do.
Which brings me to the second part of the thread. Nigel and Richard and all of them are also incredibly critical of the spend on welfare. And without saying what they are going to do they've implied that they will be ruthless in that area.
We all know what happened to Labour with the WFA cut and the proposed reform of PIP. There may be some people on this site who thought those cuts were a good idea but from memory the vast majority of you didn't. And the vast majority of the country disagreed as well.
I heard a discussion on Talk Radio a few days ago between Jeremy Kyle and Richard Tice (a brief digression - Jeremy Kyle has to be the most useless excuse for a broadcaster in the history of British radio. It's as if a ten year old is speaking through a man's body - just awful).
Anyway, the bloke who had called in, a Reform voter, was talking about the above cuts and he was criticising Labour for having given in to the 'BLOB' in dropping the plans. And Richard Tice was laughing and agreeing with him, happy it seemed that the guy was on his side. He agreed that Labour should not have given in to the ‘BLOB’, that they should have stuck to their guns. By saying that he was implying that Reform, if they were in power, would have carried on with the cuts.
The savings from those cuts would have come to maybe £5 billion I believe. So can anyone explain where they would save the extra £17 billion from their tax cuts in the first year. And in the second year the £34 billion ? And in the third year the £51 billion ?
Would it all be from the benefits bill ? The total benefits bill this year is £303 billion. Of that £138 billion is the State Pension and an enormous part of the rest is paid out to people actually in work. If you add the two together that would leave maybe £100 billion in other benefits. Are Reform going to cut that £100 billion by £51 billion ?
Going back to the phone in, the 'BLOB' is a word that's been used mainly against the Civil Service (not just the CS but mainly) saying that they actively work against the Government implementing their policies.
But in this case the people disagreeing with the Government were millions of ordinary people disgusted at the policies. Also their MP's and just about all the media. And here we have Richard Tice laughing at the 'BLOB' which in this case would include millions of the people who he would hope would vote Reform.
But I doubt if those millions would have been listening to that phone in and hearing the disdain that Tice had for them. A pity because if they did there’d be no way Reform would ever get in to power.
|  | | |  |
| Reform Policies on 19:05 - Jul 13 with 1263 views | Whiterockin |
All the other parties are just making Reforms job a lot easier. |  | | |
| Reform Policies on 19:16 - Jul 13 with 1251 views | SullutaCreturned |
Benefits reforms need to happen, first of all the minimum wage needs to rise to get people off universal credit. That would need to be a staged rise, small companies/businesses being made to give a smaller raise but the biggest companies being told to pay more, their profits can take it and they hide the money anway to avoid tax. A minimum wage by size of business, is that do-able?
Even then there is still a large black hole, what Reform promises is just way above what they could deliver without making a bigger mess of the country's finances than the last 50 years has done.
I've seen Max's reaction to the idea of raising taxes but if Reform came in they'd have to raise taxes to help fund this and it would still take years. what are the odds of Reform taking over government with a majority? Not very good I'd say and without that majority, would they ever get the changes through? | | | |
| Reform Policies on 19:38 - Jul 13 with 1238 views | Whiterockin |
| Reform Policies on 19:16 - Jul 13 by SullutaCreturned |
Benefits reforms need to happen, first of all the minimum wage needs to rise to get people off universal credit. That would need to be a staged rise, small companies/businesses being made to give a smaller raise but the biggest companies being told to pay more, their profits can take it and they hide the money anway to avoid tax. A minimum wage by size of business, is that do-able?
Even then there is still a large black hole, what Reform promises is just way above what they could deliver without making a bigger mess of the country's finances than the last 50 years has done.
I've seen Max's reaction to the idea of raising taxes but if Reform came in they'd have to raise taxes to help fund this and it would still take years. what are the odds of Reform taking over government with a majority? Not very good I'd say and without that majority, would they ever get the changes through? |
If they do get through parliament, then there is the House of Lords. | | | |
| Reform Policies on 20:15 - Jul 13 with 1204 views | onehunglow |
Whereas plaids .. | |
| |
| Reform Policies on 21:48 - Jul 13 with 1143 views | majorraglan |
It’s a huge issue, our benefits bill has increased significantly and the way it’s going it will be unsustainable if it isn’t already.
There needs to be a massive culture change with regards to benefits, people who’ve been on long term UC and some other benefits need to be asked questions like
When was the last time you had a job?
What are you doing to get a job?
What training have you undertaken to make yourself more employable?
What new qualifications and skills have you acquired?
These and more searching questions.
I’d also bring in work for the dole/ voluntary week at least 24 hours per week. A time limit on unemployment benefits maybe something like 18 months or 2 years which is enough time to find or upskill to get a job somewhere.
People who can work deserve to be supported, but people who don’t want to work but have had all the help and still aren’t working then they lose their entitlement to benefits.
There was a young hirl in one of the nationals last week, 21 years of age, 3 kids with another on the way whinging that her benefits had been cut below £2.5k per months. FFS - that’s mental. She’s probably never made a contribution to the pot but is taking out.
I’m all in favour of helping people and giving them a hand up, but it’s a 2 way street and some just want to take.
I know jobs don’t grow on trees, but there are opportunities out there. There was an article on TV about Grimsby earlier this year, they’ve got food factories up there with thousands of migrant workers because Brits don’t want to work in them, should we tolerate British people being able to pick and choose whether to work by staying on benefits for the “foreseeable future /forever” [Post edited 13 Jul 21:48]
| | | |
| Reform Policies on 22:02 - Jul 13 with 1117 views | Scotia |
Reforms policies are complete fairy tales.
I'm genuinely concerned that'll they'll get elected in Wales and the rest of the UK/world will just sit back and laugh | | | |
| Reform Policies on 22:09 - Jul 13 with 1105 views | builthjack |
| Reform Policies on 19:16 - Jul 13 by SullutaCreturned |
Benefits reforms need to happen, first of all the minimum wage needs to rise to get people off universal credit. That would need to be a staged rise, small companies/businesses being made to give a smaller raise but the biggest companies being told to pay more, their profits can take it and they hide the money anway to avoid tax. A minimum wage by size of business, is that do-able?
Even then there is still a large black hole, what Reform promises is just way above what they could deliver without making a bigger mess of the country's finances than the last 50 years has done.
I've seen Max's reaction to the idea of raising taxes but if Reform came in they'd have to raise taxes to help fund this and it would still take years. what are the odds of Reform taking over government with a majority? Not very good I'd say and without that majority, would they ever get the changes through? |
Aye, if everyone gets 20k tax free, as Farage says will happen, there will be no NHS, no road maintenance, no new social housing, minimal public services.
The guy talks a good game. It’s loons who listen. |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| Reform Policies on 22:23 - Jul 13 with 1085 views | majorraglan |
| Reform Policies on 22:09 - Jul 13 by builthjack |
Aye, if everyone gets 20k tax free, as Farage says will happen, there will be no NHS, no road maintenance, no new social housing, minimal public services.
The guy talks a good game. It’s loons who listen. |
According to the IFS the cost of raising the tax allowance to £20k would be between £50 and £80bn per year, there’s no way that’s going to happen unless there are huge cuts in public spending or state benefits.
This is coming from the left field, but what about taxing some state benefits over a certain level? [Post edited 13 Jul 22:23]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Reform Policies on 00:33 - Jul 14 with 1031 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Reform Policies on 22:09 - Jul 13 by builthjack |
Aye, if everyone gets 20k tax free, as Farage says will happen, there will be no NHS, no road maintenance, no new social housing, minimal public services.
The guy talks a good game. It’s loons who listen. |
If the population is static why is "new social housing" required?, This assumes the existing housing stock is up to standard.
I suspect new housing stock is needed for location issues. No one wants to live in that place in Merthyr on the mountain and that rough town in county Durham which are empty. |  |
| |
| Reform Policies on 11:57 - Jul 14 with 956 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Reform Policies on 00:33 - Jul 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
If the population is static why is "new social housing" required?, This assumes the existing housing stock is up to standard.
I suspect new housing stock is needed for location issues. No one wants to live in that place in Merthyr on the mountain and that rough town in county Durham which are empty. |
Unfortunately the population is not static. It has grown by 10 million since 2000 and is predicted ti grow by 500,000 a year. The population has been growing since Blair allowed freedom of movement and is driven by mass imagination both legal and illegal. | |
| |
| Reform Policies on 18:48 - Jul 14 with 806 views | majorraglan |
| Reform Policies on 11:57 - Jul 14 by felixstowe_jack |
Unfortunately the population is not static. It has grown by 10 million since 2000 and is predicted ti grow by 500,000 a year. The population has been growing since Blair allowed freedom of movement and is driven by mass imagination both legal and illegal. |
That’s not quite right as someone as knowledgable as you should be fully aware of.
Blair was not responsible for freedom of movement, that was something that came about as a result of the Maastricht Treaty which John Major signed in the 90’s. FOM was enshrined in EU law and as such it wasn’t possible to undo it. Blair or anyone else for that matter was stuck with it.
At the time when FOM came in to force in 2004, Britain was booming and there was bipartisan support for FOM across the board. Blair’s mistake was not exercising the option to introduce temporary restrictions and conditions during the first 4 years of FOM, Britain, Ireland and Sweden were the only 3 countries not to introduce temporary restrictions on movement which saw large numbers arrive here. Blair wouldn’t have been able to stop FOM, all he could have done was kick the can down the road for a maximum of 4 years.
We’ve had much higher immigration levels under the Conservatives than under Labour, check out the figures for the last few years. The figures under both regimes have been far too high and immigration needs to be curtailed. [Post edited 14 Jul 18:50]
| | | |
| Reform Policies on 19:25 - Jul 14 with 765 views | hectorshouse |
Just a thought on in work benefits because it really annoys me. If the assessed wage to live is say £16 per hour then that should be the living wage. The minimum wage can stay at £12.50. If a company doesn’t pay the living wage of £16 then it cannot pay dividends to its shareholders. This will stop the likes of Tesco etc paying low wages which are supplemented by Government benefits to the employee thereby increasing their profits and therefore dividends. In most cases working tax credits are not a benefit to the employee but a direct grant to big business. Small employers are protected as they don’t have profits to pay dividends so will pay the minimum wage of £12.50 without penalty. Obviously employees will move to the employers paying £16 an hour but that’s always happened. This will remove working tax benefits completely.
Make big business pay their share. | | | |
| Reform Policies on 20:36 - Jul 14 with 736 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Reform Policies on 19:25 - Jul 14 by hectorshouse |
Just a thought on in work benefits because it really annoys me. If the assessed wage to live is say £16 per hour then that should be the living wage. The minimum wage can stay at £12.50. If a company doesn’t pay the living wage of £16 then it cannot pay dividends to its shareholders. This will stop the likes of Tesco etc paying low wages which are supplemented by Government benefits to the employee thereby increasing their profits and therefore dividends. In most cases working tax credits are not a benefit to the employee but a direct grant to big business. Small employers are protected as they don’t have profits to pay dividends so will pay the minimum wage of £12.50 without penalty. Obviously employees will move to the employers paying £16 an hour but that’s always happened. This will remove working tax benefits completely.
Make big business pay their share. |
I suggested something similar earluer in the thread, small bysinesses pay one minimum wage and stagger the rises with the biggest companies paying the highest "minimum"
If the big boys don't like it they can bog off and I'm sure British companies will rise and take their places.
Burger King and Maccy D to start with, dead easy to replace and I'm sure someone could do better quality food too. | | | |
| Reform Policies on 22:29 - Jul 14 with 712 views | johnlangy |
| Reform Policies on 20:36 - Jul 14 by SullutaCreturned |
I suggested something similar earluer in the thread, small bysinesses pay one minimum wage and stagger the rises with the biggest companies paying the highest "minimum"
If the big boys don't like it they can bog off and I'm sure British companies will rise and take their places.
Burger King and Maccy D to start with, dead easy to replace and I'm sure someone could do better quality food too. |
Both you and hector are correct David. Just how many large firms are announcing big profits then paying out big dividends while the board pay themselves huge salaries. Why ? Because it's their brilliant work that has generated the profit.
Of course it is. It's nothing to do with the fact that their employees at the bottom are not being paid enough to live on. With the result that the government has to subsidise those workers pay with benefits.
So, as has been said, our taxes are to a large extent the profits that they claim to create. And those profits (our taxes) end up in the pockets of the shareholders and the bosses.
There's so much discussion about how to reduce the benefits bill. I wonder how many billions of benefits are paid out in this way. | | | |
| Reform Policies on 23:39 - Jul 14 with 670 views | DJack |
| Reform Policies on 22:29 - Jul 14 by johnlangy |
Both you and hector are correct David. Just how many large firms are announcing big profits then paying out big dividends while the board pay themselves huge salaries. Why ? Because it's their brilliant work that has generated the profit.
Of course it is. It's nothing to do with the fact that their employees at the bottom are not being paid enough to live on. With the result that the government has to subsidise those workers pay with benefits.
So, as has been said, our taxes are to a large extent the profits that they claim to create. And those profits (our taxes) end up in the pockets of the shareholders and the bosses.
There's so much discussion about how to reduce the benefits bill. I wonder how many billions of benefits are paid out in this way. |
...and the biggest part of the welfare state is pensions. |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Reform Policies on 09:16 - Jul 15 with 557 views | johnlangy |
| Reform Policies on 23:39 - Jul 14 by DJack |
...and the biggest part of the welfare state is pensions. |
It is DJ. £138 billion as of now. Is anyone advocating reducing the Sate Pension ? Is anyone advocating reducing in work benefits ?
In work benefits are there because a lot of jobs don't pay enough to live on (see my post just a few back). Taking out the two amounts above would leave perhaps £100 billion in benefits to be addressed (out of the total £303 billion). So stop the benefits (our taxes) being paid almost directly into the greedy pockets of shareholders and the shysters running their companies.
That would be a brilliant start. | | | |
| Reform Policies on 09:24 - Jul 15 with 544 views | Whiterockin |
| Reform Policies on 09:16 - Jul 15 by johnlangy |
It is DJ. £138 billion as of now. Is anyone advocating reducing the Sate Pension ? Is anyone advocating reducing in work benefits ?
In work benefits are there because a lot of jobs don't pay enough to live on (see my post just a few back). Taking out the two amounts above would leave perhaps £100 billion in benefits to be addressed (out of the total £303 billion). So stop the benefits (our taxes) being paid almost directly into the greedy pockets of shareholders and the shysters running their companies.
That would be a brilliant start. |
Without shareholders/investors there would be no companies to employ a workforce. There has to be a balance or investors would pull out their money and everything would collapse. Pension funds are some of the largest investors and without a return they would invest elsewhere in the world, as would private investors/shareholders. Worldwide investment is easy and the British economy would collapse if all the money was moved and it will if squeezed. | | | |
| Reform Policies on 11:15 - Jul 15 with 477 views | Luther27 |
| Reform Policies on 09:24 - Jul 15 by Whiterockin |
Without shareholders/investors there would be no companies to employ a workforce. There has to be a balance or investors would pull out their money and everything would collapse. Pension funds are some of the largest investors and without a return they would invest elsewhere in the world, as would private investors/shareholders. Worldwide investment is easy and the British economy would collapse if all the money was moved and it will if squeezed. |
It may well happen if Rachel gets her way regarding pension fund savings. | | | |
| Reform Policies on 12:37 - Jul 15 with 416 views | johnlangy |
| Reform Policies on 09:24 - Jul 15 by Whiterockin |
Without shareholders/investors there would be no companies to employ a workforce. There has to be a balance or investors would pull out their money and everything would collapse. Pension funds are some of the largest investors and without a return they would invest elsewhere in the world, as would private investors/shareholders. Worldwide investment is easy and the British economy would collapse if all the money was moved and it will if squeezed. |
Apparently the Real living wage is £12.60 nationally with London being £13.85.
Logically, if you're on the real living wage then it's enough to live on without needing benefit top ups. So it should be a target set by government to be achieved within a reasonable period.
I'm not saying investors shouldn't be paid dividends. But equally, them being paid those dividends at the expense of their lowest paid workers being paid enough to live on is simply wrong. There should be a better balance. | | | |
| Reform Policies on 13:05 - Jul 15 with 405 views | Whiterockin |
| Reform Policies on 12:37 - Jul 15 by johnlangy |
Apparently the Real living wage is £12.60 nationally with London being £13.85.
Logically, if you're on the real living wage then it's enough to live on without needing benefit top ups. So it should be a target set by government to be achieved within a reasonable period.
I'm not saying investors shouldn't be paid dividends. But equally, them being paid those dividends at the expense of their lowest paid workers being paid enough to live on is simply wrong. There should be a better balance. |
Working 37 hours a week on the living wage you pay over £60 a week in deductions.. That is the real problem. Why deductions if it is the minimum wage to live on. | | | |
| Reform Policies on 14:11 - Jul 15 with 365 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Reform Policies on 12:37 - Jul 15 by johnlangy |
Apparently the Real living wage is £12.60 nationally with London being £13.85.
Logically, if you're on the real living wage then it's enough to live on without needing benefit top ups. So it should be a target set by government to be achieved within a reasonable period.
I'm not saying investors shouldn't be paid dividends. But equally, them being paid those dividends at the expense of their lowest paid workers being paid enough to live on is simply wrong. There should be a better balance. |
I get dividends about 3-4% earnings on my investments. Dividends. come from profits and contribute that amount to people's pensions. Thatcher wanted a shre owning democracy and it has worked to an extent.
For example I have share in a British Gas. The Government sold it to the people with the " Tell Sid" campaign in the 1980. Sold at a dirty cheap price. Most took the money and cashed in a quick profit. N My Centrica shares give me about £300 pa I can use to pay my gas bill. I could hav made a lot more as British Gas exploration grew massively and was eventually bought by Shell. My £2k bought for £500 grew to £10k. Sadly I sold up too early.
Now dividends are part of my pension and are taxed. Sunak increased that tax. From memory there was low tax Upto £10k.Now the tax free limit is £1k.
Dividends are now highly taxed increased a lot since a decade ago. | |
| |
| Reform Policies on 15:42 - Jul 15 with 321 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Reform Policies on 09:24 - Jul 15 by Whiterockin |
Without shareholders/investors there would be no companies to employ a workforce. There has to be a balance or investors would pull out their money and everything would collapse. Pension funds are some of the largest investors and without a return they would invest elsewhere in the world, as would private investors/shareholders. Worldwide investment is easy and the British economy would collapse if all the money was moved and it will if squeezed. |
I don't really think that's true. Companies did exist before the stock market. Stock markets have been a vehicle for moving vast amounts of wealth to the already wealthy.
The first stock market started in 1602. The richest people back then were monarchies. Now the richest are corporations who hover up wealth and shares are no longer traded purely as an investment vehicle, they are issued in pay deals to billionaires and board members. When shares come up for sale, why are the vast majority not sold to ordinary people? Why do so many go to "institutions? which is just a word for corporate greed where the rich get the maximum benefit. | | | |
| Reform Policies on 15:52 - Jul 15 with 302 views | Whiterockin |
| Reform Policies on 15:42 - Jul 15 by SullutaCreturned |
I don't really think that's true. Companies did exist before the stock market. Stock markets have been a vehicle for moving vast amounts of wealth to the already wealthy.
The first stock market started in 1602. The richest people back then were monarchies. Now the richest are corporations who hover up wealth and shares are no longer traded purely as an investment vehicle, they are issued in pay deals to billionaires and board members. When shares come up for sale, why are the vast majority not sold to ordinary people? Why do so many go to "institutions? which is just a word for corporate greed where the rich get the maximum benefit. |
You can't compare businesses now to 400 years ago | | | |
| Reform Policies on 18:36 - Jul 15 with 257 views | johnlangy |
| Reform Policies on 13:05 - Jul 15 by Whiterockin |
Working 37 hours a week on the living wage you pay over £60 a week in deductions.. That is the real problem. Why deductions if it is the minimum wage to live on. |
Even £12.60 at 37 hours a week is over £24k. So 20% tax on £12k allowing for £12.5k tax free is £2400. | | | |
| Reform Policies on 18:54 - Jul 15 with 253 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Reform Policies on 15:52 - Jul 15 by Whiterockin |
You can't compare businesses now to 400 years ago |
Well that's not the important part but why not, even 400 years ago businesses had to make a profit to survive.
The point is, stock markets today are there to make masses of profit for the major shareholders.
Pension funds are managed by people who take massive chunks of money out of the profits.
It's another way to rip off the lowest paid. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
