Mortgage Rate Rises

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

It is a weird system council's going bankrupt.
Also. That 20pc rise is baked in forever.

There needs to be real punishment for the people in charge. And that isn't just sacked and go to another job.

That's the issue with senior level pay. Even mistakes mean you often get paid off and can pick up another job.

No idea what the solution is. How do you penalise those who f up without hurting innocent residents?

My sister and bf are band B. We are band E.
Our CT rise. Will be less than thiers this year. In fact it will bring their B much closer to our E.
Edit. Not quite. Assuming we get the full 5pc.we will. Ours goes up 100, for them 150 each year

Its not really weird
They were heavily centrally funded, that has been cut massively
They have been restricted from raising council tax by what they need to cover the shortfall and the increased costs
The ever aging population has placed further and further demands on the local councils (their statutory duties)

Its completely obvious why they are failing, and more and more are resorting to selling assets etc to balance the books

The problem is the above leads to more "look for efficiency" type thinking which inevitably then on occasions fails.

I have long thought that the statutory duties bit should be paid for from central taxation and not be a lottery on where you live.
Then the local council run the local services and if you select a party that promises better services with a higher cost at least what you are paying locally allows you some decision.
Plus if they do mess up then it allows you the option to try another party. Right now selecting a party and thinking its going to materially affect services, costs etc is basically 100% illogical.
Years ago maybe it did, but it certainly doesn't any longer.

 

[matt100]

Yes its definitely dragged the last few years since it reached around £12k. But the change from £7k ish to £10k happened quite quickly because it was a Lib Dem condition of going into coalition. But in itself that was only catching up what fiscal drag had been happening under Blair Brown.

You're quite close to a "but labour" argument there tbh. As with everything else they've had 14 years to "fix" whatever they like.

The other bit missing from your chart is average wages and the drag that comes from wage increases pushing people into higher bands.

 

[danlightbulb]

They were heavily centrally funded, that has been cut massively
They have been restricted from raising council tax by what they need to cover the shortfall and the increased costs
The ever aging population has placed further and further demands on the local councils (their statutory duties)

Its completely obvious why they are failing, and more and more are resorting to selling assets etc to balance the books

This is true, but our taxes haven't gone down - quite the contrary in fact, the general tax burden is the highest its ever been.

So if central funding has been cut for councils, but our wider taxes haven't reduced, then where is that money going instead?

Because we could stand for higher local taxes, if it was offset by lower central taxes to make it neutral - but that isn't happening.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

This is true, but our taxes haven't gone down - quite the contrary in fact, the general tax burden is the highest its ever been.

So if central funding has been cut for councils, but our wider taxes haven't reduced, then where is that money going instead?

Because we could stand for higher local taxes, if it was offset by lower central taxes to make it neutral - but that isn't happening.

Its not going elsewhere, there is a significant increase in the required expenditure for old age.
The number of pensioners in raw number, with higher life expectancy its draining funds from councils.

Its not, and very rarely is a zero sum game with the nations finances.

 

[413x]

Its not going elsewhere, there is a significant increase in the required expenditure for old age.
The number of pensioners in raw number, with higher life expectancy its draining funds from councils.

Its not, and very rarely is a zero sum game with the nations finances.

Its going to get worse.. It'll be harder and harder to balance the books. May just have to get used to standard of living going down or choose the American system where if you aren't successful you die much earlier.

 

[danlightbulb]

Its not going elsewhere, there is a significant increase in the required expenditure for old age.
The number of pensioners in raw number, with higher life expectancy its draining funds from councils.

Its not, and very rarely is a zero sum game with the nations finances.

Sure, so we have to accept lower growth then, decline in living standards? Why should people like you and I accept lower living standards when there are individuals and corporates out there with billions to spare?

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Its going to get worse.. It'll be harder and harder to balance the books. May just have to get used to standard of living going down or choose the American system where if you aren't successful you die much earlier.

It certainly is going to get worse.
There is really only one way out of it that I can see, and I know it massively triggers some people, but thats wealth taxation.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Sure, so we have to accept lower growth then, decline in living standards? Why should people like you and I accept lower living standards when there are individuals and corporates out there with billions to spare?

Thats not what I said, I was just correcting your view in regards taxation

I am very much of the opinion like yourself that there has to be some balance.
I mean I don't hold there should be some guarantee in regards living standards, nor a permanent improving trend
But thats not to say that I believe there needs to be some readjustment.
And the only readjustment I can see that can significantly move the needle is in regards wealth taxation.
Or at a minimum as the first stage at least aligning passive wealth generation taxation with income taxation.

 

[danlightbulb]

Thats not what I said, I was just correcting your view in regards taxation

I am very much of the opinion like yourself that there has to be some balance.
I mean I don't hold there should be some guarantee in regards living standards, nor a permanent improving trend
But thats not to say that I believe there needs to be some readjustment.
And the only readjustment I can see that can significantly move the needle is in regards wealth taxation.
Or at a minimum as the first stage at least aligning passive wealth generation taxation with income taxation.

The issue I have is that until a party proposes a long term plan for fairer taxation, then I will continue to vote for whoever offers personal tax cuts, because that is the only thing I can vote for that benefits me when there is no long term vision to sway me otherwise.

I don't really want to see local services cut or NHS in decline, but I also don't think they are well run, and I also don't think that burden should fall on low to middle earners all the time.

 

[413x]

It certainly is going to get worse.
There is really only one way out of it that I can see, and I know it massively triggers some people, but thats wealth taxation.

I guess as the electorate we may have a choice.
We need a party to lay it out.

Either we grow inequality and rich get richer and poor get poorer.
Or we tax wealth and try to bring the gap down.

I expect people will vote for the former. I mean the tories have to be this bad for Labour to get a sniff.

 

[danlightbulb]

I expect people will vote for the former. I mean the tories have to be this bad for Labour to get a sniff.

Labour should be bolder on tax, I don't understand why they aren't. They should come out with a strong analysis proposing to lift both personal allowance and 40% rate thresholds whilst recovering that from the 1% higher earners, corporates and wealth.

With the right evidence people should realise that it's only the top 1% that would be worse off. Why would people vote to protect the top 1% other than being scaremongered into it, labour need to counter that.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I guess as the electorate we may have a choice.
We need a party to lay it out.

Either we grow inequality and rich get richer and poor get poorer.
Or we tax wealth and try to bring the gap down.

I expect people will vote for the former. I mean the tories have to be this bad for Labour to get a sniff.

The chances fall constantly. At least they do right now. That could reverse later.

Who are the asset rich, cash poor generally. Ie those who pay least/little tax and yet sit on high wealth?
Pensioners of course.
Who as a group vote quite heavily.

 

[Mr Badger]

Labour should be bolder on tax, I don't understand why they aren't. They should come out with a strong analysis proposing to lift both personal allowance and 40% rate thresholds whilst recovering that from the 1% higher earners, corporates and wealth.

With the right evidence people should realise that it's only the top 1% that would be worse off. Why would people vote to protect the top 1% other than being scaremongered into it, labour need to counter that.

Isn't the conventional wisdom that if you ask the mega rich to pay tax, they will abandon the UK and run off abroad? This seems a particularly high risk these days now people know that the fabled paradise of Rwanda is officially safe...

 

[danlightbulb]

Who are the asset rich, cash poor generally. Ie those who pay least/little tax and yet sit on high wealth?
Pensioners of course.
Who as a group vote quite heavily

They aren't the 1% we need to tax more though. Pensioners need to have their fears allayed that it's not their wealth (i.e their house) that the country is after.

Until a party does that properly then that group can continue to be scared into voting Tory.

 

[matt100]

Isn't the conventional wisdom that if you ask the mega rich to pay tax, they will abandon the UK and run off abroad? This seems a particularly high risk these days now people know that the fabled paradise of Rwanda is officially safe...

Yes and if so, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Trickle down is proven to be total nonsense.

They aren't the 1% we need to tax more though. Pensioners need to have their fears allayed that it's not their wealth (i.e their house) that the country is after.

Until a party does that properly then that group can continue to be scared into voting Tory.

But it is exactly what we need to do? Passing on ever higher house "values" with the constant tory threat of lower inheritance tax is a massive drag on social mobility. It's completely unsustainable and the endpoint is basically 1 person having ALL the money.

 

[danlightbulb]

But it is exactly what we need to do? Passing on ever higher house "values" with the constant tory threat of lower inheritance tax is a massive drag on social mobility. It's completely unsustainable and the endpoint is basically 1 person having ALL the money.

John and Doris with their £500k house in Bedfordshire aren't the top 1%. They probably think they are, and the real top 1% are quite happy to let them think they are, but they aren't.

Labour need to be doing work to get to the real facts and to convince people. Who are the real top 1%, and how will they be taxed more? Don't worry John and Doris, its not you. That's the work Labour should be doing, but they aren't.


Here's a nice little calc to play with which grades your income, savings, property wealth and spending. https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1802/calculator/index.html

Im in the top 20% for income but the bottom 30% for property wealth and savings. If I put a pensioner in with a £500k house but basic state pension, they come out bottom 10% for income but top 10% for property wealth, so they wouldn't be top 1%, or anywhere near, overall.

Unfortunately the calc doesn't give you an overall combined result.

 

[slinxy]

Its not going elsewhere, there is a significant increase in the required expenditure for old age.
The number of pensioners in raw number, with higher life expectancy its draining funds from councils.

Its not, and very rarely is a zero sum game with the nations finances.

hmmm... if only we had people that would come to this country to work then return home and be "old" in their own country.

 

[matt100]

John and Doris with their £500k house in Bedfordshire aren't the top 1%. They probably think they are, and the real top 1% are quite happy to let them think they are, but they aren't.

Labour need to be doing work to get to the real facts and to convince people. Who are the real top 1%, and how will they be taxed more? Don't worry John and Doris, its not you. That's the work Labour should be doing, but they aren't.


Here's a nice little calc to play with which grades your income, savings, property wealth and spending. https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1802/calculator/index.html

Im in the top 20% for income but the bottom 30% for property wealth and savings. If I put a pensioner in with a £500k house but basic state pension, they come out bottom 10% for income but top 10% for property wealth, so they wouldn't be top 1%, or anywhere near, overall.

Unfortunately the calc doesn't give you an overall combined result.

I never said anything about 1%

Your house is an asset, an asset is your wealth, you should use your wealth to pay for your care in old age.

Similarly your income is taxed, inheritance is income, you've done nothing to earn it. It should be taxed.

 

[danlightbulb]

I never said anything about 1%

Your house is an asset, an asset is your wealth, you should use your wealth to pay for your care in old age.

Similarly your income is taxed, inheritance is income, you've done nothing to earn it. It should be taxed.

You were replying to my post and I was talking about the top 1%.

Why would Labour try and go after the things you suggest above when it will only alienate people, instead of trying to go after the real top 1%.

 

[matt100]

You were replying to my post and I was talking about the top 1%.

Why would Labour try and go after the things you suggest above when it will only alienate people, instead of trying to go after the real top 1%.

I know but why not both? Why be disingenuous about the challenge faced?

1% is arbitrary, yes they should be taxed more, much more. That doesn't mean there shouldn't also be a substantially redistributive inheritance tax AFTER you've used your assets to pay for your care in old age?