lazyred

Cracking down on tax evasion means going after small businesses not the rich. From June 2023 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tax-gap-holds-steady-at-48 Further findings for the 2021 to 2022 tax gap publication show: at 56% (£20.2 billion), small businesses represent the largest proportion of the tax gap by group, followed by criminals, large businesses and mid-sized businesses at 11% each (£4.1 billion, £3.9 billion and £3.8 billion respectively) wealthy individuals account for 5% (£1.7 billion) while all other individuals account for the remaining 6% (£2.1 billion) of the overall tax gap Income Tax, National Insurance contributions and Capital Gains Tax makes up 35% (£12.7 billion) of the total tax gap when measured by type of tax Corporation Tax (CT) is now estimated as the second largest component of the tax gap by tax type at 30% (£10.6 billion). New data has increased our understanding of the CT tax gap, resulting in revised estimates the VAT gap continues a long-term downward trend falling from 14.0% (£11.9 billion) in 2005 to 2006 to 5.4% (£7.6 billion)

The Tories have spent the Nom Dom taxes Somehow a bit extra on Nom Dom is going to find 5Bn more. Compared to Europe UK income tax on the top earners is already simialr and on the middle/low earners quite low. This is because we take less from social taxes (National Insurance) and have a high tax free allowance. We can tax unearned income and property or wealth more and increase NI eg reverse the recent cut or make pensioners pay it. However taxing to European levels will mean more from middle earners. https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/how-do-uk-tax-revenues-compare-internationally?tab=tab-402

This link concludes its better overall to preserve exisitng forests even though new trees absorn more carbon. https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-need-offset-our-carbon-emissions

Wouldn't that release carbon?

Yes but the funny thing in this case is that she didn't need to live apart from her family to avoid the tax. This post from Feb quoted earlier is about the tax rules. https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/02/29/rayner/ If she is telling the truth or lied she may still have owed tax. A married couple with multiple houses can nominate one as the main residence regardless of where they mainly live. If you don't nominate an assumption is made. The deliberate tax avoiders know the rules and flip their houses. It all looks like a mistake she could have cleared up weeks ago and the attempted cover up made things worse.

Hebden Bridge Trades Club, thanks for the tip

Just got tickets for October Drift in a couple of weeks. You should be on the guest list for your promo work.

I agree with this as well, I just hope it's sorted quickly with an apology.

Lied about where she lived not about the tax. it might be true but its unlikely a person gets married then lives with her brother while her new husband lives with her own child and their other children for 5 years. The tax mistake is thinking I own one house, my brother lives there rent free so no tax to pay. Easily excused, apologise and move on. Why lie? Its just the arrogance of thinking scrutiny and accountability don't apply because I'm on the left.

So the Tores have been investigated then. Raynor could have used the honest mistake defence but she decided to lie instead. Lammys defence this morning is that different standards apply to govt and opposition mps

Its baffling she didn't kill this story weeks ago. Either publish the advice that she owed nothing or admit an honest mistake because it was her only house and pay a few thousand.

Daily Mail reckon they have proof Angela Raynor lied about where she lived before she sold her old house. Based on her social media posts from the time.

Reports the cabinet are split on Isreal's compliance wth international law and whether to keep supplying arms. It's more symbolic for us as USA and Germany are the big arms suppliers

The context matters as well. I googled both. It looks like thug has racial connotations in the US though not really in the UK yet. I'm still baffled by Brave New World but it is about eugenics. I think it might be mixed up with New World Order. My search returned a story about the new Captain America film. This was originally called New World Order but was renamed after a protest. The new name is Brave New World. So they might have picked a second dodgy name but there is no protest about it.

Thats fair enough. Everyone has different red lines. For me this time its kicking out the tories. If I lived in your area knowing that Labour will win overall I coud vote Labour, you could vote Green, we'd have a Tory or Lib Dem MP and a Labour Govt. If it was closer nationally I'd be more inclined to vote tactically to ensure the Tory lost. Each time and place is different.

Its not about being happy with the changes. Its understanding that the reasons might be nothing to do with the merit of the actual policy. I'm not happy with the Labour U turms but I can see why are done. So far for me I can still support them. If they go too far for me, maybe I'll vote for someone else. They won't mind losing me as long as they still win.

No I was criticising you for applying different standards to different parties. i think the Greens were right to go into coalition, having power lets them implement some things they want at an acceptable cost of some things they don't like. I also understand why Labour accepted the childcare policy despite its flaws because the Tory attack on them was aimed at working families who are a target group for Labour

I understand perfectly how coalitions work. I don't condemn parties for adjusting policy to win power. You don't seem to like this happening before an election but are ok if it happens after.

Of course it is. I'm just pointing out that the Greens drop prinicples and change policy to gain power just like Labour have to do now. The Greens are being presented as a pure alternative for people that don't like the grubby compromises necessary to win.

Bad headlines based on lies have screwed Labour in the past. The Tories had already started saying Labour will cost you thousands in childcare. In an election year they have to neutralise that attack. Even a proposed review would be used against Labour. The Greens don't alway mean what they say, they accepted stuff they had campaigned against to go into coalition in Scotland.

Minimal effect so far partly due to end of free movement and salary thresholds for immigrants. After Brexit wages in areas like retail and warehouses rose above the minimum rates. Long term it should lead to higher productivity and automation which will cut jobs but grow the economy. Min wage has reached the target of 66% of median so there won't be big increases going forward.

Just read Trevor Griffiths obituary this morning and made a note to search for another of his, Bill Brand, about a left wing MP and the compromises of power. https://www.youtube.com/@billbrand8889/videos

Isreal using AI to help identify Hamas targets. I guess this is the future, eventually the AI system will direct drones to bomb targets decided by a computer with no human oversight. The article also claims that at the start Isreal set limits of 15 civilain casualties for authorising strikes against low ranking Hamas fighters. It's stretching the proportionality principles. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai-database-hamas-airstrikes

Just checked that Best for Britain Survation poll and it predicts a massive Labour win in Bristol Central!

Labour target seats are more pro housing development https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f7983895-4f45-4719-a896-535bf6cffed1?shareToken=bfa1c3b1c55989c47a113277ab0ef45c