http://www.car4play.com/forum Car4play forum en-gb Thu, 23 Jul 2026 12:36:21 +0100 Copyright: Car4play webmaster@car4play.com (Technical) 5 car4play690685 Thu, 23 Jul 2026 12:36:21 +0100 >> element who don't want or refuse help for various reasons i spoke with someone who ran a charity for homeless. Basically even if you could throw all the money in the world at the problem you will never get rid of homelessness completely as some people just prefer to be "off-grid" as it were. They don't want the control and "hassle" of using social accommodation. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690685&v=e car4play690664 Wed, 22 Jul 2026 19:07:39 +0100 A hostel was built for them around here, the result - more came to the area because of the hostel! http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690664&v=e car4play690661 Wed, 22 Jul 2026 16:57:10 +0100 >> Well they haven’t sorted it in Manchester. Reports are that it was initially successful but becuase it was Manchester only it drew in more people from surrounding areas. The hard core who don't want to be helped is certainly an issue. Another is that accomodation in shelters is often conditional on being off drugs and alcohol. A A third is those who have dogs. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690661&v=e car4play690659 Wed, 22 Jul 2026 16:42:23 +0100 >> What do you do with these people? http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690659&v=e car4play690658 Wed, 22 Jul 2026 15:59:20 +0100 The promise to end rough sleeping is one that most would happily endorse - Well they haven’t sorted it in Manchester. When I was there in February there were dozens of rough sleepers, some of them quite intimidating, camped out near Piccadilly station. I believe there are numerous initiatives to tackle the problem but there is an element who don’t want or refuse help for various reasons. What do you do with these people? http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690658&v=e car4play690657 Wed, 22 Jul 2026 14:16:39 +0100 >> "£2 each way is £4 return so I'm not sure of the point about single >> tickets." >> >> It also applies to a single bus, so if you change buses (perhaps to another >> operator), you pay another £2. So £8 return. Around here there's a £5 dayrider ticket that allows use on any Stagecoach bus, all day. At the moment, it makes sense to buy one for any return journey. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690657&v=e car4play690656 Wed, 22 Jul 2026 14:09:40 +0100 Burnham is starting out a bit like a stall holder down the market flogging the cheap tat before the money grab comes later. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690656&v=e car4play690655 Wed, 22 Jul 2026 13:56:05 +0100 >> It also applies to a single bus, so if you change buses (perhaps to another operator), you pay another £2. So £8 return. >> Not necessarily - it's a cap, not an overall fare. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690655&v=e car4play690654 Wed, 22 Jul 2026 13:54:58 +0100 >> "£2 each way is £4 return so I'm not sure of the point about single >> tickets." >> >> It also applies to a single bus, so if you change buses (perhaps to another >> operator), you pay another £2. So £8 return. However you spin it it's a cost reduction. I think it was over £4 into Northampton the last time I used a bus. Still not collected the bus pass it's once in a blue moon I use one. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690654&v=e car4play690653 Wed, 22 Jul 2026 13:21:10 +0100 Cap on bus fares is a sensible way to make it easier for people to take work. VAT on electricity is easy to understand in pursuit of cost of living focus. Both are relatively low cost and time limited - so a promotional success without significant financial penalty. The promise to end rough sleeping is one that most would happily endorse - it is a disgrace. There are ~5000 rough sleepers compared with ~94000 asylum seekers. Rough sleepers have many issues (alcohol, mental etc) but compared to asylum seekers it is a trivial cost. Contrast with the Starmer government - 3 weeks post election he proposed scrapping the winter fuel allowance followed by a U-turn. Starmer may have been a decent man - but severely lacking in political nous. Have to wait a while to see whether more substantial policies are properly costed and funded. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690653&v=e car4play690652 Wed, 22 Jul 2026 13:04:46 +0100 The freeze only applies to single tickets. Bus companies are free to increase other gates such as zone and season tickets. I’m sure it will help some. The headline bus s fares frozen is not however altogether accurate. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690652&v=e car4play690651 Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:35:12 +0100 "£2 each way is £4 return so I'm not sure of the point about single tickets." It also applies to a single bus, so if you change buses (perhaps to another operator), you pay another £2. So £8 return. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690651&v=e car4play690650 Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:56:12 +0100 >> It doesn’t start until 1st January. >> It only lasts for a year >> It only applies to single tickets >> Pensioners already get free bus travel >> If you live in London your fares are already capped at £1.75 I'd imagine my former colleague who uses the bus to commute will be glad of the saving. £2 each way is £4 return so I'm not sure of the point about single tickets. If it improves ridership and services locally cease to be on the fringes of viability that's another plus. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690650&v=e car4play690649 Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:26:44 +0100 The next big thing announced today is cheaper bus fares. Being capped at £2. Good news for some but not quite as big a deal perhaps as we might be led to believe by the headline announcement. It doesn’t start until 1st January. It only lasts for a year It only applies to single tickets Pensioners already get free bus travel If you live in London your fares are already capped at £1.75 http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690649&v=e car4play690647 Wed, 22 Jul 2026 09:10:19 +0100 She had Heart & Kidney problems Heart Lazy and Couldnae be bothered (Couldnae = Could Not ) http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690647&v=e car4play690644 Tue, 21 Jul 2026 13:45:00 +0100 as with many of these issues, I am sure we would see improvements if the Govt was prepared to pour more resources into the system to weed out the false claims etc. We also have an issue whereby in certain areas it is kudos if you can cheat the system - as opposed to these folk being grassed up they will be asked for help in doing the same. Try telling someone on a couple of hundred quid a week benefit that they are doing wrong whilst explaining how Michelle Mone is being punished for stealing millions. Try telling someone who is taking cash in hand how they are cheating the tax system when there are constant stories of rich folk and companies "cheating" the tax system and not being punished. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690644&v=e car4play690643 Tue, 21 Jul 2026 13:39:57 +0100 If i was in your shoes FB I would have been notifying the appropriate authorities to see if any of it was illegal http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690643&v=e car4play690642 Tue, 21 Jul 2026 10:36:12 +0100 >> For thse who think we have a mostly effective benefits system - have a look >> at: >> >> https://faq.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/knowledgebase/article/KA-03404/en-us I'm wary of that as a comprehensive list. Some are legacy benefits that are no longer open for new claims but are too difficult to remove for existing claimants. Income Support (whether for strikers or not) was subsumed into Universal Credit by April 2025. Invalidity/Incapacity Benefit and I think Severe Disablement Allowance were converted to Employment Support Allowance under Blair/Brown. Cold weather payments are part of UC. Constant Attendance Allowance and Exceptionally Severe Disablement Allowance are parts of the system for people injured in the military. In practical terms if you lose your job, or become too unwell to do it, once Sick Pay from the Employer (SSP) ends - in the health case - your choices are Jobseekers or Employment Support Allowance with the possibility of a top up from means tested UC. JSA/ESA are based on having paid NI Conts in previous years. The means test for working age benefits is a reasonably consistent capital limit of £16k and a taper of benefit for earnings. The way forward for 'neets' is reinstatement of proper reassessments and support to (re)enter the work force. The biggest driver of the 'exploding' welfare bill isn't working age or health/disability benefits. It's the State Pension for the boomers followed by 'Gen X'. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690642&v=e car4play690641 Tue, 21 Jul 2026 09:38:06 +0100 I am prepared to accept that there are not all that many genuine scroungers like the one you describe. Part of the reason that our taxation system is so complex - having evolved over about 200 years - is the irregular addition of 'benefits', often as vote-winners, which later become unmanageably expensive but cannot be reversed for the same reason, by then being a universal perk. The only (impossible) solution would be complete revision and simplification. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690641&v=e car4play690640 Tue, 21 Jul 2026 09:28:47 +0100 Well the new PM has laid out his cards, looks he wants Healey to find more money for defence. Few of Starmers picks left behind. I see the chap doing welfare reform has been kept on. Streeting got a top job, probably as reward for not running against Andy B. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690640&v=e car4play690639 Tue, 21 Jul 2026 06:16:36 +0100 The neighbour just did not want to work. The only times she worked was when she was forced to go on a college course(s), temporary meter reader etc etc. Then it was BAU - benefits & M&D recycling rent. Between Benefits and the recycled rent money from mum & dad she was happy to bump along without working. Her younger brother & sister (M&D were their landlord) followed similar paths for roughly 20 years. Her "lifestyle" started to unravel when Council sent 2 people around as she had not responded to letters or phone calls. She had upped sticks around Easter time and gone to South of England then apparently France. In roughly August I was out cutting grass when I was asked if I knew where the neighbour was. I said, she had gone on "holiday". I was then asked when she was due back. My reply was unknown as I had not seen her, or her parents, in months. She had left around Easter time and had not been seen since! The Council had been paying rent to her parents when the house was empty! The house went up for rent and then sale - it needed lot of work. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690639&v=e car4play690638 Tue, 21 Jul 2026 02:19:28 +0100 For thse who think we have a mostly effective benefits system - have a look at: https://faq.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/knowledgebase/article/KA-03404/en-us It is a list of benefits payable in the UK - probably fairly complete. 15 are taxable as part of normal income, 33 are not taxable. Each benefit has potentiallly different criteria applying, including: s - state pension based on years contributions - some means tested - although I suspect there is no consistent definition of "means" - some based on age - some withdrawn progressively depending on other income - other "cliff edge" Each may have been introduced amd possibly later modified with the best of intentions but so complex a benefits shambles means that: - marginal tax rates may approach (possibly exceed) 100% - a major disincentive to seek work - many deserving claimants almost certainly fail to claim that which is rightly due - complexity leaves the whole process open to fraud - it it hugely costly to administer - public confidence in the total welfare bill is justifiably close to zero Society should properly support those in genuine need. However debating the rights and wrongs of individual cases or benefits can best described as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it gently sinks beneath the waves. Radically rationalising the complete system is essential The failed Starmer attempt to tinker at the adges was wholly inadequate. The benefits bill should be capped at current levels with no new funds until the mess is properly resolved. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690638&v=e car4play690626 Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:20:10 +0100 >> In the USA Benefits have a span of up to 5 years. >> No such thing as living on Benefits from leaving school to drawing a pension. How does their system provide for people who cannot work due to a health condition? >> A nearish neighbour was widowed with 2 teenage kids. Her parents, who I knew, bought >> a 4 bed house for her to live in and then collected rent from the >> Council. They then recycled the rent to the daughter who did not work / on >> benefits, bought her cars and kept her horse (there were 2 initially). >> >> This went on for almost 20 years. The parents died and she disappeared to somewhere, More of a parent problem than a benefit system issue. Any idea why she was on benefits? Health condition? I can't remember how conditionality for single parents worked in the past; it may have been quite loose at least until senior school age. Nowadays it ramps up after baby is one with an expectation to seek/take work once (youngest) is 3. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690626&v=e car4play690622 Mon, 20 Jul 2026 08:37:22 +0100 In the USA Benefits have a span of up to 5 years. No such thing as living on Benefits from leaving school to drawing a pension. A nearish neighbour was widowed with 2 teenage kids. Her parents, who I knew, bought a 4 bed house for her to live in and then collected rent from the Council. They then recycled the rent to the daughter who did not work / on benefits, bought her cars and kept her horse (there were 2 initially). This went on for almost 20 years. The parents died and she disappeared to somewhere, http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690622&v=e car4play690615 Sun, 19 Jul 2026 21:16:30 +0100 I keep saying this, I don't condone benefit fiddles but when the public finances are strained it's absurd that the first thought seems to be to take some money from those who basically have none. The US is morally bankrupt and the American Dream is a con trick. We aren't that much different, just a bit watered down. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690615&v=e car4play690614 Sun, 19 Jul 2026 18:56:30 +0100 Capitalism seems to be based on the “something for nothing principal. Otherwise explain how the likes off Elon Musk and Trump became multi billionaires. No wonder some people think exaggerating a social security is OK. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690614&v=e car4play690612 Sun, 19 Jul 2026 15:25:53 +0100 > I think all of us like the idea of a freebie. But those with any degree of conscience suffer a certain sense of shame if it is obtained immorally - for want of a better adjective. Once the habit becomes widespread and 'normal' we are all on the slippery slope. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690612&v=e car4play690602 Sun, 19 Jul 2026 10:13:45 +0100 >>But the basic problem for growth are the disincentives to work - specifically, any extra work>> >> Aye, the marginal tax rates are a whopping disincentive. I took my (reduced) NHS pension at 50, and still work 2 days/week which along with some other income adds up to put me well into/over to the 67.5% marginal rate (in Scotland) between £100-125k.... And no pheckin way will I be working more than 2 days/week unless the marginal rates change....Which is a shame after it costs the Govt ~£400k to train each GP.>> Well, at least you are still here! The country was in such a rotten ungovernable mess in 1972 when I qualified that the first thing many of us did was to take the ECFMG exam to enable work in the USA. The fact that the UK trained us (no fees and student grants rather than usurious loans) created some loyalty to stay. I guess no such feeling exists now. As for Mr Burnham, he will clearly pander to votes from the something-for-nothing brigade. I doubt if we will hear stuff along the lines of JFK's question 'ask not what your country can do for you....etc' from his lips. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690602&v=e car4play690596 Sat, 18 Jul 2026 22:14:48 +0100 >>But the basic problem for growth are the disincentives to work - specifically, any extra work. Aye, the marginal tax rates are a whopping disincentive. I took my (reduced) NHS pension at 50, and still work 2 days/week which along with some other income adds up to put me well into/over to the 67.5% marginal rate (in Scotland) between £100-125k. So I ram a SIPP to the max and pay even less tax. And no pheckin way will I be working more than 2 days/week unless the marginal rates change. Which is a shame after it costs the Govt ~£400k to train each GP. So much for productivity. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690596&v=e car4play690594 Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:02:37 +0100 That's my recollection too Bromp. Band A: £1,639.41 Band B: £1,912.64 Band C: £2,185.89 Band D: £2,459.11 Band E: £3,005.58 Band F: £3,552.04 Band G: £4,098.52 Band H: £4,918.22 The council tax here. Up to band D, the steps are about £250. Above that £550 except G to H which is £800. H of course picks up a very large band and there might be a opw for another Band or two. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690594&v=e car4play690591 Sat, 18 Jul 2026 19:20:10 +0100 >> Several of the owners of those presented personal cases for dropping to >> band F, mainly to avoid the specially punitive G rate set by the inevitable local >> socialist council. Can you explain the 'punitive band G' thing? As I understand it the council sets the Band D and the other bands are either fractions or multiples. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690591&v=e car4play690590 Sat, 18 Jul 2026 19:19:48 +0100 At least he has some experience. Local council here went LibDem a few years back, they were promising all kinds of goodies but once they got into power they realised it's just not that easy to make significant change, for all kinds of reasons. I'm sure the Private Eye podcast covered something like that with the Reform councils, full of people with no political experience at all and thinking they'd be able to "make a difference", but finding there was legislation, committees and procedures to get through, over and above any financial justifications. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690590&v=e car4play690588 Sat, 18 Jul 2026 18:29:48 +0100 >> All three methods have some merit or logic - the one we ended up with is that which created least public anger. 30 years on the largely unchanged banding arrangements probably need review - a political hot potato better left untouched. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690588&v=e car4play690587 Sat, 18 Jul 2026 17:50:22 +0100 The tax and benefits system needs complete overhaul. Being charitable one could accept that every change was made with the best of intentions, but what we have ended up with is a total shambles. It is complex, often disincentivises work and is open to fraud. If the personal tax allowance were increased to the level of total benefits (including UC, rent, prescriptions etc etc) then there would be no need to taper benefits to reflect any earnings. Every £1 earned would be taxed at whatever the standard rate is. It may need a tax allowance which varies individually rather than one size fits all (eg: to reflect child responsibilities) but any personalisation should be kept to a minimum. Go back ~30 years and this was anyway the case. Tax rates and thresholds would need to change accordingly. This is simplistic - the needs of those on benefits vary significantly. Implementing such a system would throw up significant winners and losers - based on the assumption the total tax/benefits bill remains balanced. Transition may need to be planned over a number of years ratherr than all in one go. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs - some people would be most unhappy - hopefully balanced by those who would get a fairer deal. It will take a brave politician to ake sense of the mess created over the last 4 decades - is Burnham up for it. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690587&v=e car4play690585 Sat, 18 Jul 2026 17:00:21 +0100 >> I'm beginning to respect Burnham (mind you, I thought Starmer may be a good bet) >> for announcing he'll demote Rachel-from-accounts and renew gas/oil drilling in the North Sea. I guess >> that may put the millipede in his place. Has he actually announced Reeves' demotion - I know it's a foregone conclusion. Miliband E will need a 'Great Office' and or the DPM title otherwise he'll justifiably feel he was stabbed in the back. Or of course if speculation is right and Mahmood is Chancellor designate he's lined up to succeed when she cocks up. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690585&v=e car4play690584 Sat, 18 Jul 2026 16:49:01 +0100 I'm beginning to respect Burnham (mind you, I thought Starmer may be a good bet) for announcing he'll demote Rachel-from-accounts and renew gas/oil drilling in the North Sea. I guess that may put the millipede in his place. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690584&v=e car4play690582 Sat, 18 Jul 2026 16:23:48 +0100 >> You're spot on about the Universal Credit taper. Employee earns £10. Loses £2 to income tax and another 80p for NI so left with £7.20. His Universal Credit is reduced by £3.96 by the taper (55p off UC for every £ of earnings) so he's £3.24 better off.>> No wonder we have a 'black economy'. A good start would be to copy France and Spain with a law forbidding cash payment for goods or services over E1000. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690582&v=e car4play690581 Sat, 18 Jul 2026 16:17:34 +0100 >> Dividends come out of company profits which have corporation tax already applied. So add that onto your dividend tax and you are about quits apart from NIs>> Banks pay corporation tax and also bank profit surcharge; interest payments presumably come out of their profit. That is not added to the tax on gross interest income received which is subject to a greater tax than one's dividend income, as Bromptonaut has pointed out. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690581&v=e car4play690580 Sat, 18 Jul 2026 14:36:05 +0100 You're spot on about the Universal Credit taper. Employee earns £10. Loses £2 to income tax and another 80p for NI so left with £7.20. His Universal Credit is reduced by £3.96 by the taper (55p off UC for every £ of earnings) so he's £3.24 better off. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690580&v=e car4play690579 Sat, 18 Jul 2026 13:47:29 +0100 A while back I asked a number of AIs what would they do if they applied first principles to the problem. They all concurred on the following - the degrees are fine tuning. But the basic problem for growth are the disincentives to work - specifically, any extra work. So this is where the marginal tax rates we have are some of the highest in the world. In plain english, "if I could work to get another £1, is it worth it". And the less people work, the more welfare and less tax revenue you get. The worse marginal rates are for those on benefits where there is an "effective" taxation through the loss of benefits if that person works. It's up in the 80% region. This is through no fault of anyone but a system that is trying to be fair by "means testing" people for receipt of various welfare benefits. It becomes the one easy hook for lowering council tax, paying rent, prescriptions and anything else you can think of that is benefits related. I have probably got that list wrong as I have never been on benefits, but you get the point. What is needed here is a more graded way of tapering the benefit reduction on work. The aim is to radically reduce the marginal rate. Then onto taxation itself. Our system is the most complicated in the world, and that takes lots of resources to administer. These are just wasted resources as they do nothing for the country. So the next step is to unify NI contributions and income tax. NIs are effectively used as tax anyway, so scrap them and just put the basic rate to somewhere around 25-8%. This helps too with the marginal rates for higher tax payers where the top rate of 45% would used. Next step is to move the tax thresholds. To simplify accounting for a lot of people and to help those at the bottom end most, move the tax free threshold to £18-20K. if it had been indexed linked from years ago it would have been there by now. Similarly higher rate tax should really only be for high earners - so this should be around £80-90K. Again if this had been index linked when first introduced it would be at that amount now anyway. As it is, freezing the top rate until 2030 which is what they are doing means that over a third of earners will be paying higher rate tax compared with less than 5% when it was first introduced. Of course these changes would have to be introduced carefully and slowly, because they rely on more people working and that takes time. Doing them immediately would have the Truss effect of spooking the markets as effectively you still have massive spending and no way to pay for it, causing the bond rate to rocket. As an aside, no one seems to be complaining about the 10 and 30 year bond rates being much higher now than when apparently Liz Truss "crashed the economy". A story of a frog being boiled slowly comes to mind. This only really addresses the taxation / benefits taper problem. Of course there are a whole host of other issues to address but some of those are even more contentious than this! http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690579&v=e car4play690578 Sat, 18 Jul 2026 13:28:19 +0100 Dividends come out of company profits which have corporation tax already applied. So add that onto your dividend tax and you are about quits apart from NIs http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690578&v=e car4play690575 Sat, 18 Jul 2026 12:18:45 +0100 Community charge (poll tax - occupants) replaced rates (property valuation). Council tax (property value banding) replaced community charge. All three methods have some merit or logic - the one we ended up with is that which created least public anger. 30 years on the largely unchanged banding arrangements probably need review - a political hot potato better left untouched. How taxes are raised (not just council tax) is not some function of "fairness". It is a mixture of individual capacity and willingness to pay, ease of collection, potential for avoidance, impact on behaviours etc. A rate so high it drives those who would be subject to avoidance, evasion or emigration is pointless. This is true for all taxes - eg: inheritance tax, income tax, wealth taxes, dividend taxes, capital gains tax etc. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690575&v=e car4play690574 Sat, 18 Jul 2026 09:17:24 +0100 >> Dividend income is not taxed leniently. It is taxed in the same way as other >> income. Well up to a point!! The first £500 is tax free with tax rate on sums over that lower than standard rate. >> As for council tax on large houses it is meant to be a tax to >> pay for local services. Are the bins of the rich especially costly to empty? I >> suspect the poor are a bigger drain on local services than the rich. Council Tax is one strand of funding for local government. In practice it's less then half. The biggest costs are Social Care and Police/Fire. Given the proportion devoted to adult social care your assertion about 'the poor' may technically be correct. As to the principle of how it's charged you must remember as well as I do that it was a replacement for the Community Charge which amply demonstrated the unfairness of the 'bins of the rich' meme. It was regressive from the get go and is now desperately so. The council tax bill for an ordinary house in West Northamptonshire is more than for Buckingham Palace!! http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690574&v=e car4play690573 Sat, 18 Jul 2026 09:08:08 +0100 Obviously a new England manager means changes to the squad. Some of the lads will be disappointed but that's the way the game works. My personal opinion is that absolutely nothing will change. Irrespective of the leader the Government itself is hamstrung by corruption and lobby groups (look at how Miliband found it absolutely impossible to introduce any kind of energy reform or delinking of gas from electricity prices). While I like Burnham as a politician the first announcements I've heard from him are not encouraging (the most backward and yet relevant here being to halt testing on autonomous vehicles because it'll take work away from minicab drivers). http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690573&v=e car4play690572 Sat, 18 Jul 2026 08:57:56 +0100 Dividend income is not taxed leniently. It is taxed in the same way as other income. As for council tax on large houses it is meant to be a tax to pay for local services. Are the bins of the rich especially costly to empty? I suspect the poor are a bigger drain on local services than the rich. Then there is the practical point that many living in £1M plus houses in the SE are not income rich. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690572&v=e car4play690568 Fri, 17 Jul 2026 22:03:59 +0100 There's a long way to go before the pip-squeaking rates of the early '70s are reached. (Could be as high as 98%). I cannot understand why our dividend income is taxed so leniently. Nor can I understand why council tax for expensive houses isn't higher. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690568&v=e car4play690564 Fri, 17 Jul 2026 20:05:43 +0100 I give him eighteen months tops. So long.... He's not appointing Red Ed as Chancellor so as not to upset the "Markets"... Fuel duty will rise shortly and following that the pips will squeak... and squeak and squeak. Some of you will remember the days of 33% basic rate income tax... coming to us soon. But just to be an outlier I'm giving to charity an amount equal to my tax, so I can claim it and the tax can also be claimed by the charity. When I pop my clogs It's ALL going to charity. But seriously thinking of abandoning ship too. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690564&v=e car4play690562 Fri, 17 Jul 2026 18:48:31 +0100 I give him eighteen months tops. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690562&v=e car4play690561 Fri, 17 Jul 2026 18:04:03 +0100 The public do not need to accept 5-10 years of hardship to radically improve the UK. It needs politicians with a very clear vision, effectively communicated, with the willingness to upset a large number of voters in pursuit of of their goals. They only need to do sufficient in their first term to win a second! Burnham is a far better communicator than Starmer and claims the resolve to pursue clear strategies from the outset. Whether in practice he compromise and U turns to keep the media and backbenchers onside, and avoids basic judgement errors remains to be seen. We don't know what the plan is, nor who will be selected for the major cabinet posts - he is doing a good job in managing the message so far. We will have to wait and see whether the reality lives up to the rhetoric. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690561&v=e car4play690550 Fri, 17 Jul 2026 13:36:39 +0100 >>If you were in charge and you were voted on with the acceptance of the people that there was going to be a lot of pain for the next 5-10 years Ahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa......... The British population can accept about 6 months of "hardship" before whining and bitching and blaming whoever is in charge, no matter how the hardship came to pass. 'twas always thus. http://www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=690550&v=e