James105

I think we both know you would not have mentioned her parents background if she was the daughter of white European, Australian or North American immigrants...

She is British born and recognises that in her country of birth too much immigration is an issue, and also recognises that too much immigration causes problems with integration for the people that live there, whatever the background of their parents. Her job is to deal with that. What colour she happens to be should not be part of the conversation, and the people who think it should be are (to put it politely), a bit racist.

Due to the housing market it wouldn't be fair to use assets to determine someones wealth for tax purposes. There would be situations of trying to extract money from cash poor pensioners that bought a house worth £20,000 decades ago that is now worth millions but they can barely afford to heat it in the winter. A top 10% earner makes £54,000 per year which is £3291 a month salary after tax. After mortgage, council tax, energy etc that probably leaves about £1500-2000 per month. If they have a mortgage then each interest rate rise is a big hit on their disposable income as each 1 or 2% rise will probably take away at least 10% of this. If they don't have a mortgage then on that amount saving for a deposit means years of living frugally and they are probably trapped inside the rental market. I think if you told someone on that amount they were wealthy they would laugh at you.

Sigh, the likes of yourself would no doubt have believed the "real science" at the time that the sun revolves around the earth and would have considered Galileo to be a right wing conspiracy theorist when he suggested otherwise. The "accepted wisdom" should always be challenged and people should be allowed to listen to those challenges and form their own opinion. Twitter (in its current guise) would have banned Galileo for going against the approved narrative if it had been around back then.

"will be able to air their (legally held) views" For some reason you decided to miss the full sentence here. Twitter currently censors and bans people for for airing (or expressing) their views that some may find offensive, even if the law allows them to say so. Prominent doctors and scientists were being censored for questioning the accepted covid narrative and others have been banned for claiming that men cannot become women. Musk has promised not to censor these views. See the difference? Do try to keep up.

The way to solve this then is to reduce the tax free allowance to (let's say) £5000. Then the people who earn less than £12570 will be able to benefit from the tax cuts! Everyones a winner!

"Speculation" ????! Let me guess, this "Speculation" has come from a communist/left leaning rag that cannot bear the thought that people will be able to air their (legally held) views and that those who take offence on behalf of others will not be able to censor them. To repeat the oft used phrase that the left provide whenever a legally held (but offensive to some) view is censored or someone like Trump is removed from the platform - it's a private platform and they can do what they want and those who don't like it are perfectly entitled to create their own etc...

Another way of looking at that: Taxpayer 1 earning £22570 per year currently pays £2,014 income tax. Taxpayer 2, earning £112,570 per year currently pays £32,538 income tax. So after the tax cut tax payer 1 will pay just £1914 and tax payer 2 will pay a whopping £31,538 income tax! So tax payer 2 is earning 5 times as much as tax payer 1, yet pays 15 times more income tax.

They are not giving the rich anything, they are just taking a little bit less of their money in taxes so they can choose how their hard earned income is spent, rather than the state. Now if your argument is that if the tax income is reduced, then so should the services that are paid for by taxes, then I would agree with you. NHS budget would be a good place to start I think, along with reducing benefits to incentivise those in receipt of them to take up one of the over 1 million job vacancies available.

Well, blow me down with a feather! The people who pay the most tax will save the most when it comes to tax cuts. It even looks as though those who do not pay any tax will not benefit from a tax cut at all! How can this be? This is outrageous! This is no different to Ferrari knocking 10% off their cars at the same time as Ford does the same. Those who can afford the Ferrari will make a much, much bigger saving - the rich just get all the breaks! Right, that's it, time to head over to the Guardian/Morning Star comments section so I can express some outrage...

She is an idiot. There is 2 years before the next election so there was no need to panic, and she has demonstrated that once again, the PM can be controlled by media hysteria. The Tories complaining about tax cuts are in the wrong party as cutting taxes is a bread and butter Conservative policy.

I suggest the 5 monkeys experiment offers some valuable insight into why people are still doing these things, despite being vaccinated and despite already having covid several times etc.

They are despised by a very angry left wing twitter mob, but then they always have been. That mob, whilst incredibly loud, does not carry enough votes to win elections, it merely prevents people sharing their views publicly due to the vitriol they receive by having the "wrong view", giving the angry mob the false impression that everyone agrees with them. I suspect the majority of working taxpayers do not like the idea of working hard and paying taxes so that they can fund the work shy on benefits, even if they do not say it out loud or tell the polling companies how they feel, and just because people in your own echo chamber despise the Tories, does not mean that is how the silent majority (the people who actually carry the votes needed to win) feel about them.

She needs to hold the line otherwise her position will become a lot worse. I'm still finding it mildly amusing that the markets lost their minds over a tiny £2.4bn tax cut for the wealthy, yet doesn't even blink at the hundreds of billions wasted on covid measures, gifts to Ukraine etc. What she probably needs to do is start looking at cutting services to help pay for these giveaways and make the state a bit smaller. I'm pretty sure the NHS would still find time to make their TikTok dancing videos if their diversity and equality budget was cut.

If you tell kids that there is a sky wizard that exists that works in mysterious ways, or you tell kids there is a fat guy who comes around once a year and delivers presents to them if they are well behaved, they will believe you. Because they are kids. One day they will grow up and realise what the hysterical adults of today took from them, and they will not be happy about it.

I've been down this road before and it is pointless. When someone has been indoctrinated with the propaganda then even cold, hard numbers do little here. It's a bit like being Winston trying to persuade someone that 2+2 really does equal 4.

Again, since covid deaths had an average age (in the UK at least) of 82 years old, I find this very, very hard to believe. How old were these parents? Over 80? How did they even have kids when they are so old. I'd suggest that if covid had not taken them then there would still be 10m kids without these alleged "parents" since humans are not immortal and have to die of something anyway.

I would change my mind if the stats supported it, but they don't, so I cannot.

What does that even mean? Due to the decreased life expectancy caused by poverty these same kids will end up sacrificing more years of their own lives to give (maybe) a little bit extra life for people who already had lived their lives. Covid only rarely took the lives of healthy, young individuals. This is why the answer to the "trolley problem" shouldn't be to pull the lever as the unknown or unintended consequences of intervening could cause far more devastation than pulling the lever.

So you don't know then or made it up? It was a genuine question as from what I can see people are losing their minds over a £2bn tax cut for the wealthy, whilst ignoring the tax cuts and giveaways that benefit everyone such as the 1p tax cut on basic rate and the £200bn giveaway for energy bills.

Poor kids, and not just here, but in virtually every country they have paid by far the biggest price for the overreaction of the adults to covid. Not only did they lose face to face education at the most important part of their lives, but they will be spending the rest of their lives (and probably their kids lives) paying the cost of the 2.5 years of utter madness of weak leadership and profiteering pharma companies. They will become very resentful adults when they come to realise the true cost of what the adults of today have done to their lives, even though covid was basically harmless to them. If there was another Titanic disaster I have no doubt that 70%-80% of adults of today would sacrifice the children so they could get themselves a seat on the lifeboat.

Which are what exactly?

Except that is not true is it? It's a mere £2bn for the tax cuts that brings it back the higher tax rate back into line to what the highest rate of tax was during the majority of the last Labour government. The rest of the £48bn borrowing is to fund the basic rate cut that benefits everyone who pays income tax. The poorest are going to benefit from the £200bn from help with the energy crisis.

It's quite fascinating how much time and effort has been spent finding solutions to covid that people can take all year round to "prevent" covid, and how much little time and effort has been spent finding solutions to deal with covid once someone has it. A cynical person (unlike myself who of course firmly believes big pharma puts peoples health before profits) may even suspect profiteering motives for these kind of pursuits and I personally cannot wait until we have Netflix style subscriptions to big pharma so they can keep us healthy with their preventative medications for whatever comes next. Fingers crossed they come up with a climate change nasal spray soon!

So you disagree that health is not related to a countries wealth and the lower life expectancy in poorer countries is what... coincidental? What part of what I said is revisionism?