Do they think we are stupid?

 As we are finally starting to hear from our not so new Prime Minister, we can start compiling a lookup table to translate between them Starmer               => Burnham Laser Like focus   => Relentless focus I get it   =>  I hear what you say As Burnham opens his mouth more I will populate this table....

 I find the left wing phrase "pay their fair share of tax" really irritating. It's not specific or measurable and is highly subjective. What is a fair share? Those on benefits don't pay any tax yet often are financially better off than those working full time.  Is that fair? It's a sneaky phrase as it implies the rich are not contributing anything which a complete lie. At least Count Binface's policy of  “I'll cut your taxes and raise everyone else's.” makes more sense than this stupid quote. So let's start with the macro view.  Income tax raises £330 Billion. National Insurance raises £204 Billion and all forms of taxation raises £865 Billion. The problem is Government spending is £1.2 TRILLION so there's a shortfall of £400 Billion raised from taxation.   We have the highest rates of taxation since the second world war and we are not at war.... So income tax raises £330 Billion yet welfare spending is £156 Billion and the State Pension is £17...

Today Gary Lineker asked Barnham to tax him and other millionaires more. He has suggested a 2% wealth tax. ie paying 2% tax on your overall wealth each year if you have wealth more than £10Million. So Gary's net worth is widely reported as £30 Million.  He no longer receives the £1.35Million salary from the tax payer funded BBC. So he would be paying an additional £600,000 tax each year. Since leaving the BBC it looks like most of his "income" is into companies which he either owns or has control of and it is unclear whether he has any income from these companies. So let's assume he was still at the BBC earning £1.35Million. He would take home £727,286 after tax so he would be paying an additional £600,000 in tax so his net income would be a modest £127,286. Now maybe he is OK with this. There is nothing stopping him paying £600k additional voluntary tax each year.   If his income sources dry up then it won't be long before his net wealth declines. The problem is ...

 Showman Barnam is barely 24 hours into his new job as Prime Minister and it's looking like pressure on GBP is headed our way.  Barnam will of course blame the black holes on the previous administration - the Labour administration that is not the conservatives although he does seem to be blaming Thatcher.... I don't envy him as he has inherited an economy which raises £868 Billion / year from taxation and spends £1.2 Trillion / year so there's not really any room to manoeuvre. The ONS statistics released today show that wages are growing at 2.9% with the public sector growing at 5.5% - yet more money we don't have. He has promised to remove VAT on electricity bills from 1st Oct costing £840 Million per year stating this could be funded from scrapping Digital ID which it turns out was not funded anyway. It looks pretty certain that Barnum will have to either raise taxes or borrow yet more money.  I doubt he would do the right thing and stop spending. Increased taxation w...

 Farage has clearly grabbed the headlines by forcing a by-election. So up pops StarmerBot saying Farage represents SLEAZE.  If he really thinks that, then why is he not fielding a candidate to oust Farage in Clacton?  Instead he's creating a farcical contest between Farage and Count Binface. Having said that - Count Binface's manifesto certainly looks more realistic and deliverable than Labour's wish list.  I think the British public can really get behind 99p flakes actually costing 99p ! I can still picture Starmer taking the sanctimonious high ground that Labour were morally better than the conservatives because he didn't eat cake and Boris did. He waved the sleaze furiously at the time. Strangely Sue Grays investigation into Starmer's own little parties was that he did not break any rules. The benefit of hindsight explains her decision.... So let's examine Labour's sleaze scoreboard. Freebie Starmer doesnt have that reputation for nothing.  Lots of undisc...

 We all know that the current crop of Labour MPs are not blessed with intelligence or basic maths skills but the now Housing Secretary "City" Steve Reed seems to be setting new depths at basic maths. In his speech at the Lloyd's Banking Group Social Housing Forum on the 6th July he said  "Taxpayers pay tens of billions in benefits to subsidise private landlords to rent out homes that taxpayers also paid to build." Either he is stupid or he is a liar.   Firstly I would say 99% of private landlords did not buy former council houses from the government.  They paid market rate + additional stamp duty to buy an asset that the government were stupid enough to sell at a 70% discount on market rate to the former renter.  Surely City Steve should get that providing massive discounts on this scale is ludicrous. In a recent blog post I analysed the current house building programme  and the social housing rents do not even cover the cost of finance. It would take ...