Boom! Rachael Reeves....

[icowden]

Were those flights actually carrying passengers whose sole purpose was to get to to London?
I suspect they belong to operators based at Farnborough and position to one of the London airports to pick up people who've hired the aircraft.

From what I can gather from google, if you have come transcontinental from say the US to London and finished your business, you can then take an executive jet to Farnborough's luxury business hub before getting another executive jet from there into Europe or up North.

 

[Mark999]

The more cost effective method can not negate the environmental concerns. It really need to be stopped.

This talk of 'high value individuals' is nonsense. This is a group of people saying that their human rights are greater than the great unwashed as they tend to view the rest of us.

They can fark right off with those entitlements. It isn't wealth that's trickling down, it's their

If the tax is high enough, your method won't be cost-effective.
(and even before that stage, at least we're getting the Polluter to Pay. win-win!)

Comprendez?

Perhaps we shall see further increases, of a significant magnitude to make this method non cost effective.

 

[Psamathe]

When you book a flight on Google flights each flight includes a CO2 (per person) figure. If Reeves refuses to acknowledge the urgency to act over Climate Change and tax aviation fuel, maybe she could recognise to potential revenue from a flight tax based on the emissions per person (which I suspect would discourage less essential use of private jets).

And even though I'm a driver that still uses petrol, I'm very disappointed she's maintaining the fuel tax freeze. Made worse by a 50% increase in bus fare cap. What she's done is encourage increased car use when we should be discouraging it. Big hike in fuel tax needed and put the escalator back for automatic year on year increases (all of which will also impact me - but them the Climate Change impact will undoubtedly impact me more).

Ian

 

[BoldonLad]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78eg7dp9ypo

Standby for a Rachel day, next week

 

[BoldonLad]

Lessons will be learned, not Reeves defends taking free Sabrina Carpenter tickets https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg70k2l5759o

 

[AuroraSaab]

Politicians could just accept that whilst they are in high profile jobs, which often is only for a few years, they might have to miss out on going to stuff rather than taking advantage of it to get VIP area tickets for sold out events that they would otherwise never have been able to get. And yes that means their kids will miss out on the perks too.

 

[Psamathe]

Politicians could just accept that whilst they are in high profile jobs, which often is only for a few years, they might have to miss out on going to stuff rather than taking advantage of it to get VIP area tickets for sold out events that they would otherwise never have been able to get. And yes that means their kids will miss out on the perks too.

Virtually all families in the country don't get such "perks" and manage without these freebies. Those giving out such freebies are not doing so "out of the goodness of their hearts" but are seeking influence - and it has been shown to work and they do get that influence. eg

Rachel Reeves softened non-dom plans after Blackstone CEO ‘raised concerns’
Revealed: Head of world’s biggest asset manager lobbied chancellor on tax rules weeks before policy was tweaked

Documents released to openDemocracy under the Freedom of Information Act reveal Stephen Schwarzman, the CEO of leading asset manager Blackstone, raised “concerns” with Reeves about her plans to reform the tax treatment of non-domiciled individuals at a meeting in Downing Street in December.

The chancellor had previously used the autumn Budget in late October to re-commit to Labour’s manifesto promise to abolish the non-dom tax regime, which allows wealthy individuals who live in the UK to be domiciled elsewhere for tax purposes.

Yet those in desperate need don't have wealthy representative organisations handing out expensive concert tickets, etc. creating opportunities to lobby ...

Ian

 

[AuroraSaab]

I don't think for a minute RR wanted to see Sabrina Carpenter, anymore than KS wanted to see Taylor Swift, but when offered impossible-to-get tickets I reckon she got them for her child. If they were £600 they're going to be VIP tickets at the front, maybe even meet and greet ones.

Instead of the having to declare it rule, why not just a straightforward No? ie you don't take anything, not a ticket, not a sports trip, not a free lunch. In politics there's not a single thing that comes without strings attached, even if it's just the ear of a minister for 5 minutes. And no 'guests', business or otherwise, in the subsidised restaurant at the Lords or Commons either, unless it's close family or a school trip.

 

[icowden]

Instead of the having to declare it rule, why not just a straightforward No? ie you don't take anything, not a ticket, not a sports trip, not a free lunch. In politics there's not a single thing that comes without strings attached, even if it's just the ear of a minister for 5 minutes. And no 'guests', business or otherwise, in the subsidised restaurant at the Lords or Commons either, unless it's close family or a school trip.

Many years ago on the Mark Thomas Manifesto show on Radio 2 one of the propositions was to double MPs salary but under the condition that there were no freebies, no ability to take on a directorship for 5 years after leaving office (actually enforced rather than the current nonsense), no expenses, no employing your wife, daughter, auntie etc as your secretary, SPAD or any other position etc.

The argument was that this is one of the top jobs in the country. It's important. It should have a good salary etc but we should remove any possibility of bribery, lobbying etc. You get your salary, nothing else. No subsidised canteen. No second home allowance. Just a straightforward salary.

 

[Dorset Boy]

Are these freebies taken by politicians not taxed as benefits in kind?
If not, why not?
given the value of so many of these gifts, for Joe Public they would be taken as a BiK.

 

[Psamathe]

Are these freebies taken by politicians not taxed as benefits in kind?
If not, why not?
given the value of so many of these gifts, for Joe Public they would be taken as a BiK.

From Sept 2024:

Robert Salter, Director said:Senior politicians, or their spouses, regardless of their party, appear to have been able to receive gifts from donors and political allies on a tax-free basis.
...
However, gifts have been made to politicians for many years and HMRC has never argued that the gifts are taxable. While the current law is complicated, neither the donors or recipients are doing anything wrong legally if these gifts are not declared as taxable income.
(from https://www.blickrothenberg.com/ins...ft-tax-law-to-apply-equally-to-all-taxpayers/)

Company I was a director of before retiring each Christmas the board would give every employee a Christmas Hamper, something fairly posh as a "thank you" for their efforts over the last year. And on HMRC employee payment declarations made by the company every year the cost price (to the company) was declared to HMRC as a benefit for each employee so it was taxed as income.

If Starmer was a toolmaker does anybody think he'd be getting £100k in gifts? (etc.) To me it clearly does relate to his position in politics.

Ian

 

[monkers]

From Sept 2024:

Company I was a director of before retiring each Christmas the board would give every employee a Christmas Hamper, something fairly posh as a "thank you" for their efforts over the last year. And on HMRC employee payment declarations made by the company every year the cost price (to the company) was declared to HMRC as a benefit for each employee so it was taxed as income.

If Starmer was a toolmaker does anybody think he'd be getting £100k in gifts? (etc.) To me it clearly does relate to his position in politics.

Ian

When toolmaker Starmer Senior created the tool that is now PM, should he have positioned that in his accounts as an ''asset'' or a ''liability''.

 

[Psamathe]

Rachel Reeves: "The world has changed ...". So why isn't Reeves changing her policies/self-imposed rules? (given her self-imposed rules are different from those of other Chancellors and Ms Reeves changed then last Oct anyway). So much of what Labour seem to be doing is impacting those already struggling.

She has a unrepeatable opportunity to adjust some of their manifesto pledges eg increases in defence spending given US changes would more than justify increasing the higher rates on income tax. Add the unforeseeable trade wars and even more justifiable. And lots of positive spin eg they could go as far as making those in fuel poverty not in "the broadest shoulders" group and add Venture Capitalists with a new Ferrari every year into the "broadest shoulders" grouping? (that would increase the already rsather long queues of lobbyists outside the Treasury).

Ian

 

[bobzmyunkle]

This bloke reckons she has plenty of options even before considering taxing those with broader shoulders than the currently targeted.
But she'll be sticking to her 'fiscal rules' - her knowledge of economics appears to be on her par with her taste in music.

View: https://youtu.be/b6EEzOofQbM?si=mTBX0PhLXl7p_XaF

 

[Dorset Boy]

From Sept 2024:

Company I was a director of before retiring each Christmas the board would give every employee a Christmas Hamper, something fairly posh as a "thank you" for their efforts over the last year. And on HMRC employee payment declarations made by the company every year the cost price (to the company) was declared to HMRC as a benefit for each employee so it was taxed as income.

If Starmer was a toolmaker does anybody think he'd be getting £100k in gifts? (etc.) To me it clearly does relate to his position in politics.

Ian

Every gift received by a politician over say £50 in value should be declared on their tax return and taxed accordingly, so the cabinet would pay 45% tax on all their freebies.
That would make them think for a few moments before accepting sometimes.