Rachel Reeves says higher taxes on wealthy ‘part of the story’ for November budget

Take it up with the government - I suggested it and they agree with me. They are going to stop the motability being put towards expensive cars -- or something similar
Its still there to read yourself
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...ves-to-ban-luxury-cars-for-benefit-claimants/

Reeves to ban luxury cars for benefit claimants​


Under the Motability scheme, recipients of disability benefits including Personal Independence Payments (PIPs) can use their handouts to lease a brand new car.

Those who receive the higher rate of mobility PIP, which is worth £77.05 per week, agree to have the Government send the money directly to Motability instead.


So it's a disability payment which instead of being paid directly to the claimant, goes to Motability. Stopping that won't reduce the welfare bill.


“Disabled people face so many barriers in accessing transport,” Mark Carew said. (Full disclosure: he co-wrote a report which received funding from Motability in 2023.) “Whether it’s train stations that aren’t wheelchair accessible, or no ramp available when you’ve booked it, or other travellers refusing to get out of the wheelchair space – there are lots of reasons Motability is important.”

Pip funding that goes to Motability is money that customers would have been getting anyway.

If they weren’t getting a car, they’d have it to spend on something else. And if they want a more expensive car – perhaps needing a bigger vehicle for essential equipment, perhaps shockingly able to have preferences despite also having a disability – they have to make a down payment out of their own pocket.

The cars are new, meanwhile, so that they retain a significant resale value at the end of the lease. “It’s just not true that it’s ‘free’,” Carew said. “And because it comes out of an existing Pip award, it’s at no additional cost to the taxpayer.” Scrapping Motability wouldn’t save a penny from the benefits bill.

Because of [the top-up fee claimants can pay to get a more expensive car], the cost to the taxpayer of the more expensive models is exactly the same.

The cherrypicking coverage implies that disabled people shouldn’t get a choice: instead, they should exist in a state of constant gratitude, and **** off in their wonky three-wheeler.


You should read the second article linked to, particularly regarding the lies and gross misrepresentations the right-wing media have pumped out.

That is unless, of course, all you're interested in doing is scoring politically motivated points against a party that you'll never like, no matter what they do.
 
Here's an idea, get the work-shy back to work, those with low level anxiety etc who are on benefits and could be working. Get them paying tax instead of penalising the hard workers and yes, the investors, even more.
 
You should read the second article linked to, particularly regarding the lies and gross misrepresentations the right-wing media have pumped out.
No I said it ages ago before the gov. You keep attacking me- attack Rachael on the 26th when we she what she does about it -- but you wont will you.
 
Here's an idea, get the work-shy back to work, those with low level anxiety etc who are on benefits and could be working. Get them paying tax instead of penalising the hard workers and yes, the investors, even more.
People arent gonna work for an extra 20 quid a week if they dont have to.
 
Here's an idea, get the work-shy back to work, those with low level anxiety etc who are on benefits and could be working. Get them paying tax instead of penalising the hard workers and yes, the investors, even more.





 
Bonds do not pay dividends, and an ETF is not a bond.

IMG_8493.jpeg
 
I see even mottie has found a page that says ETFs can pay dividends. Looks like he had to go to Singapore to find one he likes, and he has provided a cut-down screenshot, not a link.

They can do that whether they have holdings in cake shops or in bonds.

However, such an ETF does not become a cake shop, or a bond.

Any serious investor or saver ought to know the difference between dividends and interest.

The tax allowances are different, and so are the rates of tax.

I know the difference.

I am in UK and have no need to know Singapore regulations.
 
Johnyboy. Give it up. You’ve shown you are clueless.

I’ve shown you how an investment in bonds can be structured to pay dividends.

Are you now suggesting that dividends paid on Bond ETFs should be treated as interest for tax purposes?

Stop posting nonsense for your own sake.
 
I'm not the one who falsely claimed that bonds pay dividends.

You must be very happy that you've found someone who seems to believe you

Even though it's only mottie.



Not true.
Educate yourself
 
And more reading for you.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
Bond ETFs offer investors passive exposure to fixed-income securities like corporate bonds and Treasuries.
These ETFs trade on major exchanges, providing liquidity and transparency similar to stocks.
Bond ETFs can be more liquid and cost-effective than traditional bond mutual funds.
They pay interest through monthly dividends, though the tax efficiency of capital gains is limited in bond returns.
Bond ETFs may not mature, so principal repayment is not guaranteed, especially when interest rates rise.


 
The key takeaway is that JohnD is as usual taking the high ground and talking nonsense and not answering direct questions
 
There is no high ground for him to take.

I have investments in junk bonds and receive dividends. Apparently that’s impossible.
 
Back
Top