| Reform. 09:17 - Jul 16 with 6766 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
Reassuring to hear Keir talking about reforming public services with not a jot of detail on what that means. (Assume he means more privatisation) But at least he's still "laser focused!"
 |  |
| |  |
| Reform. on 14:35 - Jul 16 with 1723 views | You_Bloo_Right |
Excellent.
The YBR Party has doubled its membership at a stroke. |  |
| |
| Reform. on 14:36 - Jul 16 with 1720 views | Leaky |
| Reform. on 14:28 - Jul 16 by redrickstuhaart |
Blair made some bad errors and was not always honest about them.
To say he is the most corrupt pm in a world where Boris Johnson exists, is absurd. |
Rubbish Johnson was a mere amateur compared to Blair. |  | | |
| Reform. on 14:43 - Jul 16 with 1693 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Reform. on 14:36 - Jul 16 by Leaky |
Rubbish Johnson was a mere amateur compared to Blair. |
Perhaps you can direct us to some clear proof of actual dishonesty and purposeful corruption that compares with Boris. |  | | |
| Reform. on 14:45 - Jul 16 with 1689 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Reform. on 14:36 - Jul 16 by Leaky |
Rubbish Johnson was a mere amateur compared to Blair. |
You're one of the 'soundbites rather than evidence' people I was talking about. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Reform. on 14:46 - Jul 16 with 1685 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Reform. on 14:45 - Jul 16 by The_Flashing_Smile |
You're one of the 'soundbites rather than evidence' people I was talking about. |
Looks that way. [Post edited 16 Jul 2023 14:47]
| | | |
| Reform. on 15:21 - Jul 16 with 1647 views | DJR |
| Reform. on 14:32 - Jul 16 by longtimefan |
It would be really enlightening if someone could spell out clearly exactly what they mean by increased income taxes and a potential wealth tax. What rates would you apply and at what income thresholds? What about a wealth tax, what would be assessed and at what rate do think it should be levied? |
As I mentioned above, Miliband proposes a return to the 50% tax rate, and a mansion tax on properties (above £2 million).
And these are the income tax rates in Scotland.
https://www.gov.uk/scottish-income-tax
Whatever one's view, it does not seem right that a person with a property worth, say, £20 million pays only £4,000 in the area where I live, which is only double that of someone in an average Band D property.
On wealth taxes, it appears that there are only 5 countries which now have a wealth tax, so maybe that isn't the way forward, despite this article.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/20/new-wealth-tax-uk-argument
Incidentally, there are a couple of further examples where the current tax system benefits the wealthy, namely, dividend income which is taxed at a lower rate than employment income, and capital gains which are taxed at a lower rate than income.
But surprise, surprise, I believe Labour has ruled out doing anything about this. |  | | |
| Reform. on 15:25 - Jul 16 with 1617 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Reform. on 15:21 - Jul 16 by DJR |
As I mentioned above, Miliband proposes a return to the 50% tax rate, and a mansion tax on properties (above £2 million).
And these are the income tax rates in Scotland.
https://www.gov.uk/scottish-income-tax
Whatever one's view, it does not seem right that a person with a property worth, say, £20 million pays only £4,000 in the area where I live, which is only double that of someone in an average Band D property.
On wealth taxes, it appears that there are only 5 countries which now have a wealth tax, so maybe that isn't the way forward, despite this article.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/20/new-wealth-tax-uk-argument
Incidentally, there are a couple of further examples where the current tax system benefits the wealthy, namely, dividend income which is taxed at a lower rate than employment income, and capital gains which are taxed at a lower rate than income.
But surprise, surprise, I believe Labour has ruled out doing anything about this. |
It amazes me that people are so incapable of understanding reality.
A labour party which says "yes we are going to hammer everyone who is "rich" with every tax under the sun in order to nationalise everything" scares off every 50k plus earner, and thereby all the votes they need to have any chance at all of securing a majority. | | | |
| Reform. on 15:28 - Jul 16 with 1614 views | DJR |
As I mentioned in another post, there are apparently only 5 countries with a wealth tax but maybe Norway, with its vast sovereign wealth fund, doesn't care about people leaving, and is doing it more in principle than anything else.
https://commodity.com/data/norway/debt-clock/
By the way, whatever happened to all those North Sea oil revenues? [Post edited 16 Jul 2023 15:31]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Reform. on 15:43 - Jul 16 with 1583 views | DJR |
| Reform. on 15:25 - Jul 16 by redrickstuhaart |
It amazes me that people are so incapable of understanding reality.
A labour party which says "yes we are going to hammer everyone who is "rich" with every tax under the sun in order to nationalise everything" scares off every 50k plus earner, and thereby all the votes they need to have any chance at all of securing a majority. |
Who's talking about nationalisation?
And rather than accepting "there's no money left", why can't there be a debate about whether Labour could be a bit more bold on taxes that don't really affect anyone earning under £150,000, and which might mean some prospect of some minor improvement in public services?
And things have to be seen in the context of a Tory government, just like the Major one, that practically everyone is sick of, so it seems to me that Labour have more scope to be radical they let on.
But ultimately, perhaps they just don't want to down this route for ideological reasons. [Post edited 16 Jul 2023 15:51]
| | | |
| Reform. on 15:49 - Jul 16 with 1564 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| Reform. on 15:25 - Jul 16 by redrickstuhaart |
It amazes me that people are so incapable of understanding reality.
A labour party which says "yes we are going to hammer everyone who is "rich" with every tax under the sun in order to nationalise everything" scares off every 50k plus earner, and thereby all the votes they need to have any chance at all of securing a majority. |
No mention of tax rates in my nationalisation proposal. | |
| |
| Reform. on 15:54 - Jul 16 with 1551 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
Aha the cock-womble in chief.....fancy! | |
| |
| Reform. on 16:05 - Jul 16 with 1522 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Reform. on 15:43 - Jul 16 by DJR |
Who's talking about nationalisation?
And rather than accepting "there's no money left", why can't there be a debate about whether Labour could be a bit more bold on taxes that don't really affect anyone earning under £150,000, and which might mean some prospect of some minor improvement in public services?
And things have to be seen in the context of a Tory government, just like the Major one, that practically everyone is sick of, so it seems to me that Labour have more scope to be radical they let on.
But ultimately, perhaps they just don't want to down this route for ideological reasons. [Post edited 16 Jul 2023 15:51]
|
You appear to have purposely sidestepped the point made by focussing narrowly on one thing. | | | |
| Reform. on 16:25 - Jul 16 with 1481 views | DJR |
| Reform. on 16:05 - Jul 16 by redrickstuhaart |
You appear to have purposely sidestepped the point made by focussing narrowly on one thing. |
I think we are probably at cross purposes. My contributions to this thread have largely been confined to the debate about whether to increase taxes to pay for public services (given that Starmer is now talking about growth and reform being the only games in town), and my post, to which you initially replied, was in response to someone asking what form higher taxes might take.
I fully appreciate that Labour have to rein it in a bit, but I just do feel it could be a bit more radical, even if it only amounted to an extra band on council tax. [Post edited 16 Jul 2023 16:27]
| | | |
| Reform. on 17:00 - Jul 16 with 1448 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| Reform. on 16:05 - Jul 16 by redrickstuhaart |
You appear to have purposely sidestepped the point made by focussing narrowly on one thing. |
Let me try to cover off a few points then.
No need for Labour to be all that radical really.
There is some appetite for an increase in income tax (if correctly "sold" as a means to provide much needed funding for the NHS for example - and it is all about selling these ideas) - see https://www.ft.com/content/bc07381f-fa73-4552-860e-576d640cb90e.
I suspect this would garner further, if grudging, support if levied with an increase in Corporation Tax rates and a more active pursual of all tax owed (£42bn not collected last year alone - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/11/tax-collectors-lack-ambition-sa but widely reported).
However.
Removing the NHS single market, not something that would resonate as "a bad thing" with the general public I don't believe, seems like an easy win and would fiscally be roughly equivalent to a 1p increase in the basic rate of PAYE or a 1% increase in NI contributions. That seems like a no-brainer to me and something I might have expected a Labour Party to be all over.
Bringing various things under public control could also be handled in a cost-limiting way:
Simply don't renew train operator franchises as they come up for example.
The utilities, on the other hand, especially at the moment, I think the public would be quite supportive of a change back to public ownership what with the debt/sewage dumping of the water companies and the profiteering of the energy companies - https://weownit.org.uk/blog/biggest-ever-poll-shows-huge-support-nationalisation
What is disappointing is that such ideas cannot, it seems, even be spoken about for fear of the influence of the (largely Tory-owned) press.
Edit: To supply citations [Post edited 16 Jul 2023 17:13]
| |
| |
| Reform. on 17:11 - Jul 16 with 1436 views | Dubtractor |
| Reform. on 10:58 - Jul 16 by lowhouseblue |
labour winning a majority next year after the result in 2019 will be an unprecedented turnaround in terms of the electoral maths involved. it only happens if a very large number of 2019 tory voters now vote labour. that is an inescapable reality. |
I get why he is doing it, and it almost certainly has a better chance of success than only looking to appeal purely to the Labour left, but it is still pretty disheartening to see him coming out with the sort of stuff I'd associate with a tory candidate.
I say all of this as a fairly 'moderate' lefty - I voted for Corbyn's Labour in 2019 with some reservations, and felt happy that Starmer would provide a package more close to what I look for, but I'll be voting Labour as the most likely option to get the tories out rather than because I am inspired by them. |  |
| |
| Reform. on 17:53 - Jul 16 with 1369 views | longtimefan |
| Reform. on 15:21 - Jul 16 by DJR |
As I mentioned above, Miliband proposes a return to the 50% tax rate, and a mansion tax on properties (above £2 million).
And these are the income tax rates in Scotland.
https://www.gov.uk/scottish-income-tax
Whatever one's view, it does not seem right that a person with a property worth, say, £20 million pays only £4,000 in the area where I live, which is only double that of someone in an average Band D property.
On wealth taxes, it appears that there are only 5 countries which now have a wealth tax, so maybe that isn't the way forward, despite this article.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/20/new-wealth-tax-uk-argument
Incidentally, there are a couple of further examples where the current tax system benefits the wealthy, namely, dividend income which is taxed at a lower rate than employment income, and capital gains which are taxed at a lower rate than income.
But surprise, surprise, I believe Labour has ruled out doing anything about this. |
Thank you. Just to clarify was Miliband wanting to return the additional tax band back to 50% from 45% or move the higher rate to 50% from 40%. I’m assuming the first. I suspect those pretty modest changes don’t reflect the size of change that people such as Darth would be proposing. I’d like to hear his take. | | | |
| Reform. on 18:10 - Jul 16 with 1340 views | DJR |
| Reform. on 17:53 - Jul 16 by longtimefan |
Thank you. Just to clarify was Miliband wanting to return the additional tax band back to 50% from 45% or move the higher rate to 50% from 40%. I’m assuming the first. I suspect those pretty modest changes don’t reflect the size of change that people such as Darth would be proposing. I’d like to hear his take. |
It was the first. | | | |
| Reform. on 18:19 - Jul 16 with 1323 views | WeWereZombies |
| Reform. on 13:08 - Jul 16 by giant_stow |
Given that report by OBR the other day, I think growth (hopefully green-friendly growth) *is* the only thing that will save us. The alternative in an ageing society is ever higher taxes on a ever smaller group of working people, with all the associated issues of inter-generational fairness that situation would bring.
Maybe Wealth taxes would help but a lot of money is mobile and can move out of taxable range, so to me, to talk about the need for growth isn't dishonest or empty political speak - it's about being able to afford suitable public services. |
Growing an economy without balancing the environmental impact will become ever more difficult fiscally, more socially damaging and more internationally repulsive within the coming decades. Your view that the ageing in society are not contributing and are not working people when we are so often the ones mainly working on the essential rural infrastructure and wild land conservation that has a chance of getting us out of this mess is quite insulting too.
If the financially wealthy want to dribble off to low tax (but in the main corrosive lifestyle) bolt holes, let them. They have probably run their course as far as being able to make a worthwhile contribution to the home nations anyway. I think you have a much chance of convincing me of your idea of a growth agenda as Delia Smith has of convincing me that deep fried jam sandwiches are good for my diet... |  |
| |
| Reform. on 18:32 - Jul 16 with 1316 views | BlueBadger |
| Reform. on 14:29 - Jul 16 by redrickstuhaart |
Legalised state theft.
Never going to win an election. Would also cause huge international issues.
This is the problem. |
How would it cause 'huge international issues'? |  |
| |
| Reform. on 18:38 - Jul 16 with 1305 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Reform. on 18:32 - Jul 16 by BlueBadger |
How would it cause 'huge international issues'? |
Shareholders in these companies are not just English. | | | |
| Reform. on 18:40 - Jul 16 with 1302 views | WeWereZombies |
| Reform. on 18:38 - Jul 16 by redrickstuhaart |
Shareholders in these companies are not just English. |
Indeed, some are Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish... | |
| |
| Reform. on 18:44 - Jul 16 with 1296 views | giant_stow |
| Reform. on 18:19 - Jul 16 by WeWereZombies |
Growing an economy without balancing the environmental impact will become ever more difficult fiscally, more socially damaging and more internationally repulsive within the coming decades. Your view that the ageing in society are not contributing and are not working people when we are so often the ones mainly working on the essential rural infrastructure and wild land conservation that has a chance of getting us out of this mess is quite insulting too.
If the financially wealthy want to dribble off to low tax (but in the main corrosive lifestyle) bolt holes, let them. They have probably run their course as far as being able to make a worthwhile contribution to the home nations anyway. I think you have a much chance of convincing me of your idea of a growth agenda as Delia Smith has of convincing me that deep fried jam sandwiches are good for my diet... |
Woo - just reading though but got to the bit where I accidently insulted you! I'd never want to do that to you and let me explain that my own mum is 84 and still works most days (she's in demand!). I'm guilty of using lazy shorthand for some economically inactive people, who don't have a taxable income or pension. A lot of those people will be older and there will be more such people as society ages. I'm talking in generalities and am sorry to offend anyone who is old but active. I'll carry on reading the rest now...
Eit: read it all and digested now. I really hope you're wrong about green growth being impossible, otherwise the only alternative to paying future bills could be revolutionary redistribution of wealth. Believe it or not, I'd be all for that*, but feel that its a much more tricky thing to achieve than green growth ought to be.
* (I'm a pragmatic dirty centrist - if there was any real chance of radical redistribution, I'd be a pragmatic ultra-leftist) [Post edited 16 Jul 2023 18:50]
|  |
| |
| Reform. on 18:55 - Jul 16 with 1278 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Reform. on 18:40 - Jul 16 by WeWereZombies |
Indeed, some are Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish... |
Indeed. And how do the welsh government or the troubled Stormont arrangement feel about their people being unfairly treated by a nationalisation at way below value (which is what was suggested above). | | | |
| Reform. on 18:58 - Jul 16 with 1273 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| Reform. on 18:38 - Jul 16 by redrickstuhaart |
Shareholders in these companies are not just English. |
Am I to assume the "legalised state theft" remark is in response to this?
"Compensation - where applicable - to be the sum investors put in rather than current share value, minus, of course, whatever returns they have already had on those investments."
I'm prepared to negotiate. But any privatised company that may, for example, have artificially kept its own prices high or have been fined by the regulator cannot expect current share value. | |
| |
| Reform. on 19:00 - Jul 16 with 1271 views | WeWereZombies |
| Reform. on 18:44 - Jul 16 by giant_stow |
Woo - just reading though but got to the bit where I accidently insulted you! I'd never want to do that to you and let me explain that my own mum is 84 and still works most days (she's in demand!). I'm guilty of using lazy shorthand for some economically inactive people, who don't have a taxable income or pension. A lot of those people will be older and there will be more such people as society ages. I'm talking in generalities and am sorry to offend anyone who is old but active. I'll carry on reading the rest now...
Eit: read it all and digested now. I really hope you're wrong about green growth being impossible, otherwise the only alternative to paying future bills could be revolutionary redistribution of wealth. Believe it or not, I'd be all for that*, but feel that its a much more tricky thing to achieve than green growth ought to be.
* (I'm a pragmatic dirty centrist - if there was any real chance of radical redistribution, I'd be a pragmatic ultra-leftist) [Post edited 16 Jul 2023 18:50]
|
OK, OK, I went in a bit two footed, sorry.
I don't think that growing wealth through an almost complete change of supply to renewable energy, for example, is impossible but the looking after what we have as the priority before feathering our nests is the important objective. It is taking a long time for the penny to drop with many people and an awful lot of politicians and economists seem to be at the back of the common sense queue.
Still no way I am trying one of Delia's deep fried jam sandwiches... | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
