| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands 08:28 - Aug 27 with 9281 views | DJR |
From today's Telegraph.
No wealth tax under Labour, Rachel Reeves pledges
Shadow chancellor rules out higher levies on property, capital gains and top earners as her party seeks to grab the centre ground
Rachel Reeves has ruled out any version of a wealth tax if Labour forms the next government, declaring that additional taxation will not lead to prosperity.
In an interview with The Telegraph, the shadow chancellor launches a bold bid for support from businesses and wealthier households, saying she will not introduce a levy to target wealth or expensive properties, and will not increase capital gains tax or the top rate of income tax.
Ms Reeves puts an end to speculation over the prospect of either a discrete wealth or mansion tax, or higher levies for those earning money from stocks and shares or buy-to-let properties.
She also confirms that Sir Keir’s 2020 leadership pledge to increase the top rate of income tax is now off the table – making explicit a suggestion by the party leader in June that he was no longer keen on the idea.
Ms Reeves also effectively recants remarks made in September 2021 when she said that “people who get their income through wealth should have to pay more”.
At the time she highlighted those “who get their incomes through stocks and shares and buy-to-let properties”.
Labour frontbenchers are also being told they should draw up reforms or identify schemes that can be scrapped if they want to fund new projects, as “the money is simply not going to be there”.
She added: “I don’t have any spending plans that require us to raise £12 billion worth of money. So I don’t need a wealth tax or any of those things ... We have no plans for a wealth tax.”
“We don’t have any plans to increase taxes outside of what we’ve said. I don’t see the way to prosperity as being through taxation. I want to grow the economy.” She added of the prospect of any form of wealth tax: “We won’t be doing that. It’s a denial.”
A Labour source said the denial also applied to “any form of ‘mansion tax’”, which has also been discussed by Labour in recent years. [Post edited 27 Aug 2023 8:32]
|  | | |  |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 15:04 - Aug 28 with 1710 views | eireblue |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 14:21 - Aug 28 by DJR |
I only gave this as an example, but I can't imagine many impoverished widows living in, say, a £2 million property in Kensington.
And it doesn't detract from the fact that the switch away from rates has meant the wealthy pay very little in tax for owning their own (valuable} home.
Rates after all were based on rental values, and their abolition seemed designed to unfairly benefit the wealthy. |
I think it is possible to conceive of many examples where the valuation of a home, outstrips the earnings of the people that are in that home over a period of time.
The proposal that people can simply downsize to resolve that issue seems unfair.
Seems to me, what you want to do is capture the wealth from a very rich person, when they choose to spend £2 million. |  | | |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 15:11 - Aug 28 with 1689 views | DJR |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 15:04 - Aug 28 by eireblue |
I think it is possible to conceive of many examples where the valuation of a home, outstrips the earnings of the people that are in that home over a period of time.
The proposal that people can simply downsize to resolve that issue seems unfair.
Seems to me, what you want to do is capture the wealth from a very rich person, when they choose to spend £2 million. |
We can obviously agree to disagree on the unfairness of my example (which was perhaps a bit of a red herring), but it doesn't detract from the fact that Simon Cowell, who just sold a property for £15 million pounds, can afford to pay more than he currently does in council tax.
And the issue in this country is that wealth inequality is far greater than income inequality, in no small measure due to the fact that we don't ever attempt to properly tax it. [Post edited 28 Aug 2023 15:33]
| | | |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 15:52 - Aug 28 with 1663 views | Ryorry |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 15:04 - Aug 28 by eireblue |
I think it is possible to conceive of many examples where the valuation of a home, outstrips the earnings of the people that are in that home over a period of time.
The proposal that people can simply downsize to resolve that issue seems unfair.
Seems to me, what you want to do is capture the wealth from a very rich person, when they choose to spend £2 million. |
Precisely.
Not to mention "capturing the wealth" from second home owners as you previously mentioned - which issue is in itself additionally causing massive problems across swathes of the country where many communities are dying because local people, particularly youngsters, are priced out. |  |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 15:53 - Aug 28 with 1662 views | lowhouseblue |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 13:18 - Aug 28 by Darth_Koont |
No. I’m trying to work out how the “fiscal rules” work when they appear highly selective.
“Yes, we can pour extra billions into the NHS. No, we cannot transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of children for 1 or 2 billion”.
A cynic would suggest that even though we’re talking about a much bigger spending commitment there are more votes in the former than the latter. In fact the latter probably doesn’t go down well at all among the austerity-loving, welfare-hating focus groups.
Of course, if Labour under Starmer actually stood for something on the issues facing the UK then there wouldn’t be this pork-barrel nonsense. Nor indeed a sense of either/or. |
so you're saying "pouring extra billions into the NHS" is "pork-barrel nonsense". nice. i can really see why no one votes for the hard left. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 16:10 - Aug 28 with 1648 views | Ryorry |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 14:26 - Aug 28 by DJR |
But this is an argument for continuing what I regard as unjust system where valuable homes are not taxed properly.
In any event, many elderly people do choose to downsize, and if you have £2 million pounds to do it, there must be some choice.
Alternatively, if this did prove to be a real issue, there could be put in place arrangements to recover the money after death, in much the same way as is the case with care fees. [Post edited 28 Aug 2023 14:28]
|
Your proposed policy falls like a lead balloon because it's based on pure hypothesis - it's just an ideology that wants to shift people about as though they're sacks of beans. Far from being "valuable", the houses that people live in are their essential shelters, and as such have zero financial value in terms of gain until they are sold.
If people choose to voluntarily move because they want, & are fit & able to do so, then it's a completely different matter. Your policy,on the other hand, would enforce a move on them at the most vulnerable stage of their lives. It's absolutely inhumane, & quite frankly I'm shocked that you consider such a system fair, reasonable or anything like productive - never mind the best one. | |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 16:13 - Aug 28 with 1641 views | DJR |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 15:52 - Aug 28 by Ryorry |
Precisely.
Not to mention "capturing the wealth" from second home owners as you previously mentioned - which issue is in itself additionally causing massive problems across swathes of the country where many communities are dying because local people, particularly youngsters, are priced out. |
I couldn't agree more about second homes. My whole point is that there is wealth out there (and unearned gains), and I have only made some suggestions as to what might be the best way to tax this.
But I am not a policy expert who knows all the ins and outs of what I am suggesting. And all this thread was really concerned with was the fact that Labour have thrown in the towel on this whole area including capital gains on second homes.
The fact is that if Labour can't be a little bold on tax now they have such a large lead, they clearly won't be able to be bold come the next election. And with the IFS saying higher taxes are needed to prevent declining public services, an absence of debate on this issue by both parties is merely burying everyone's head in the sand.
Interestingly, Lewis Goodall on LBC this morning had an interesting discussion on this topic. If you have the app, you can hear it on catch-up, if you scroll forward to just after 11am. [Post edited 28 Aug 2023 16:28]
| | | |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 16:21 - Aug 28 with 1623 views | Ryorry |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 16:13 - Aug 28 by DJR |
I couldn't agree more about second homes. My whole point is that there is wealth out there (and unearned gains), and I have only made some suggestions as to what might be the best way to tax this.
But I am not a policy expert who knows all the ins and outs of what I am suggesting. And all this thread was really concerned with was the fact that Labour have thrown in the towel on this whole area including capital gains on second homes.
The fact is that if Labour can't be a little bold on tax now they have such a large lead, they clearly won't be able to be bold come the next election. And with the IFS saying higher taxes are needed to prevent declining public services, an absence of debate on this issue by both parties is merely burying everyone's head in the sand.
Interestingly, Lewis Goodall on LBC this morning had an interesting discussion on this topic. If you have the app, you can hear it on catch-up, if you scroll forward to just after 11am. [Post edited 28 Aug 2023 16:28]
|
As I said in my first post on the thread, you could always wait for the actual manifesto to come out before criticising the LP for stuff that you think will be there (but when push comes to shove might not be); or for stuff that you think won't be there (but might actually be). | |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 16:31 - Aug 28 with 1611 views | DJR |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 16:21 - Aug 28 by Ryorry |
As I said in my first post on the thread, you could always wait for the actual manifesto to come out before criticising the LP for stuff that you think will be there (but when push comes to shove might not be); or for stuff that you think won't be there (but might actually be). |
But Rachel Reeves has said that there won't be the increased taxes that I think are necessary to improve things, and it is that which concerns me. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 17:31 - Aug 28 with 1563 views | NthQldITFC |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 16:31 - Aug 28 by DJR |
But Rachel Reeves has said that there won't be the increased taxes that I think are necessary to improve things, and it is that which concerns me. |
Me too. |  |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 17:33 - Aug 28 with 1563 views | GlasgowBlue |
This just made me chuckle.
|  |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 18:54 - Aug 28 with 1513 views | DJR |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 17:33 - Aug 28 by GlasgowBlue |
This just made me chuckle.
|
The term Reevesist is also a bit bizarre. | | | |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 19:16 - Aug 28 with 1486 views | eireblue |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 15:11 - Aug 28 by DJR |
We can obviously agree to disagree on the unfairness of my example (which was perhaps a bit of a red herring), but it doesn't detract from the fact that Simon Cowell, who just sold a property for £15 million pounds, can afford to pay more than he currently does in council tax.
And the issue in this country is that wealth inequality is far greater than income inequality, in no small measure due to the fact that we don't ever attempt to properly tax it. [Post edited 28 Aug 2023 15:33]
|
Hmmm, I am not suggesting not taxing wealth. Taking that as an example, when Simon bought the house it was for £4 million.
Sure you could do a small wealth tax on that house value, for the 10 or 15 years he was there.
However, he made £11 million.
That is when the wealth has been created, when he decides to sell.
Taking, a fair whack of that £11 million, as well as taking usual sort of council tax over the sixteen years seems a more interesting thing to do.
And you could do things like, say Cowell was buying a £6 million house, then you tax him on say £9 million, assuming he has one U.K. residence. So you tax him on the generated wealth not being used for a single home.
If we take that model to your widow style example. Widow stays in the family home, doesn’t get penalised by an unaffordable wealth tax based on something that is outsider her control.
However, if widow the decides to downsize out of free will, and hits some threshold, sure that widow can still benefit, and some of that wealth is taxed. | | | |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 19:21 - Aug 28 with 1483 views | NthQldITFC |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 18:54 - Aug 28 by DJR |
The term Reevesist is also a bit bizarre. |
"What's on the end of the stick, Vic?" | |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 19:27 - Aug 28 with 1476 views | lowhouseblue |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 19:16 - Aug 28 by eireblue |
Hmmm, I am not suggesting not taxing wealth. Taking that as an example, when Simon bought the house it was for £4 million.
Sure you could do a small wealth tax on that house value, for the 10 or 15 years he was there.
However, he made £11 million.
That is when the wealth has been created, when he decides to sell.
Taking, a fair whack of that £11 million, as well as taking usual sort of council tax over the sixteen years seems a more interesting thing to do.
And you could do things like, say Cowell was buying a £6 million house, then you tax him on say £9 million, assuming he has one U.K. residence. So you tax him on the generated wealth not being used for a single home.
If we take that model to your widow style example. Widow stays in the family home, doesn’t get penalised by an unaffordable wealth tax based on something that is outsider her control.
However, if widow the decides to downsize out of free will, and hits some threshold, sure that widow can still benefit, and some of that wealth is taxed. |
so a tax on realised capital gains? | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 19:42 - Aug 28 with 1444 views | DJR |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 19:27 - Aug 28 by lowhouseblue |
so a tax on realised capital gains? |
Which already exists, but the tax rate is too low, and Labour don't propose to do anything to increase it. So yet another area where wealth is taxed more favourably than income.
To take an example, a person earns £200,000 and pays more income tax and national insurance than they would pay capital gains tax on a second home whose gain on sale (unearned) is £200,000. And if that second property is a buy-to-let, the tenant will have paid for much of the cost of the property. In other words, an unearned gain based largely on the another person's earnings. And that doesn't include the perhaps larger part of the sale proceeds which are not subject to CGT at all. [Post edited 28 Aug 2023 19:50]
| | | |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 08:08 - Aug 29 with 1353 views | Darth_Koont |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 15:53 - Aug 28 by lowhouseblue |
so you're saying "pouring extra billions into the NHS" is "pork-barrel nonsense". nice. i can really see why no one votes for the hard left. |
No. That’s clearly nothing like what I am saying.
It was your blithe suggestion of what will happen. Because if money can be freed up by reversing other Tory spending and tax cutting plans then we could easily commit to removing the 2-child limit.
So why won’t they? Things like this should be at the heart of change and for a relatively small spend too. But I just don’t think they have the will for this. |  |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 10:54 - Aug 29 with 1323 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 15:11 - Aug 28 by DJR |
We can obviously agree to disagree on the unfairness of my example (which was perhaps a bit of a red herring), but it doesn't detract from the fact that Simon Cowell, who just sold a property for £15 million pounds, can afford to pay more than he currently does in council tax.
And the issue in this country is that wealth inequality is far greater than income inequality, in no small measure due to the fact that we don't ever attempt to properly tax it. [Post edited 28 Aug 2023 15:33]
|
“And the issue in this country is that wealth inequality is far greater than income inequality, in no small measure due to the fact that we don't ever attempt to properly tax it.”
Indeed, the non-working wealthy. But politicians of all colours do their best to scare the other 99,5pc that they are in this bracket, and that the government is coming to take their life savings. An increase in CGT and a mansion tax would also raise a lot more for the treasury than increasing income tax on the handful of people earning >150 on PAYE, which is a conversation that takes up too much of our debate for little gain.
There’s a lot of cuckolding in the media, for example so many people are happy to subsidise our tax-dodging multi-billionaire Royal family. |  | | |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 11:30 - Aug 29 with 1298 views | DJR |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 10:54 - Aug 29 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
“And the issue in this country is that wealth inequality is far greater than income inequality, in no small measure due to the fact that we don't ever attempt to properly tax it.”
Indeed, the non-working wealthy. But politicians of all colours do their best to scare the other 99,5pc that they are in this bracket, and that the government is coming to take their life savings. An increase in CGT and a mansion tax would also raise a lot more for the treasury than increasing income tax on the handful of people earning >150 on PAYE, which is a conversation that takes up too much of our debate for little gain.
There’s a lot of cuckolding in the media, for example so many people are happy to subsidise our tax-dodging multi-billionaire Royal family. |
I couldn't have put it better myself. | | | |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 11:46 - Aug 29 with 1282 views | Reus30 |
Can I ask a very stupid question - I am not voting Tory and I won't vote Labour either because it's just Tory lite at this point, who do I vote for?
Honestly, what is the point?
Shall I just draw a phallus on my paper? I appreciate all the comedy characters will come out with jokes but I would appreciate one serious answer. |  | | |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 11:58 - Aug 29 with 1265 views | DJR |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 11:46 - Aug 29 by Reus30 |
Can I ask a very stupid question - I am not voting Tory and I won't vote Labour either because it's just Tory lite at this point, who do I vote for?
Honestly, what is the point?
Shall I just draw a phallus on my paper? I appreciate all the comedy characters will come out with jokes but I would appreciate one serious answer. |
My view is that if you don't like the parties, you vote for the individual, or the least worst individual. In my case, that would almost certainly be the Labour candidate. And this is even more the case if your candidate is a bit more radical. [Post edited 29 Aug 2023 11:59]
| | | |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 12:03 - Aug 29 with 1253 views | Darth_Koont |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 18:54 - Aug 28 by DJR |
The term Reevesist is also a bit bizarre. |
The thought that Reeves and her “austerity by omission” could even become a thing sends shudders down my spine.
“Reevesist” should be restricted to heated discussions about the best Superman. | |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 12:07 - Aug 29 with 1249 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 11:46 - Aug 29 by Reus30 |
Can I ask a very stupid question - I am not voting Tory and I won't vote Labour either because it's just Tory lite at this point, who do I vote for?
Honestly, what is the point?
Shall I just draw a phallus on my paper? I appreciate all the comedy characters will come out with jokes but I would appreciate one serious answer. |
Have a feeling that if you are looking for change then you need to check out the alternatives to Tory or Tory light. In England this means LibDems or Greens.
Expect LibDems will have a more honest manifesto but doubt it will help sufficiently for them to make a real change. |  |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 16:47 - Aug 29 with 1189 views | DJR |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 10:54 - Aug 29 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
“And the issue in this country is that wealth inequality is far greater than income inequality, in no small measure due to the fact that we don't ever attempt to properly tax it.”
Indeed, the non-working wealthy. But politicians of all colours do their best to scare the other 99,5pc that they are in this bracket, and that the government is coming to take their life savings. An increase in CGT and a mansion tax would also raise a lot more for the treasury than increasing income tax on the handful of people earning >150 on PAYE, which is a conversation that takes up too much of our debate for little gain.
There’s a lot of cuckolding in the media, for example so many people are happy to subsidise our tax-dodging multi-billionaire Royal family. |
Interesting passage from the following article.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/opinion-labour-shouldn-t-rule-out-wealth-t
"It is scarcely controversial that income is taxed too heavily in this country and wealth too lightly. In 2012, then-chancellor George Osborne recognised this and proposed that the coalition government enact the Lib Dems’ manifesto pledge of a mansion tax of one per cent for properties worth £2 million in return for the abolition of the 50p rate of income tax.
The plan was vetoed by David Cameron on the grounds that “our donors will never put up with it”." | | | |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 08:49 - Aug 31 with 1023 views | DJR |
Here's an interesting article on this topic.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/30/wealth-tax-labour-economic
And this passage from the article is illuminating.
"What is even more remarkable about the Labour leadership’s current position on tax is that it is out of sync with nearly the entire official economic establishment. The OECD, IMF, Institute for Fiscal Studies and Financial Times have all come out in favour of higher taxes on property and wealth in recent times as a means to support public investment and growth and reduce inequality.
Labour finds itself siding with an increasingly small minority of economists who continue to believe that taxing wealth less than income will support growth. It’s poor company for them to be in." | | | |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 09:26 - Aug 31 with 993 views | Darth_Koont |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 08:49 - Aug 31 by DJR |
Here's an interesting article on this topic.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/30/wealth-tax-labour-economic
And this passage from the article is illuminating.
"What is even more remarkable about the Labour leadership’s current position on tax is that it is out of sync with nearly the entire official economic establishment. The OECD, IMF, Institute for Fiscal Studies and Financial Times have all come out in favour of higher taxes on property and wealth in recent times as a means to support public investment and growth and reduce inequality.
Labour finds itself siding with an increasingly small minority of economists who continue to believe that taxing wealth less than income will support growth. It’s poor company for them to be in." |
Both the Tories and Labour seem more focused on the interests of the rich and powerful than the interests of the country.
It’s probably just a coincidence that serving those interests pays much better and provides them with much better career opportunities. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
