| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 10:06 - Oct 24 with 320 views | WeWereZombies |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 09:36 - Oct 24 by jas0999 |
Can’t see much on here about Labours absolute hammering in Wales by election last night. Odd. |
Canlyniad isetholiad nodweddiadol... |  |
|  |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 10:08 - Oct 24 with 317 views | DarkBrandon |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 21:52 - Oct 23 by HampBlue |
Tax wealth not income.
I do not understand how this message is not “mainstream”. Young people earning 60,70,80k are not “rich”. Especially considering these people probably have student loans, monster mortgages and getting taxed enough.
Meanwhile, people are hoarding wealth, making us all poorer in the process. |
There isn't a wealth tax anywhere on the planet that raises significant amounts.
There isn't a pool of "other people" we can tax to raise large sums of money.
If we need to raise money in the tens of billions we will all have to pay more. |  | | |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 10:10 - Oct 24 with 312 views | DarkBrandon |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 22:34 - Oct 23 by J2BLUE |
I think that's a good starting point. £10m is more than enough for anyone. Plenty for a nice house and enough invested to live comfortably. [Post edited 23 Oct 22:40]
|
The other issue is how do you know who much someone is worth?
Income is easy to tax, as it all has to be registed and goes through company accounts.
How much people own in bank accounts, share portfolios, property, paintings and so forth is unknown to the state, and basically impossible to find out. | | | |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 10:12 - Oct 24 with 304 views | DarkBrandon |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 09:13 - Oct 24 by baxterbasics |
If they raise any more taxes on the middle earners - the increasingly small portion of the population who are actually productive and contributing - they are cooked. I'm ready to march on Westminster personally with pitchfork and flaming torch in hand. |
I don't think there is an alternative.
But your general point, that we have a smaller and smaller pool of people in employment funding a larger and larger pool of people in retirement is one that isn't discussed enough (at all?) by the political parties. | | | |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 10:12 - Oct 24 with 300 views | mellowblue |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 10:08 - Oct 24 by DarkBrandon |
There isn't a wealth tax anywhere on the planet that raises significant amounts.
There isn't a pool of "other people" we can tax to raise large sums of money.
If we need to raise money in the tens of billions we will all have to pay more. |
well, that will be something to look forward too. Yet another government who spends more than it can receive. Decade after decade. |  | | |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 10:18 - Oct 24 with 284 views | GlasgowBlue |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 10:01 - Oct 24 by Leaky |
Well borowing money then giving it away to other countries doesn't help. Chagos Islands £100m a year, I rest my case |
I appreciate that when ties are hard overseas aid may be hard to justify. But I believe that every developed country has an obligation to help those that are not.
And in the grand scheme of things, cancelling overseas aid would make little to no difference to improving the well being of people in this country.
How and where it is spent of course is an entirely different matter. [Post edited 24 Oct 10:20]
|  |
| |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 10:23 - Oct 24 with 277 views | redrickstuhaart |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 09:13 - Oct 24 by baxterbasics |
If they raise any more taxes on the middle earners - the increasingly small portion of the population who are actually productive and contributing - they are cooked. I'm ready to march on Westminster personally with pitchfork and flaming torch in hand. |
Perhaps you should have done so when the previous government destroyed the essential services our economy needs to be successful and made unfunded tax cuts as an electoral bribe ? | | | |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 10:28 - Oct 24 with 272 views | DarkBrandon |
As I understand it the Labour party has got into this mess by roughly this chain of events
1) Following previous election defeats and the natural caution of the party leadership they promised not to raise IT, NI or VAT before the last election
2) Jeremy Hunt reduced NI by 4%, costing a fortune, which was entirely unpaid for and was going to result in spending cuts and/or other tax rises after the election. Just salting the earth for whoever took over. A genuine disgrace for which he doesn't get enough criticism.
3) Labour increased employers NI at the last budget, but that was really just compensating for the Hunt NI cuts.
4) The Labour leadership banking/gambling on growth to solve the fiscal problems. It hasn't happened for whatever reason. US tariffs. Employers NI.
5) Proposed spending cuts have been vetoed (for good or ill) by Labour backbenchers. Winter Fuel. Disability allowances. Labour hope to reduce the cost of SEN provision, but that looks very doubtful
6) Government debt interest costs have risen. Some due to global effects. Some not, for reasons not entirely clear
7) The OFS seem certain to downgrade their productivity forecasts. They could/should have done this before the election, but have decided to do this now. Reeves has the right to feel incredibly hard done by with this timing
8) Both Hunt and Reeves ran with just £10bn of headroom, so if anything went wrong with the economy they'd have to raise taxes (again). With hindsight this looks like foolish gambling, so Reeves will probably increase taxes not to fund anything, but just to give her some buffer in the event of even worse news coming down the track
Summary:
Terribly inheritance, some back luck, a few poor decisions post election (mostly on spending) and the incredibly stupid promises not to put up any of the main taxes mean she's in this mess. Personally I'd put up IT or VAT, but as they are doing so atrociously in the polls you can see why this is their last resort. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 11:16 - Oct 24 with 232 views | DJR |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 10:28 - Oct 24 by DarkBrandon |
As I understand it the Labour party has got into this mess by roughly this chain of events
1) Following previous election defeats and the natural caution of the party leadership they promised not to raise IT, NI or VAT before the last election
2) Jeremy Hunt reduced NI by 4%, costing a fortune, which was entirely unpaid for and was going to result in spending cuts and/or other tax rises after the election. Just salting the earth for whoever took over. A genuine disgrace for which he doesn't get enough criticism.
3) Labour increased employers NI at the last budget, but that was really just compensating for the Hunt NI cuts.
4) The Labour leadership banking/gambling on growth to solve the fiscal problems. It hasn't happened for whatever reason. US tariffs. Employers NI.
5) Proposed spending cuts have been vetoed (for good or ill) by Labour backbenchers. Winter Fuel. Disability allowances. Labour hope to reduce the cost of SEN provision, but that looks very doubtful
6) Government debt interest costs have risen. Some due to global effects. Some not, for reasons not entirely clear
7) The OFS seem certain to downgrade their productivity forecasts. They could/should have done this before the election, but have decided to do this now. Reeves has the right to feel incredibly hard done by with this timing
8) Both Hunt and Reeves ran with just £10bn of headroom, so if anything went wrong with the economy they'd have to raise taxes (again). With hindsight this looks like foolish gambling, so Reeves will probably increase taxes not to fund anything, but just to give her some buffer in the event of even worse news coming down the track
Summary:
Terribly inheritance, some back luck, a few poor decisions post election (mostly on spending) and the incredibly stupid promises not to put up any of the main taxes mean she's in this mess. Personally I'd put up IT or VAT, but as they are doing so atrociously in the polls you can see why this is their last resort. |
That's a very good summary. |  | | |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 11:24 - Oct 24 with 228 views | Guthrum |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 10:01 - Oct 24 by Leaky |
Well borowing money then giving it away to other countries doesn't help. Chagos Islands £100m a year, I rest my case |
However, £100m is piddling small change in national finance terms. Less than 0.009% of annual government revenue*. 0.05% of the cost of running the NHS.
In exchange for which we remove a lot of hassle in the UN and secure an important strategic airbase - quite apart from the welfare aspects.
* Edit: That's like someone on £40kpa giving £3.60 to charity. [Post edited 24 Oct 11:29]
|  |
| |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 11:40 - Oct 24 with 195 views | DJR |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 10:08 - Oct 24 by DarkBrandon |
There isn't a wealth tax anywhere on the planet that raises significant amounts.
There isn't a pool of "other people" we can tax to raise large sums of money.
If we need to raise money in the tens of billions we will all have to pay more. |
I'm not convinced by a wealth tax per se but there are existing ways of taxing wealth. Having said that, one has to be careful to assess the overall impact of any tax increases.
One way would be to make sure that the council tax on a £100 million flat in Westminster is higher than a Band D house in the north east. It's also a tax that is impossible to avoid because you can't move a home outside the country.
Another would be to increase the rates of CGT or the scope of inheritance tax (perhaps a higher allowance but no lifetime gifts).
Whether that would raise enough is another matter, and I still think we should be looking at income tax and things like the triple lock, the annual cost of the which is predicted to hit £15.5bn by 2030, three times more than initially estimated, and up to £40 billion by 2050. [Post edited 24 Oct 11:45]
| | | |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 11:44 - Oct 24 with 180 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 11:24 - Oct 24 by Guthrum |
However, £100m is piddling small change in national finance terms. Less than 0.009% of annual government revenue*. 0.05% of the cost of running the NHS.
In exchange for which we remove a lot of hassle in the UN and secure an important strategic airbase - quite apart from the welfare aspects.
* Edit: That's like someone on £40kpa giving £3.60 to charity. [Post edited 24 Oct 11:29]
|
Indeed - they could start by looking at the estimate £2bn cost of digital ID which is going to have zero impact on illegal working.
But generally we’re paying the cost of the last 15 years of governments being addicted to credit and now spending more on debt than education. But that also a knock on effect of decades of poor governance and de-industrialisation when you look at our debt to GDP ratio compared to say Germany, as the IMF agrees the debt situation is a drag on UK growth.
Outsized index linked borrowing was a miscalculated gamble too given we’ve consistently posted the worst inflation in the West (caused by loss of single market access and this government’s increased employment costs for businesses). | | | |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 12:24 - Oct 24 with 149 views | J2BLUE |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 10:10 - Oct 24 by DarkBrandon |
The other issue is how do you know who much someone is worth?
Income is easy to tax, as it all has to be registed and goes through company accounts.
How much people own in bank accounts, share portfolios, property, paintings and so forth is unknown to the state, and basically impossible to find out. |
True, they could certainly hide assets. Gold buried in the garden. Bitcoin keys 'lost'. |  |
| |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 12:29 - Oct 24 with 139 views | DJR |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 09:41 - Oct 24 by WeWereZombies |
If honesty pays long run then please explain Trump's re-election, and the suspicion that he will rig things and get elected again in 2028...even if he is a corpse, animatronics can do wonders. There seems to be a credible record of despots, autocrats and various other criminal types (or front men for criminal organisations) not just in the Putins and Maduros of the present day but in the Medicis, Ceasars and Pharaohs of the past. All it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing is another old but pertinent saw. [Post edited 24 Oct 10:04]
|
I give you that dishonesty seems to work for many but, in the case of Labour, being economical with the truth hasn't done them any favours. | | | |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 12:47 - Oct 24 with 107 views | WeWereZombies |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 12:29 - Oct 24 by DJR |
I give you that dishonesty seems to work for many but, in the case of Labour, being economical with the truth hasn't done them any favours. |
Ever was it thus, and now we have defensive midfielder Jess Phillips one booking short of a ban, left back Wes Streeting looking lost due to having too much ground to cover. As for Rachel Reeves, well that false ten position is not throwing up the scoring opportunities at the monent... | |
| |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 12:51 - Oct 24 with 103 views | Herbivore |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 12:47 - Oct 24 by WeWereZombies |
Ever was it thus, and now we have defensive midfielder Jess Phillips one booking short of a ban, left back Wes Streeting looking lost due to having too much ground to cover. As for Rachel Reeves, well that false ten position is not throwing up the scoring opportunities at the monent... |
Think Wes Streeting is much more effective on the right wing. |  |
| |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 13:02 - Oct 24 with 87 views | WeWereZombies |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 12:51 - Oct 24 by Herbivore |
Think Wes Streeting is much more effective on the right wing. |
Well spotted but I see Leif more as a comparator (and vice versa) than Young, Furlong or Harry Clarke. | |
| |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 13:09 - Oct 24 with 80 views | BloomBlue |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 21:52 - Oct 23 by HampBlue |
Tax wealth not income.
I do not understand how this message is not “mainstream”. Young people earning 60,70,80k are not “rich”. Especially considering these people probably have student loans, monster mortgages and getting taxed enough.
Meanwhile, people are hoarding wealth, making us all poorer in the process. |
Wealth tax doesn't work, its been proved time and again in other countries. Unfortunately too many people are stuck in the 1950s and don't appreciate how wealth is easily moved. Labour have found that with non-dom, already admitting it will bring far less than predicted.
The only option would be a property tax, you cannot move property, you can wealth.
They would need to close all loopholes, ie if a Limited company owns the property, tough, no get outs. Its a tax not VAT related allowing a Ltd to claim back VAT, or offset it against loss.
*I appreciate for some older people that could become an issue. A couple could have moved into a rundown house in a 'rough' part of London years ago, lived their all their lives and don't want to move as all the family now live near them. But now find themselves in the situation where that location is now a trendy part of London and their house is worth £2million and all they have is their state pension. |  | | |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 13:27 - Oct 24 with 70 views | WeWereZombies |
| “Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 13:09 - Oct 24 by BloomBlue |
Wealth tax doesn't work, its been proved time and again in other countries. Unfortunately too many people are stuck in the 1950s and don't appreciate how wealth is easily moved. Labour have found that with non-dom, already admitting it will bring far less than predicted.
The only option would be a property tax, you cannot move property, you can wealth.
They would need to close all loopholes, ie if a Limited company owns the property, tough, no get outs. Its a tax not VAT related allowing a Ltd to claim back VAT, or offset it against loss.
*I appreciate for some older people that could become an issue. A couple could have moved into a rundown house in a 'rough' part of London years ago, lived their all their lives and don't want to move as all the family now live near them. But now find themselves in the situation where that location is now a trendy part of London and their house is worth £2million and all they have is their state pension. |
If the house is their main residence they would not pay Capital Gains Tax if the land is less than five thousand acres, irrespective of value.
https://www.gov.uk/tax-sell-home#:~:text=You%20do%20not%20pay%20Capital,not%20in
However there could be Inheritance tax liabilities when they die. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
