| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands 08:28 - Aug 27 with 9247 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 08:33 - Aug 27 with 5634 views | NthQldITFC |
Not so much 'Tory Lite' as 'Just More Tory Shyte'. |  |
| |
| “Meet the new boss…” (n/t) on 08:36 - Aug 27 with 5618 views | Bloots |
|  |
| "He's been a really positive influence on my life, I think he's a great man" - TWTD User (May 2025) |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 08:38 - Aug 27 with 5609 views | pointofblue |
Blair at least offered something different to the tired Tory government of the 90s, even if he was more to the right than his predecessors as Labour leader. What does Starmer offer exactly? "I'm not as sleazy as the current bunch"? |  |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 09:01 - Aug 27 with 5551 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
W@nkers. Who would vote for them! |  |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 09:30 - Aug 27 with 5494 views | DJR |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 09:01 - Aug 27 by BanksterDebtSlave |
W@nkers. Who would vote for them! |
In the main, there is little option but to vote for them but they certainly are offering very little except on the back of rather elusive growth. | | | |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 09:59 - Aug 27 with 5449 views | Churchman |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 09:01 - Aug 27 by BanksterDebtSlave |
W@nkers. Who would vote for them! |
I’d vote for Satan’s party to get rid of the current corrupt scum. Anybody but them. However, I’m always mindful of the Billy Connelly quote:
‘Don’t vote for politicians, it just encourages them’ |  | | |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 10:26 - Aug 27 with 5406 views | blueasfook |
And your transformation to the dark side is now complete. I shall call you Darth Kier |  |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 10:37 - Aug 27 with 5385 views | BlueBadger |
Key phrase there - 'as her party seeks to grab the centre ground'.
This is main problem here, the Tories have moved the centre ground ridiculously far to the right. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 10:50 - Aug 27 with 5356 views | Herbivore |
They are basically Tories, that could have been written by a Tory shadow chancellor. We don't have any alternative in UK politics anymore. |  |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 12:39 - Aug 27 with 5250 views | Darth_Koont |
You’ve got that the wrong way around. Labour has been toxified by Starmer and the ruling Labour right — it’s now a dishonest, authoritarian, anti-democratic, non-representative party that’s selling itself to corporations and lobbyists. And selling out to the devil that is their own personal self-interest.
Of course there’s little to no room in all of that for the actual interests of the country. Similarly, the policy emptiness and U-turns come as zero surprise.
They’re just not fit for purpose and highlight the inherent problem with the oft-repeated mantra that getting the Tories out is all that matters. No, an actual change of direction is what matters. |  |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 12:47 - Aug 27 with 5215 views | Darth_Koont |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 10:26 - Aug 27 by blueasfook |
And your transformation to the dark side is now complete. I shall call you Darth Kier |
It’s odd how the “dark side” seem much more keen on shining a light on the actual problems with our economy, society and indeed the politics that hasn’t just perpetuated these problems but entrenched them over past decades.
The real dark side of course is the one stuffed with empty, self-serving rhetoric and telling us to disbelieve the evidence of our own eyes. | |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 12:48 - Aug 27 with 5208 views | DJR |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 12:39 - Aug 27 by Darth_Koont |
You’ve got that the wrong way around. Labour has been toxified by Starmer and the ruling Labour right — it’s now a dishonest, authoritarian, anti-democratic, non-representative party that’s selling itself to corporations and lobbyists. And selling out to the devil that is their own personal self-interest.
Of course there’s little to no room in all of that for the actual interests of the country. Similarly, the policy emptiness and U-turns come as zero surprise.
They’re just not fit for purpose and highlight the inherent problem with the oft-repeated mantra that getting the Tories out is all that matters. No, an actual change of direction is what matters. |
Also from the Telegraph article.
"[The] annual business forum hosted at Labour’s conference is over-subscribed by some 75 per cent, with 200 delegates due to attend and 150 on a waiting list, compared with 130 attendees last year."
I rather suspect they're not going there for the good of the country. [Post edited 27 Aug 2023 12:49]
| | | |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 12:51 - Aug 27 with 5196 views | leitrimblue |
Good work Keir, just because some people's great grandparents made a fair bit of money from the slave trade that was carefully and wisely invested in business and property. Why should they have to share their hard earned wealth with every over tattooed working class chav. Their probably only gonna waste it on beer and fags anyway. Its about time a politician stood up for the super rich and highly wealthy individuals of this country. It was what the Labour Party was truely formed for |  | | |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 12:54 - Aug 27 with 5162 views | DJR |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 08:38 - Aug 27 by pointofblue |
Blair at least offered something different to the tired Tory government of the 90s, even if he was more to the right than his predecessors as Labour leader. What does Starmer offer exactly? "I'm not as sleazy as the current bunch"? |
And Blair was prepared to be somewhat radical, with things like the minimum wage and civil partnerships. The current Labour Party wouldn't go near either if it weren't already the law. | | | |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 13:34 - Aug 27 with 5093 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 12:54 - Aug 27 by DJR |
And Blair was prepared to be somewhat radical, with things like the minimum wage and civil partnerships. The current Labour Party wouldn't go near either if it weren't already the law. |
In fairness, Blair inherited an economy that was in excellent shape. Starmer will inherit an absolute sh1tshow.
Edit. As did Cameron before.
Thatcher inherited an economy in very good shape due to Denis Healy saving the economy after we were bailed out by the IMF in the mid 70's. Then again, he did cut more to pubic services in one year than Osborne did in his six years as chancellor. [Post edited 27 Aug 2023 13:38]
|  |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 14:19 - Aug 27 with 4998 views | Darth_Koont |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 13:34 - Aug 27 by GlasgowBlue |
In fairness, Blair inherited an economy that was in excellent shape. Starmer will inherit an absolute sh1tshow.
Edit. As did Cameron before.
Thatcher inherited an economy in very good shape due to Denis Healy saving the economy after we were bailed out by the IMF in the mid 70's. Then again, he did cut more to pubic services in one year than Osborne did in his six years as chancellor. [Post edited 27 Aug 2023 13:38]
|
I didn’t think Denis Healey would have been into manscaping. The eyebrows must have been a red herring.
The underlying global economy is of course the main driver throughout that period and today. Our problem is that we seem to have a boom or bust response to that as we seem to surf the upswings with gusto but founder badly and cluelessly when it gets a bit choppy. Basically, because we’ve allowed ourselves to be a quick buck, profit-oriented and massively centralised economy with little investment and low productivity on the wider scale. We’re just not strong enough or sustainable enough in our real day-to-day economy as a result and that’s why we’ve seen wage stagnation and growing inequality whether the global economy is up or down.
The question is: what are we going to do about it? Waiting for the next following wind (and repeating the same mistakes) seems to be the only option on the table. Which is criminal in a supposed 21st century developed society that has all the metrics to hand. | |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 14:30 - Aug 27 with 4951 views | HARRY10 |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 13:34 - Aug 27 by GlasgowBlue |
In fairness, Blair inherited an economy that was in excellent shape. Starmer will inherit an absolute sh1tshow.
Edit. As did Cameron before.
Thatcher inherited an economy in very good shape due to Denis Healy saving the economy after we were bailed out by the IMF in the mid 70's. Then again, he did cut more to pubic services in one year than Osborne did in his six years as chancellor. [Post edited 27 Aug 2023 13:38]
|
Our resident tightie, unable to help himself, yet again
" he did cut more to pubic*services in one year than Osborne did in his six years as chancellor. "
Actually, he didn't, and I challenge you to give evidence to your claim.
What Healey faced was trying to pick up the country's economy after the disastrous 'Dash for Growth' of the Tory Chancellor Antony Barber. The sort of policy you more readily associate with South American countries.
If you look at how the rise in oil/gas prices has affected the economy currently, the consider then how the economy would fare with the price of oil quadrupling, as it did in Healey's first year. Yes, oil prices rose by four fold thanks to OPEC.
Copying from the Farage play book GB yet again hides a massive lie amongst universally acknowledged truths. A tactic similarly favoured by the odious stick insect.
And whatever cuts were brought in by Healey, they were a response to the twin blows of the oil price rise and Tory mismanagement. Osborne's cuts were politically motivated, as cuts to nurses bursaries have shown.
* Freudian slip there. GB ? | | | |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 14:34 - Aug 27 with 4946 views | Ryorry |
Forgotten how many times multiple people on here have pointed out that we're a year away from a GE; that none of the kite-flying sounding-boards should be taken seriously now; & that powder is best kept dry. |  |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 15:13 - Aug 27 with 4888 views | Darth_Koont |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 14:34 - Aug 27 by Ryorry |
Forgotten how many times multiple people on here have pointed out that we're a year away from a GE; that none of the kite-flying sounding-boards should be taken seriously now; & that powder is best kept dry. |
What powder?
People seem to think the policy void at the heart of Labour is temporary rather than actually showing the nature of Starmer, Reeves, Streeting etc. and the right-wingers pulling the strings — inside the party and as donors/lobbyists.
They’re there to serve the status quo not change it. | |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 16:12 - Aug 27 with 4782 views | Swansea_Blue |
I don’t see why people worry about this. I’d be more interested in what they’re going to do about creating good job/career opportunities for the rest of us and our kids. Not getting caught up in a culture war over taxes for a very small number of high earners. Whatever they do there won’t affect most of us. Sure, it may be nice to close some of the loopholes for the very richest, but she’s right that that it would have little impact on prosperity for everyone else.
If they can make working worthwhile again for the millions who’ve dropped into in-work poverty and halt the real terms wages decline for the middle earners, then they’ll be on to something whatever the do for the top 1%. |  |
| |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 17:03 - Aug 27 with 4711 views | DJR |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 16:12 - Aug 27 by Swansea_Blue |
I don’t see why people worry about this. I’d be more interested in what they’re going to do about creating good job/career opportunities for the rest of us and our kids. Not getting caught up in a culture war over taxes for a very small number of high earners. Whatever they do there won’t affect most of us. Sure, it may be nice to close some of the loopholes for the very richest, but she’s right that that it would have little impact on prosperity for everyone else.
If they can make working worthwhile again for the millions who’ve dropped into in-work poverty and halt the real terms wages decline for the middle earners, then they’ll be on to something whatever the do for the top 1%. |
I don't think it's anything to do with a culture war over taxes. As I said on another thread, the IFS have recently said we face a future of either higher taxes or declining public services, so a debate about raising taxes appears to be perfectly valid, given that otherwise the only game in town is somewhat elusive growth to fund increases in public spending.
Sadly, no party appears to willing to argue the case for higher taxes more generally to fund public services more akin to those in European countries with higher rates of general taxation. That means having to consider raising tax on those with the broadest shoulders.
As I said on that other thread, a person owning a £50 million property in Westminster pays less council tax than someone owning a Band C property where I live. And my neighbours who converted their property from a two bedroom to a five bedroom property currently pay less tax than we do on a four bedroom property, because their conversion took place after the 1991 date for council tax valuations.
Not only are these anomalies unfair, but they seem to me, along with others (such as the lower rates on capital gains than income), to offer scope for raising sizeable revenues which the country is desperately in need of. to fund public services. And when it comes to property or CGT, we are clearly talking about more than the 1%.
Of course, those may then say, what about a widow on a low income living in a £2 million property? The answer to that is for her to downsize, rather than to continue to benefit from what is after all unearned increases in wealth. And maybe higher taxes on property would prevent property prices from reaching the ridiculous rates they do now.
Indeed, if we went a bit further, just look what a wealth tax might achieve according to the Wealth Commission Report from 2020.
At a threshold of £1 million per household (assuming two individuals with £500,000 each) and a rate of 1% per year on wealth above the threshold, a one-off wealth tax would raise £260 billion over five years after administration costs. This is equivalent to raising VAT by 6p or the basic rate of income tax by 9p for the same period.
At a threshold of £4 million per household (assuming two individuals with £2 million each) and a rate of 1% per year on wealth above the threshold, a one-off wealth tax would raise £80 billion over five years after administration costs.
Under the design recommended by the Commission, a one-off wealth tax would:
Be paid by any UK resident (including ‘non -doms’ and recent emigrants) with personal wealth above a set threshold.
Include all assets such as main homes and pension pots, as well as business and financial wealth, but minus any debts such as mortgages.
Be payable in instalments over five years.
The Commission concluded that a one-off wealth tax would be:
Fair. Wealth provides opportunity, security and spending power. Those with the most wealth have the ‘broadest shoulders’ to afford an additional contribution to society in times of crisis.
Efficient. Unlike taxes on work or spending, a one-off wealth tax would not discourage economic activity. The administrative costs would also be small as a proportion of the revenue raised.
Very difficult to avoid. A one-off wealth tax could not be avoided by emigrating or moving money offshore. In fact, if well designed, it would be very difficult to avoid the tax legally.
EDIT: And this suggests that equalising CGT rates with income tax rates could raise £16 billion a year.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/26/uk-shares-property-capital-gain [Post edited 27 Aug 2023 17:17]
| | | |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 17:27 - Aug 27 with 4649 views | DJR |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 13:34 - Aug 27 by GlasgowBlue |
In fairness, Blair inherited an economy that was in excellent shape. Starmer will inherit an absolute sh1tshow.
Edit. As did Cameron before.
Thatcher inherited an economy in very good shape due to Denis Healy saving the economy after we were bailed out by the IMF in the mid 70's. Then again, he did cut more to pubic services in one year than Osborne did in his six years as chancellor. [Post edited 27 Aug 2023 13:38]
|
That is true, but I still think (and I may be wrong) that Blair would have been more radical in this situation given that growth is now a problem.
From what I can recall, Blair only ruled out increases in the rates of income tax, and indeed in his first year brought in a tax on the privatised utilities which raised £5 billion, which in real terms is far more than Reeves' proposals for VAT on private schools and non-doms will raise.
And when it comes to Healey's cuts, there was much more slack in the system, rather than the position in 2010, when public sector savings had been on the agenda for 30 odd years and there was precious little to cut without doing the grave damage we are now experiencing in things like the criminal justice system. As an aside, I can remember in 1978 claiming unemployment benefit for a couple of weeks in my summer term, with no intention or requirement of seeking work. [Post edited 27 Aug 2023 17:29]
| | | |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 17:29 - Aug 27 with 4639 views | Ryorry |
| Your wealth is safe in Labour hands on 17:12 - Aug 27 by DJR |
The problem is that if Labour isn't going to raise taxes, it will be severely limited in what it can do, and so will end up firing blanks. [Post edited 27 Aug 2023 17:30]
|
Or you could wait for the actual manifesto to come out before throwing punches at the LP for not including what might end up being in there. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
