The Labour Government

[bluenova]

Not taxes aimed at the wealthier, sadly. Maybe on those that earn a bit more than average but a wealth tax, on the very rich, would go a long way to levelling the playing field, at least a little.
Unfortunately he’s another one who doffs his cap at the real wealth, in this society of ever increasing inequality.

People who pay inheritance tax aren't "just a little bit more than average". They're the top few percent. Similar people who are regularly making share profits above the £3k CGT allowance. If ISAs are cut back as predicted, it's likely to hit the top 10% or so, rather than the middle classes, and it won't get close to the poorer members of society.

I'd definitely approve of huge wealth taxes, but I'm not convinced it's anything like as easy as has been suggested. We've moved on a long way since the high rates from post WW2 to the 1970s, where it was much more difficult for rich people to avoid tax. Now, most really wealthy people can hide behind a myriad of companies, spread across the world, and it's almost impossible target their wealth.

 

[bluenova]

We're talking the austerity solves issues bollocks that has been proven to be bullshit and bad economkcs.

Reeves obsession with the welfare state is no different than any tory chancelor, and for a labpur goveremt to not go after the rich dodging tax and targeting the disabled is disgusting.

Not say they ain't doing some good stuff, I agree NHS England needed to be gone and the work on house building and cutting waiting lists can be applauded, but lets not pretent they are not just rinse and repeat neo liberals, who won't transform the nationor be revolutiobary in making peoples lives better but keep the status quo with less cuntinshness than the tories

The welfare state stuff reminds me of the left attacks on Labour pre-election.

You'd get a Labour MP saying that Rwanda was morally wrong, that we should treat asylum seekers fairly, that we need to be processing claims quickly, and explaining how the Tories have deliberately slowed down the system to create a "problem". Then they say that it's terrible that it costs the taxpayer huge amounts in hotel and living costs because of this failure, when that money could be spent better elsewhere.

You then get a snippet of the interview with a Labour MP saying that "asylum seekers cost money", and half of twitter calls them a Tory ****.

I'm not happy about the proposals to stop increases to PIP, but if you listen to the minister in charge, she talks about getting people into work, and the support they need, rather than simply saving money. Any Labour government should be looking at a situation where increasing numbers of people (and the increase has been dramatic post Covid, and it's not one that has been reflected in other similar countries) being pretty much written off by the Tories.

A situation where in some areas almost 20% of the population is on some kind of sickness/incapacity benefit, while other areas it's just 3% is an absolutely shocking reflection on us as a society. It's fundamental to any Labour government that they would try to do something about it, and the 1945 Cabinet would have seen it as absolutely core to their mission to help that 20%, rather than write them off as the Tories have done.

 

[urban genie]

The welfare state stuff reminds me of the left attacks on Labour pre-election.

You'd get a Labour MP saying that Rwanda was morally wrong, that we should treat asylum seekers fairly, that we need to be processing claims quickly, and explaining how the Tories have deliberately slowed down the system to create a "problem". Then they say that it's terrible that it costs the taxpayer huge amounts in hotel and living costs because of this failure, when that money could be spent better elsewhere.

You then get a snippet of the interview with a Labour MP saying that "asylum seekers cost money", and half of twitter calls them a Tory ****.

I'm not happy about the proposals to stop increases to PIP, but if you listen to the minister in charge, she talks about getting people into work, and the support they need, rather than simply saving money. Any Labour government should be looking at a situation where increasing numbers of people (and the increase has been dramatic post Covid, and it's not one that has been reflected in other similar countries) being pretty much written off by the Tories.

A situation where in some areas almost 20% of the population is on some kind of sickness/incapacity benefit, while other areas it's just 3% is an absolutely shocking reflection on us as a society. It's fundamental to any Labour government that they would try to do something about it, and the 1945 Cabinet would have seen it as absolutely core to their mission to help that 20%, rather than write them off as the Tories have done.

I work with several peolemon PiPs and without them would.probanly have to quot and go on long term sick as it supprots them gettting to work wwirh such as free bus passes or access to other schemes for their partuclar health issue.

PiPs.doesn't mean people solely unemployed only, the comnetary that those on benefits of aany kind are feckless and stivers choosing to be off work has always been the languague or the tories to scapegoat people rather than go after the real drains on society, the tax dodgers and cunts like scruffty jim radcliffe for example.

no issue goi g after fraudsters be it people claiming benefits unfairly or the very rich, but arbitary sanctioning of people is not Labour values

 

[bluenova]

I work with several peolemon PiPs and without them would.probanly have to quot and go on long term sick as it supprots them gettting to work wwirh such as free bus passes or access to other schemes for their partuclar health issue.

PiPs.doesn't mean people solely unemployed only, the comnetary that those on benefits of aany kind are feckless and stivers choosing to be off work has always been the languague or the tories to scapegoat people rather than go after the real drains on society, the tax dodgers and cunts like scruffty jim radcliffe for example.

no issue goi g after fraudsters be it people claiming benefits unfairly or the very rich, but arbitary sanctioning of people is not Labour values

I'd suggest that you go and read some of the speeches Liz Kendall has been giving. It's very much not all about feckless skivers.

I've also not worked in the area for a while, but I've helped 1000s of people with DLA/AA claims (which PIP replaced). I've helped with hundreds of reviews and appeals, and represented people at tribunals. I've got to know a lot of people on these kind of benefits, visited them in their homes, and learnt about their families. I've also had family members and close friends with similar issues. I'm fully aware of how important they are to people's lives. I'm also fully aware that the rise is unusual, and that in particular the rises amongst younger people is a huge issue for them and for society.

The comment on Jim Ratcliffe I agree with, but let's face it, he "moved" to Monaco to avoid taxes. Right now, we're losing the battle against the ultra wealthy, and to start chipping away at them will take the whole world to get together and enforce rules. With the people in power now in the US, that's a battle that has been made infinitely harder. There are no quick fixes there sadly.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

People who pay inheritance tax aren't "just a little bit more than average". They're the top few percent. Similar people who are regularly making share profits above the £3k CGT allowance. If ISAs are cut back as predicted, it's likely to hit the top 10% or so, rather than the middle classes, and it won't get close to the poorer members of society.

I'd definitely approve of huge wealth taxes, but I'm not convinced it's anything like as easy as has been suggested. We've moved on a long way since the high rates from post WW2 to the 1970s, where it was much more difficult for rich people to avoid tax. Now, most really wealthy people can hide behind a myriad of companies, spread across the world, and it's almost impossible target their wealth.

The tax system is in need of massive reform and should be made far simpler than it currently is.
A one off wealth tax (perhaps payable for 5 years) on assets of, say over £1M would be the equivalent of 9p on income tax.
An annual 1% on assets over £10M would raise about £20B a year.
Equalising capital gains with income tax would raise £15B a year.
Make it clear that the money is for improving infrastructure throughout the country.
Not complicated although would need HMRC to be properly funded.
Sadly the governments we have seem unable to see past a few bad headlines in the Telegraph and the Mail..

 

[hilts]

To the individual we do. It would be a change I’d personally benefit from but I wouldn’t want to ever see it.

? I think we pay taxes fella, now the reply maybe what about the unemployed or disabled.
I'm sure they have those in Europe too and i haven't heard of dying non tax payers lining the street there.
The compare us to America on everything is becoming a tiresome cliche like arming the police There are other countries to make comparisons with.

 

[Postman Pep]

Spokesman for the PM refuses to be drawn on comparison with Cameron/Osborne era "bonfire of the quangos". Meanwhile McSweeney's outfit ... "let's call it project chainsaw"

Labour Together said it hopes to channel “[Javier] Milei’s energy but with a radical centre-left purpose” with project chainsaw, a reference to the libertarian agenda of the Argentinian president who gifted Musk the chainsaw.

Plan to cut thousands of civil service jobs in radical government shake-up

Exclusive: Proposals also include cutting thousands of civil service jobs and restructuring NHS England

www.theguardian.com

 

[meltonblue]

? I think we pay taxes fella, now the reply maybe what about the unemployed or disabled.
I'm sure they have those in Europe too and i haven't heard of dying non tax payers lining the street there.
The compare us to America on everything is becoming a tiresome cliche like arming the police There are other countries to make comparisons with.

Obviously we have taxes, I was talking about free at point to delivery, so those taxes cover any treatment required and for anyone.

I was responding to someone who wouldn’t mind seeing the American system.

 

[hilts]

Obviously we have taxes, I was talking about free at point to delivery, so those taxes cover any treatment required and for anyone.

I was responding to someone who wouldn’t mind seeing the American system.

I agree with you on the American system but there are a plenty of different ways used where even the disadvantaged can get treatment.

Free at the point of delivery is a bit of a cliche that is taken literally and pushes the NHS on a pedestal that it doesn't currently deserve.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

The tax system is in need of massive reform and should be made far simpler than it currently is.
A one off wealth tax (perhaps payable for 5 years) on assets of, say over £1M would be the equivalent of 9p on income tax.
An annual 1% on assets over £10M would raise about £20B a year.
Equalising capital gains with income tax would raise £15B a year.
Make it clear that the money is for improving infrastructure throughout the country.
Not complicated although would need HMRC to be properly funded.
Sadly the governments we have seem unable to see past a few bad headlines in the Telegraph and the Mail..

The tax burden on ordinary people is huge. I'm not sure when income tax brackets were last overhauled, but I'm pretty sure that when they were set many of what are now £50k+ jobs would have attracted salaries below £30k? Also, vat going up from 17.5 to 20% seems permanent? - good news if you are shit at maths I suppose.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

The tax burden on ordinary people is huge. I'm not sure when income tax brackets were last overhauled, but I'm pretty sure that when they were set many of what are now £50k+ jobs would have attracted salaries below £30k? Also, vay going up from 17.5 to 20% seems permanent? - good news of you are shit at maths I suppose.

It’s even bigger if you’ve been a student as well. The one stat that shows how bad we are is that 10% of the worlds accountants are based in the UK which only has 0.8% of the worlds population!!

 

[meltonblue]

I agree with you on the American system but there are a plenty of different ways used where even the disadvantaged can get treatment.

Free at the point of delivery is a bit of a cliche that is taken literally and pushes the NHS on a pedestal that it doesn't currently deserve.

I don’t disagree, that’s a different discussion. The person I was replying too didn’t want to see welfare cut but wouldn’t have minded the American system specifically being deployed. Personally I don’t find that to be a compatible position.

 

[bluenova]

The tax system is in need of massive reform and should be made far simpler than it currently is.
A one off wealth tax (perhaps payable for 5 years) on assets of, say over £1M would be the equivalent of 9p on income tax.
An annual 1% on assets over £10M would raise about £20B a year.
Equalising capital gains with income tax would raise £15B a year.
Make it clear that the money is for improving infrastructure throughout the country.
Not complicated although would need HMRC to be properly funded.
Sadly the governments we have seem unable to see past a few bad headlines in the Telegraph and the Mail..

I agree with all those ideas, but I don't think it's just news headlines that are the problem.

These are all theoretical numbers, typically based on the expectation that the wealthy won't do too much to avoid them, or involve barriers (like a ban on taking money offshore before a one off windfall taxed). Before banking went electronic, all this would be a hell of a lot easier, but I just don't see how it will raise anything like the numbers quoted, and it wouldn't be long before huge amounts of wealth simply moved to other countries, and the ownership of assets transferred to complex webs of offshore companies.

I'd agree about equalising capital gains, but don't think it will raise that much money (I also think that figure was the one usually quoted before the increases at the last budget).

I actually think the employer's NI was a reasonably useful way of taxing businesses. As we often see, the biggest multinationals will regularly make very little paper profit on huge turnovers. Often large parts of their revenues are paid to other companies based in low tax areas. At least those doing business in the UK, and employing people in large numbers, will have a little more of their revenues taken in tax.

When the largest economy in the World, by some distance, is now being run by the very wealthiest of individuals, the war on obscene wealth is one that we've pretty much lost for now. I would hope that at some point the biggest countries will realise that something needs to be done, but I don't hold out much hope, and I don't think that the UK has the power to take on "big wealth", without losing a lot more than we'd gain.

 

[bluenova]

It’s even bigger if you’ve been a student as well. The one stat that shows how bad we are is that 10% of the worlds accountants are based in the UK which only has 0.8% of the worlds population!!

And a vast amount of those accountants are helping the wealthiest people, all across the world, to avoid as much tax as possible.

Makes you proud to be British :(

 

[west didsblue]

The tax burden on ordinary people is huge. I'm not sure when income tax brackets were last overhauled, but I'm pretty sure that when they were set many of what are now £50k+ jobs would have attracted salaries below £30k? Also, vat going up from 17.5 to 20% seems permanent? - good news if you are shit at maths I suppose.

VAT went from 17.5% to 20% in 2011.

 

[hilts]

I don’t disagree, that’s a different discussion. The person I was replying too didn’t want to see welfare cut but wouldn’t have minded the American system specifically being deployed. Personally I don’t find that to be a compatible position.

Agreed

 

[bluethrunthru]

This is the anti-Labour press in action and why people think there is no action

 

[BigJoe#1]

This is the anti-Labour press in action and why people think there is no action

Freeze PIP????

Don't you mean cut or reduce or even withdraw it in certain circumstances??

 

[bluethrunthru]

Freeze PIP????

Don't you mean cut or reduce or even withdraw it in certain circumstances??

any reports have only been in the press - no actual announcements have been made - no policy issued. You can't U-turn on something you were not going to do.

 

[BigJoe#1]

any reports have only been in the press - no actual announcements have been made - no policy issued. You can't U-turn on something you were not going to do.

Leaking bad news in the press ahead of the event..... it's the oldest trick in the book.

Sometimes they leak really, really bad news so they can reign it in a bit and make it look like they're listening and care. Other times they'll try and bury bad news on a day when something significant happens in the hope it won't get noticed.

Don't you know they're, even with an absurd majority, facing a rebellion from their own members in Parliament?

Never mind you'll learn.