The Labour Government

[Brewster's millions]

Millionaire spend a lot of money threatening to leave whenever they think they might get taxed more, and then...they don't go anywhere.

Millionaire exodus did not occur, study reveals - Tax Justice Network

The number of millionaires widely reported in the news to be leaving countries in "exodus" represented near-0% of all millionaires.

taxjustice.net

The fact that the Telegraph and co. are all relying on the same study (already completely disproven above) to scare people into thinking millionaires will leave over a wealth tax says everything to be honest, there's just no evidence at all that these people will leave.


There's actually more evidence in terms of research and studies based on previous wealth taxes that a wealth tax incentivises very wealthy people to spend their money rather than sit on it, which is exactly what the general public should want (that's certainly not proven, the point is one potential outcome has been magnified as much as possible based on 1 incredibly flawed study by a biased company, while a positive outcome has barely been mentioned at all by the traditional broadsheets)

Rather than referring to a poorly written report, and an arguably even worse rebuttal, perhaps the more intelligent thing to do is look at how the receipts of the type of taxes the very rich pay are performing?

That is, look at the actual, dependent variable rather than trying to second guess how many very rich people are leaving the country - the data around which is very poor - and how this might impact the public finances.

Things like Capital Gains Tax - only paid by around 300,000 people and likely to be dominated by the transactions of a smaller subset of very rich people.

Unfortunately the way it’s paid and the lags involved means that we’re not going to get a clear picture until early next year. But if the January 2026 CGT data are anything similar to the January 2025 figures - which showed a very unusual decline - then it would be difficult to deny that something strange is happening.

 

[metalblue]

Swings and roundabouts. While the rich do pay more tax in percentage terms, their wealth opens up all sorts of opportunities with regards to tax avoidance. People who aren't rich don't have that luxury.

Like working cash in hand?

 

[BigJoe#1]

oh right, so what you moaning for ? you have no influence and no opinion.
let's face it, your sole purpose is to criticize Labour for everything and be a WUM.
sad fucker.

Wrong... you should have seen what I wrote about Osborne and Cameron... we would have been buddies.

EDIT: nay... best buddies - because I never really believed much of the crap they spouted either.

 

[stonerblue]

For Brewster and Big Joe that's all it's about.

Yep. Like kids.

 

[Brewster's millions]

basically any reply to his thick posts can be considered as 'he's wound you up there'.

Not really - you often name check him even when not replying to his posts.

Also, while you’re here, are you going to be updating your list of Labour achievements, to reflect the upcoming strikes?

 

[stonerblue]

Thank you for recognising the fact that I am "un-partisan", not so sure how you can be alarmed that you are recognised for being a leftie... a badge of honour isn't it?

Despite your attempts to cover your political allegiances i haven't fallen for it or 'recognised' it.

 

[Brewster's millions]

Resident Doctors have announced strike dates 25 July to 30th July.....

Thank fuck Wes paid them off and averted further action eh....? Anyone who could not see this coming clearly doesn't understand British Politics.

I think the only people surprised by the doctors going on strike again are Rachel Reeves and @BlueHammer85.

 

[metalblue]

Isn’t it because he is rich himself, like others advocating to keep their taxes lower?

Or that he believes people spending money in a free market capitalist country is the best way to ensure growth.

Money not being taxed is only a problem for the government if it’s not spent.

 

[BigJoe#1]

Not really - you often name check him even when not replying to his posts.

Also, while you’re here, are you going to be updating your list of Labour achievements, to reflect the upcoming strikes?

They cannot help themselves.

 

[BigJoe#1]

I think the only people surprised by the doctors going on strike again are Rachel Reeves and @BlueHammer85.

We might want to add Wes to that list...?

 

[BlueHammer85]

Not really - you often name check him even when not replying to his posts.

Also, while you’re here, are you going to be updating your list of Labour achievements, to reflect the upcoming strikes?

Let's see how this pans out, will it go on for months and years like we had under the Tories ?
I suspect Labour will actually sit around with the BMA and discuss like adults fair pay and conditions.
We will forever get strikes its just whether we have a Government who can discuss sensibly and can make fair compromises with the Unions.
I suspect if the Tories hadn't screwed over so many public sectors and left this country in a unfit state burdened with billions of debt we wouldn't have this, but here we are.

 

[metalblue]

oh right, so what you moaning for ? you have no influence and no opinion.
let's face it, your sole purpose is to criticize Labour for everything and be a WUM.
sad fucker.

Pot kettle to be fair

 

[M18CTID]

Like working cash in hand?

I don't work cash in hand so I'm not sure what your point is. The fact is that every single person who has millions of pounds will have access to tax avoidance schemes. Not every single person who is on a lower wage will have access to avenues where they can work cash in hand.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Same old, same old.

 

[M18CTID]

Now who's posting a thick post?

You lefties really want to get your heads out of your own arses and wake up and smell the coffee and not believe all that you are told.

The fact that you think anyone to the left of you is a leftie shows how fucking brain dead you are. And that goes for that wumming **** Brewster as well ;)

 

[Kompany Car]

Not the point. I am opposed to any taxes imposed after the event. If a chancellor wants to make a tax change going forward then fine. People can plan and adjust and do whatever they want to in the light of what's coming. You cannot change what's already happened, so it is unfair to tax someone on what happened previously, like accumulating your wealth.

Suppose family A and family B earn the same and have the same number of kids, houses, costs etc. Family A decides to save as hard as they can, spend little and after 20 years have amassed a modest pot of savings. Family B does the opposite - spends everything they earn, goes on posh holidays, eat out all the time etc and after 20 years have nothing.

Would you say it is fair to then take 2% of what family A has off them, and give it family B? I would hope you would not.

So having agreed the principle, the financial cut off becomes irrelevant. It may be financially and practically expedient for the chancellor, but it is morally wrong.

What if family A decided to risk everything on a business venture and as a result of their entrepreneurship, working all hours and countless sacrifices, they are now worth £10m? Had they been told 20 years earlier, "Beware, if you are successful, the state will take x% off you", they may have decided to not risk everything.

Apart from anything else, we already have a high rate of wealth tax, called IHT which takes 40% of rich peoples' estate off them every 30 years or so.

Maybe thats why taxes on unearned income should be higher and we should have larger tax breaks for true entrepreneurship which bring demonstrable growth of high paying skilled jobs and not minimum wage roles. Likewise a luxury tax on items above predefined thresholds similar to the extra tax you pay on cars over 40k would be sensible.

I know a few people who fall into the very high net worth category (above £5m). Only one has increased their wealth by building and growing a successful business from scratch, taking risks and employing people. That individual is worth around £30m and lives very modestly considering his net worth. Another is a CEO of a FTSE 250 business.

The others have grown their wealth purely by investing, based on money given or inherited from their parents and handed to wealth managers. All have either pseudo roles in their parents business, have "launched" their own small (unsuccessful but gives them something to do) business based upon a large chunk of seed money or have been afforded the opportunity to follow careers in the arts, but happily live off significant investment returns so their salary is of little consequence.

There always needs to be an element of risk and reward but it needs to reflect the real risk being taken on an individual basis. The problem is once you get in the £10m plus range, a simple index fund will provide you with an income that puts you in the top 0.1% of all earners. Surely subjecting them to additional taxation is only reasonable.

As regards the Laffer "curve" the only points which are empirically correct are where the tax rate is 0 and where the tax rate is 100%. Away from these points the shape of the curve and optimal tax rate is not defined.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Or that he believes people spending money in a free market capitalist country is the best way to ensure growth.

Money not being taxed is only a problem for the government if it’s not spent.

And stashed away to keep their capital growing. Must be even richer than I thought.

 

[threespires]

Fair points but there's some pretty fundamental stuff as well. Unless something is done regards white English birthrate, and/or immigration, then the inexorable extrapolation will be that white British will be in a minority in several decades time. At that point - perhaps even before then - there's the prospect of an Islamist party gaining influence, or god forbid, power. Imagine what that would do to our 100+ years of us struggling to establish equality for women.

Alarmist? No, because I am not suggesting this would happen overnight. But it will happen if we don't start thinking about it and what changes we need to address. I am mortified by suggestions to criminalise blasphemy against Islam, just as one example of the slippery slope. Freedom of speech is absolutely fundamental and even that has been severely eroded already.

I genuinely think you are worrying about the wrong things Chippy. I think it was you who said that probably the biggest challenge we face is AI and I think that's true in that we have no grip on the technology and no meaningful policy/governance frameworks or competency for it. To me that's a clear and present danger we should be focusing on. We're going to need a fundamentally different way of thinking if AI is not to cause chaos and that's nothing to do with immigrants. The birthrate is a demographic timebomb that could potentially cause us huge problems around the number of working age people v retirees. That's likely to happen at least a 100 years earlier than any majority Muslim population even if you use parameters/maths that artificially accelerate the growth rate of Muslim people in the UK. The reduction in birthrate below the sustainable level is the result of a number of complex cultural, economic and policy factors which really do need to be discussed as we are sleepwalking into a bad situation but immigration isn't really a key influencer there, if anything it'll need to be a mitigator the way things are going.

So I'm really not sure there is a slippy slope to be worried about; but even if there is there are so many more material issues that are more pressing. Focusing on immigration and Islamist threats feels like chasing perceived shadows when there's threats stood straight in front of us staring us in the face. I just don't understand why that's a thing we should be anxious about in the face of all the other stuff.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I agree but there would be an outcry that those companies may leave entirely.

They won't, and if they did another would take their place. This isn't just overseas companies by the way. Most of the FTSE100 dont pay UK corporation tax.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I genuinely think you are worrying about the wrong things Chippy. I think it was you who said that probably the biggest challenge we face is AI and I think that's true in that we have no grip on the technology and no meaningful policy/governance frameworks or competency for it. To me that's a clear and present danger we should be focusing on. We're going to need a fundamentally different way of thinking if AI is not to cause chaos and that's nothing to do with immigrants. The birthrate is a demographic timebomb that could potentially cause us huge problems around the number of working age people v retirees. That's likely to happen at least a 100 years earlier than any majority Muslim population even if you use parameters/maths that artificially accelerate the growth rate of Muslim people in the UK. The reduction in birthrate below the sustainable level is the result of a number of complex cultural, economic and policy factors which really do need to be discussed as we are sleepwalking into a bad situation but immigration isn't really a key influencer there, if anything it'll need to be a mitigator the way things are going.

So I'm really not sure there is a slippy slope to be worried about; but even if there is there are so many more material issues that are more pressing. Focusing on immigration and Islamist threats feels like chasing perceived shadows when there's threats stood straight in front of us staring us in the face. I just don't understand why that's a thing we should be anxious about in the face of all the other stuff.

All fair points. We've got the threat of mass - and I mean mass - like 30%, 40%, 50% or higher unemployment to deal with in the shorter term. Unless some radical change is made to employment legislation, then that is a nailed on certainty.

And it really isn't as simple as introducing new laws to stop it, because unless the entire world does the same, the UK would be hugely uncompetitive and would ultimately go bust.