[Politics] Sir Keir Starmer’s route to Number 10

[Hugo Rune]

The first adjustment of the policy was last June when they changed it from £28billion a year to “ramping up to £28 billion in the middle of the term”

This latest adjustment is halving it ….and will probably end up even less

The tories are already running a reel of 35 times that Labour have quoted the £28 billion


To be honest, I don’t believe it is suddenly less affordable now than it was 2 years ago ??

Predictions on future growth in the economy have have been in the news for the last 6 months or so.

The outlook has slowly turned from mildly optimistic to very pessimistic. There is no money. The economy is going down the pan.

They had to react and cut something or else they are just lying to the electorate.

The irony is of course, you’ve been amplifying the primary Tory election attack line ‘Starmer has no plan’ but then when Labour do announce a prudent and sensible update on a policy based on changes in fiscal forecasts, you’re all over it like a……well like a Tory spin doctor.

I guess reducing the target and keeping their mouths shut IS going to be the best election strategy.

 

[nicko31]

This. The result of our GE will have little or no impact on the wider world. Trump being elected is likely to take the world to war.

Not to mention near total denial of action on climate change

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I could back out now while everybody's distracted by Healey's magnificent eyebrows, but I said I'd try so I will. I make no claims for being convincing or anything though.

Right, if we start from the point that the aim is to raise the most income, then ideally we want to be taxing at the rate that maximises how much we rake in. I gather that this turns out to be very roughly in the 40%-60% region, since anything above that encourages evasion/avoidance (the legal one) and starts to kill the incentive to work.

Now, if we also accept that we need everybody to have at least a minimum income after tax, then it follows that we can't tax the majority of the population at such a high rate since most people don't earn that much. So, we either have to arbitrarily crank up everybody's gross pay to make sure they earn that much, or we drop the tax rate on lower incomes.

Bearing in mind that, I'd back myself to put together a spreadsheet to work out how much tax somebody needs to pay on their income across the different bands in about 10minutes, I'd suggest that having different tax bands is simpler than completely overhauling everybody's pay and accordingly the whole economy.

That'll do. Progressive taxation from first principles, without any recourse to social engineering, Karl Marx or actual knowledge of economics.

Edit: I do, obviously, agree with the wider aim of simplifying the tax code and the web of excemptions and exclusions etc. But I see that as a separate issue.

So, I have heard that argument.

I earn £10,000 say, and I pay tax at 10%, which is £1,000

I earn £100,000, pay tax at 10%, which is £10,000.

More income, more tax paid, proportionately.

But your argument is at those rates we can't raise enough tax.
So your solution (the status quo) is to increase the rate for the higher earner
So I earn £100,000 and now pay tax at 20%, which is £20,000

I don't call that progressive taxation. I call it unfair taxation.

I can understand why it is done. I can even see how it creates jobs (people need to be employed to monitor the tax bands and curate the process). But to me....it is simply wrong.

I expect you are right though that it would be far too complicated to make it fair, and would involve far more thought and far more changes to other things to make it feasible. This is how societies stagnate and become fossilized. We cross event horizons from which there is no way back. Brexit is another example. Far too complicated now for labour to even whisper the possibility of reversing it.

Human beings can be so...... disappointing

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

So, I have heard that argument.

I earn £10,000 say, and I pay tax at 10%, which is £1,000

I earn £100,000, pay tax at 10%, which is £10,000.

More income, more tax paid, proportionately.

But your argument is at those rates we can't raise enough tax.
So your solution (the status quo) is to increase the rate for the higher earner
So I earn £100,000 and now pay tax at 20%, which is £20,000

I don't call that progressive taxation. I call it unfair taxation.

I can understand why it is done. I can even see how it creates jobs (people need to be employed to monitor the tax bands and curate the process). But to me....it is simply wrong.

I expect you are right though that it would be far too complicated to make it fair, and would involve far more thought and far more changes to other things to make it feasible. This is how societies stagnate and become fossilized. We cross event horizons from which there is no way back. Brexit is another example. Far too complicated now for labour to even whisper the possibility of reversing it.

Human beings can be so...... disappointing

To be clear, my argument (as presented) is that the rate is raised as high as practical for everybody. If we were in a position where we were taking in more tax than we spend, then we could have a conversation about dropping the rates.

If we want to introduce fairness to the conversation, which I deliberately avoided because you said you were primarily interested in raising revenue, then we could start talking about the value of a pound to somebody who earns £20,000 compared to £200,000. 20p in the next pound is worth far less to somebody earning the latter compared to the former, so it's not "fair" to tax them the same.

I don't doubt you've heard that argument before as well. To be frank, I've even less hope of convincing you of anything on this subject than I have on electoral reform (i.e. somewhat less than zero).

Right, I've got retaining walls to design

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Points 1 and 2 are very Poll Tax like ( which I think is a fairer way to pay for local services ).

Mmmm.....the poll tax was a fixed tax, "a single flat-rate, per-capita tax on every adult, at a rate set by the local authority" that took no account of income, and meant that three people living in a terraced house in Burnley paid three times the amount paid by the old recluse living in the majestic castle on the hill, half a mile away. This bears no relation to what I propose.

Incidentally I don't like the idea of hiving off national requirements such as police, schools, roads, sewers (and when renationalized, water) to local authorities to manage and fund. Some duffer councillor is no way fit to manage all this. Consequently every local authority has to employ consultants at great expense. And a replication of effort from one authority to the next.

This is all Thatcher bollocks. Systems set up so the feckless poor and scroungers could jolly well suffer if they were unwilling to work and manage their local services properly. Meanwhile nice people in Hemel Hempstead could manage their affaires without fear that their council would be sending their money to the Sandinistas, the IRA and subsidizing hoards of homeless black people, single mothers and Islamic refugees. Taking back control.

 

[Rdodge30]

Predictions on future growth in the economy have have been in the news for the last 6 months or so.

The outlook has slowly turned from mildly optimistic to very pessimistic. There is no money. The economy is going down the pan.

They had to react and cut something or else they are just lying to the electorate.

The irony is of course, you’ve been amplifying the primary Tory election attack line ‘Starmer has not plan’ but then when Labour do announce a prudent and sensible update on a policy based on changes in fiscal forecasts, you’re all over it like a……well like a Tory spin doctor.

I guess reducing the target and keeping their mouths shuts is going to be the best election strategy.

What I actually said was that the positive aspect is firstly that the shadow chancellor clearly has a grip on financing and even more importantly the leader of the opposition is listening to the shadow chancellor…. Word for word that is what I said !! So “all over it like a Tory spin doctor” slightly wide of the mark

At the end of the day - the u turn is not the issue, it’s the bizarre policy in the first place … £140 billion over 5 years ?? Who the hell thought that would ever happen in all honesty!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

To be clear, my argument (as presented) is that the rate is raised as high as practical for everybody. If we were in a position where we were taking in more tax than we spend, then we could have a conversation about dropping the rates.

If we want to introduce fairness to the conversation, which I deliberately avoided because you said you were primarily interested in raising revenue, then we could start talking about the value of a pound to somebody who earns £20,000 compared to £200,000. 20p in the next pound is worth far less to somebody earning the latter compared to the former, so it's not "fair" to tax them the same.

I don't doubt you've heard that argument before as well. To be frank, I've even less hope of convincing you of anything on this subject than I have on electoral reform (i.e. somewhat less than zero).

Right, I've got retaining walls to design

I take your point, and I will think about it. There is some obvious merit. One of my many objections is that shifting around the bands, the % in the bands, the exceptions, wheezes like universal credit, plus factoring in the rates (or whatever they are called now) creates a massive and confusing mess that is ripe for gaming by the shitters in Westminster. So having a simpler more transparent system (no NI - I'm sure you may be open to that) would be a start. But.....it really won't happen. Politicians of all colours love the present systems because they offer so much scope for electoral brinkmanship.

 

[beorhthelm]

To be clear, my argument (as presented) is that the rate is raised as high as practical for everybody. If we were in a position where we were taking in more tax than we spend, then we could have a conversation about dropping the rates.

If we want to introduce fairness to the conversation, which I deliberately avoided because you said you were primarily interested in raising revenue, then we could start talking about the value of a pound to somebody who earns £20,000 compared to £200,000. 20p in the next pound is worth far less to somebody earning the latter compared to the former, so it's not "fair" to tax them the same.

I don't doubt you've heard that argument before as well. To be frank, I've even less hope of convincing you of anything on this subject than I have on electoral reform (i.e. somewhat less than zero).

Right, I've got retaining walls to design

thats not economics argument anymore, thats political constuction. a £ is £. different earnings will changes peoples perceptions of value of goods, the value of their money doesn't change.

 

[nicko31]

Makes me feel slightly better about yesterday's backtracking.

Back to the plan, "Just Stop The Tories"

Public money not needed for Net Zero says major Labour donor

Today we got confirmation that Labour has u-turned on one of its defining policy commitments - to spend £28 billion a year on green projects.

www.channel4.com

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

thats not economics argument anymore, thats political constuction. a £ is £. different earnings will changes peoples perceptions of value of goods, the value of their money doesn't change.

I can throw in expressions like marginal value or price elasticity of the currency if it makes you feel any better.
If you have a lot of something (pretty much anything) than the value to you of one more of that thing is less than if you only have a small amount of it. That is a straightforward economic concept. In itself it has nothing to do with redistribution.

 

[Bob!]

I could back out now while everybody's distracted by Healey's magnificent eyebrows, but I said I'd try so I will. I make no claims for being convincing or anything though.

Right, if we start from the point that the aim is to raise the most income, then ideally we want to be taxing at the rate that maximises how much we rake in. I gather that this turns out to be very roughly in the 40%-60% region, since anything above that encourages evasion/avoidance (the legal one) and starts to kill the incentive to work.

Now, if we also accept that we need everybody to have at least a minimum income after tax, then it follows that we can't tax the majority of the population at such a high rate since most people don't earn that much. So, we either have to arbitrarily crank up everybody's gross pay to make sure they earn that much, or we drop the tax rate on lower incomes.

The simple resolution to this is to pay everyone a Universal Basic Income.

 

[abc]

The simple resolution to this is to pay everyone a Universal Basic Income.

Why should someone who refuses to work (as opposed to cannot work) receive a universal basic income?

 

[Chicken Run]

The simple resolution to this is to pay everyone a Universal Basic Income.

Whilst I agree with the concept I fear many of the British public couldn’t be trusted to motivate themselves to work, then you have a situation where businesses will start to fold as either they can’t get the staff or cannot afford the “I wouldn’t get out of bed for less than a one’er a day brigade”

It already feels like we have become a nation of part timers

 

[BBassic]

All feeling very deja-vu this.

Labour pulling back from the £28bn pledge because the Tories have blown the economy sounds a lot like the Tories saying Labour had blown the economy and using it to justify their austerity policies.

Of course it was the global economy that had tanked back then which couldn't really be blamed on Labour whereas this time we've got a laundry list of catastrophic waste perpetrated by the Blue rosette brigade.

I'm finding it all very numbing and hopeless.

 

[rippleman]

Any reform to the tax system must first involve a total reorganisation of HMRC.

Like many other government departments (see eg the Home Office with asylum applications) they are an absolute, total shambles and are failing to deliver an efficient service to the taxpayer. It is my belief that this is due to the senior management cadre being almost entirely made up of career civil servants. As one HMRC officer (from Head Office) once told me "we are beholden to our IT suppliers"!!

They need people at the top of the organisation with business acumen and experience.

I called HMRC the other day for advice on an extremely complex (and possibly unique) Capital Gains Tax issue. I waited 40 minutes for the telephone to be answered. When it was, the advisor didn't know the answer and tried to put me through to a technical specialist who didn't answer the telephone. I was promised a callback which did not materialise.

The service delivery has fallen off a cliff post-covid and I am convinced that the significant deterioration in service is due in large part to many staff just refusing to return to the office and being allowed "to work from the kitchen sink".

The Department incorrectly paid hundreds of millions in various covid scheme grants and then basically decided that for the most part, they couldn't be arsed to go after the fraudsters to recover the monies incorrectly paid. There is stacks of information (see paradise papers, panama papers et al) on people defrauding the Crown but HMRC seems unwilling or unable to go after those individuals.

I could write an essay on the inefficiency and incompetence of HMRC but suffice is to say that whatever tax system we have, it needs to be administered and policed correctly and you aren't going to get that with HMRC in its current guise.

 

[Gwylan]

Why should someone who refuses to work (as opposed to cannot work) receive a universal basic income?

Because if they didn't, it wouldn't be universal

 

[Greg Bobkin]

I’d like to join in too - I never met him but he used to stop off at our local Chinese ( Happy Valley in Hollingbury) on the way back home from the Commons. notwithstanding that he lived for 98 years.

I'll join in too. I've never met Dennis Healey, but I heard (before I actually saw) Iain Paisley Snr (which sounds a bit like Healey) at Stuttgart airport.

As for the U-turn thing, it's way beyond rich for ANY Tory to start having a pop at any other party reversing policies....

 

[abc]

Because if they didn't, it wouldn't be universal

True! But you know what I meant!

 

[vegster]

All feeling very deja-vu this.

Labour pulling back from the £28bn pledge because the Tories have blown the economy sounds a lot like the Tories saying Labour had blown the economy and using it to justify their austerity policies.

Of course it was the global economy that had tanked back then which couldn't really be blamed on Labour whereas this time we've got a laundry list of catastrophic waste perpetrated by the Blue rosette brigade.

I'm finding it all very numbing and hopeless.

The majority of the country and its population are deep in shite thanks to 14 years of austerity, cuts and underfunding. On Day One of a Labour government they will have so much to start putting right they probably don't know where to begin.

So many of the struts that bind our society are creaking or already broken under the strain so I can fully understand the Labour change of position on the £28 billion. But, it's hilarious to have people accusing Starmer of backtracking,lying, changing his mind etc especially from a Tory government that exists on lies.

So much for Labour to do and sadly every day Sunak is in charge we go a little bit deeper in to hell. I fear that we are beyond hope now.

 

[The Clamp]

Missions – The Labour Party

Labour's five missions to get Britain's future back.

labour.org.uk