[Politics] Are Labour going to turn this country around?

[Seagull99]

Tax levels are hitting the maximum that is feasible based on economic constraints and competition between countries (as noted above in relation to mobility of wealth.)

Equally many people want society to spend more on services that impact their families.

Our politics is stuck arguing for more tax or less services. This is a doom loop.

The only way to solve for both constraints is to accept that the additional money has to come from somewhere other than taxation. For example, individual top up contributions which by definition are not mandatory (else it's just a tax.)

Private health insurance is growing massively as health rationing on the NHS becomes more obvious. This increases the net spending on health care. So we already have market led solutions to the problem.

We need to find a way to make this work in a way that is most beneficial for society and for the Government to maximise the opportunities for people to contribute to health, education and other services - that do not need Government to sit in the middle.

For those who fear a US based system, I've lived and worked there and can say we are at the far opposite end of the spectrum. And it seems to me it must be possible to find a moderate middle ground between the extremes - that does not compromise the values of public service that are a massive asset to the country.

 

[Machiavelli]

That makes no sense. The richest 1% pay 30% of the total tax revenue and the 6 richest paid £3billion between them. I think we might miss their tax just a teeny weeny bit if they all buggered off

While I have some sympathy for your previous accountant-relayed post as it demonstrates the difficulty of the 'tax the rich' position, this is just wrong. And it's the kind of propaganda (I'm using that word advisedly) that the IEA and all the others at Tufton St want you to pump out. The richest 1% pay 29% of income tax. Income tax amounted to c26% of tax revenue, which would indicate that the richest 1% pay about 7% of total taxation. I'm quite confident in this because they pay very little of the other taxes -- all of which have increased substantially over the past five decades, which means that the rich are paying a lower proportion of tax in 2025 than they were in, for instance, 1975 ...
... and this, despite the fact, that their earnings have increased substantially, and the price of their assets have gone through the roof.

 

[Machiavelli]

High Net Worth individuals are usually much more globally mobile than the rest of us, and so if there are tax havens and jurisdictions offering low tax to attract capital then they will gravitate to those places and place their assets there.

However, such a global system means those that access low tax jurisdictions will see their wealth grow faster than those who try and work within a higher tax, developed economy and - ultimately - by concentrating more wealth into the hands of the few who then take it offshore it means that with stagnant growth but rising inflation the tax burden is increasingly being shifted onto ordinary working people.

If a billionaire makes a gain on the sale of capital assets they pay a top rate here of 24% Capital Gains Tax. However, if a owner-managed director of a UK limited company manages to earn more than c. £50K profit then for each £1 of profit they extract over that figure they're facing c. 25% corporation tax and then c. 34% on the remainder - so a marginal rate of tax of c. 50%, which is more than double the likes of Rishi Sunak pays on gains when he sells some shares or a property in his portfolio.

If that director has kids they will potentially lose some/all of their Child Benefit, which is in effect a 10% tax charge on income between £60k-£80K, so if you have the temerity to exceed the £50,270 Higher Rate you can quickly be facing an effective tax rate of 60% on your trading profits.

This 60% marginal rate rears its ugly head again if your income exceeds £100K as you start losing lose your Personal Allowance.

The only way round this is to invest in pensions, which is good news for the super-rich as they will control the pension funds.

Politically, it is no surprise incumbents leader are increasingly finding it hard to stay in power because they can't deliver on the promises they make on jobs, growth, lower taxes because wealth inequality is getting worse, year-on-year. The problem is then made worse by fertility rates in decline, people living longer and people choosing to opt for a shorter working week for 'work/life balance'.

We are in a doom loop where the only way out is to globally look to reduce the tax havens and get more harmonisation of tax policy. However, with grifters and crooks like Trump and Putin in charge there is little prospect of this happening.

Excellent post.

 

[abc]

While I have some sympathy for your previous accountant-relayed post as it demonstrates the difficulty of the 'tax the rich' position, this is just wrong. And it's the kind of propaganda (I'm using that word advisedly) that the IEA and all the others at Tufton St want you to pump out. The richest 1% pay 29% of income tax. Income tax amounted to c26% of tax revenue, which would indicate that the richest 1% pay about 7% of total taxation. I'm quite confident in this because they pay very little of the other taxes -- all of which have increased substantially over the past five decades, which means that the rich are paying a lower proportion of tax in 2025 than they were in, for instance, 1975 ...
... and this, despite the fact, that their earnings have increased substantially, and the price of their assets have gone through the roof.

I’m not arguing with the principal that the wealthiest should pay more (and as I said earlier I think CGT is one way) but I was responding to the poster stating

“ Let the rich go if they want to. Their tax doesnt pay for anything at national level”.

The second part is obviously just wrong and the first part would mean a loss of tax revenue however it is obtained. Moreover, if the richest leave then we can’t make them pay more can we?

 

[n1 gull]

The Laffer Curve ffs

Chase the wealthy away and you’re f@cked

Socialist nonsense

 

[Bodian]

Nonsense.

There will be tangible ways to guage the level of success, it won't be down to pure opinion.

What are your measures of success? That is - which tangible ways / metrics will you personally be applying?

 

[WATFORD zero]

What are your measures of success? That is - which tangible ways / metrics will you personally be applying?

I'm guessing the same he applied before his Brexit and Johnson votes

 

[clapham_gull]

The Laffer Curve ffs

Chase the wealthy away and you’re f@cked

Socialist nonsense

It's "only" 50 years and led to "trickle down" economics which didn't work either. It's hardly a frame of reference.

"yeah but look at this graph"

Devised long before the age of globalisation. You might as well cite a second world war gas mask in terms of relevance.

 

[Machiavelli]

I’m not arguing with the principal that the wealthiest should pay more (and as I said earlier I think CGT is one way) but I was responding to the poster stating

“ Let the rich go if they want to. Their tax doesnt pay for anything at national level”.

The second part is obviously just wrong and the first part would mean a loss of tax revenue however it is obtained. Moreover, if the richest leave then we can’t make them pay more can we?

I didn't say that you were arguing with the principle that the wealthiest should pay more. As I stated in the post you're responding to, I was pointing out that you were spreading propaganda, a little bit like @n1 gull.
Not sure @BenGarfield is really worth engaging with, because he trots out the same message.
You, by contrast, are so I'm interested in why you were engaging in propaganda (for the rich). Was it something you've picked up from a newspaper, the Internet, for instance? Was it a mistype?
I only say this because there's plenty that are paid fortunes to engage in propaganda for the rich because they've got very deep pockets to pay for it.

 

[Is it PotG?]

What are your measures of success? That is - which tangible ways / metrics will you personally be applying?

No idea, I might start with the energy price decrease promise and the 1.5m new homes every year.

Watch this space I guess.

 

[n1 gull]

I didn't say that you were arguing with the principle that the wealthiest should pay more. As I stated in the post you're responding to, I was pointing out that you were spreading propaganda, a little bit like @n1 gull.
Not sure @BenGarfield is really worth engaging with, because he trots out the same message.
You, by contrast, are so I'm interested in why you were engaging in propaganda (for the rich). Was it something you've picked up from a newspaper, the Internet, for instance? Was it a mistype?
I only say this because there's plenty that are paid fortunes to engage in propaganda for the rich because they've got very deep pockets to pay for it.

How am I spreading propaganda?

 

[Machiavelli]

No idea, I might start with the energy price decrease promise and the 1.5m new homes every year.

Watch this space I guess.

I'm getting an energy price decrease. You could to if you paid attention (this is free advice).
And 1.5m homes a year. You sound like Nigel. And/or Boris.

 

[Is it PotG?]

1.5m homes a year. You sound like Nigel. And/or Boris.

In what way?

Was that not in the manifesto?

 

[Machiavelli]

In what way?

Was that not in the manifesto?

I'll credit you with the ability to read.
PS the answer is no.

 

[Is it PotG?]

I'll credit you with the ability to read.
PS the answer is no.

From the sounds of it, they're looking good so far.

 

[Machiavelli]

In what way?

Was that not in the manifesto?

And, to add, you've been whingeing at length on here about the consequences of cranking up housebuilding.
Politics contains difficult choices. I support the government for its ambitious target on this (despite multiple issues related to it). Maybe you can be clear as to whether you do support and provide a rationale for your position on this.

 

[Bodian]

No idea, I might start with the energy price decrease promise and the 1.5m new homes every year.

Watch this space I guess.

That's not really a sound answer. Surely if you are going to comment on this thread and mention tangible measurements of success, you must have, in your own mind, what you would see as success?

Just those two alone can't really constitute 'success' I wouldn't have thought. Or do they for you?

 

[n1 gull]

It's "only" 50 years and led to "trickle down" economics which didn't work either. It's hardly a frame of reference.

"yeah but look at this graph"

That's not really a sound answer. Surely if you are going to comment on this thread and mention tangible measurements of success, you must have, in your own mind, what you would see as success?

Just those two alone can't really constitute 'success' I wouldn't have thought. Or do they for you?

Totally sound answer get over yourself

 

[Bodian]

Totally sound answer get over yourself

So what would be your measurement of success?

 

[abc]

I didn't say that you were arguing with the principle that the wealthiest should pay more. As I stated in the post you're responding to, I was pointing out that you were spreading propaganda, a little bit like @n1 gull.
Not sure @BenGarfield is really worth engaging with, because he trots out the same message.
You, by contrast, are so I'm interested in why you were engaging in propaganda (for the rich). Was it something you've picked up from a newspaper, the Internet, for instance? Was it a mistype?
I only say this because there's plenty that are paid fortunes to engage in propaganda for the rich because they've got very deep pockets to pay for it.

I certainly have no desire or intention to engage in propaganda. I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject and so I don’t know whether your ‘truth’ is better than that of the BBC (from where I drew my data). But it’s good to read differing opinions and views from informed posters who can debate intelligently without reverting to b shit or abuse.
I think it’s what they used to call democracy!