The Lemon Fool

1nvest wrote:40% could become that standard rate for most, not a increase in taxation, just more falling into taxation and up/into the 40% banding.

Lisa Nandy

Labour would build on our commitments of the past few years and put forward a bold programme of wealth redistribution. This means taxing wealth at the same rates of income and making sure gains from land, property and shares are properly and fairly taxed.

Lisa should checks with her betters. That is not the position of Starmer's party at all, at the moment.

I'm sure tax rises are incoming. They'll say "the Tory finances are worse than feared, and we didn't know how bad until we were elected". Don't believe for a second they won't bring in large tax rises. The pressure from the unions and public sector will be immense to ramp up spending.

However don't think it'll be a new wealth tax. More likely be taxes on wealth such as higher CGT, IHT, stamp duty and council tax. And stopping like higher rate pensions tax relief and other giveaways that generally wealthy benefit from.

Of course these won't bring in as much as they hope as ppl will change their behaviour to avoid. As long said be careful what you wish for. Labour/guardianistas have been plotting for 14 years. I expect us to move sharply to the left, as rest of Europe turns right.

Adamski wrote:I'm sure tax rises are incoming. They'll say "the Tory finances are worse than feared, and we didn't know how bad until we were elected".

Every single government of all colours says the same thing when they enter office, and it p's me off. Why aren't the government's books available on .gov.uk so that everyone can see them and nobody can claim to be surprised by the state of them? They are, after all, public finances.

(Ok, with some redactions for national security so Putin can't read how much we're spending on which anti-Putin measures...)

mc2fool wrote:

Adamski wrote:I'm sure tax rises are incoming. They'll say "the Tory finances are worse than feared, and we didn't know how bad until we were elected".

Every single government of all colours says the same thing when they enter office, and it p's me off. Why aren't the government's books available on .gov.uk so that everyone can see them and nobody can claim to be surprised by the state of them? They are, after all, public finances.

(Ok, with some redactions for national security so Putin can't read how much we're spending on which anti-Putin measures...)

I suspect that Labour has a very good idea of what our public finances look like. But it suits them to claim that they do not so that they can shout "no higher taxes" and then have a pretext in their back pocket for when they do raise them.

"Oh, but we had no idea things were so bad".

"It's a crisis".

"This is a short-term and temporary funding measure, to deal with the unexpected emergency".

Believe none of them.

Lootman wrote:

mc2fool wrote:Every single government of all colours says the same thing when they enter office, and it p's me off. Why aren't the government's books available on .gov.uk so that everyone can see them and nobody can claim to be surprised by the state of them? They are, after all, public finances.

(Ok, with some redactions for national security so Putin can't read how much we're spending on which anti-Putin measures...)

I suspect that Labour has a very good idea of what our public finances look like. But it suits them to claim that they do not so that they can shout "no higher taxes" and then have a pretext in their back pocket for when they do raise them.

"Oh, but we had no idea things were so bad".

"It's a crisis".

"This is a short-term and temporary funding measure, to deal with the unexpected emergency".

Believe none of them.

It will be the same as ever.

40 new hospitals ... 40 old hospitals given a lick of paint and declared to be as good as new.

Fewer migrant dinghies reaching British shores ... send a large boat out to meet them half way so many dinghies reduced down to just a single boat.

No tax rises ... circumvented via some other twist that is no different to having increased taxes.

https://ifs.org.uk/articles/public-finances-and-2024-general-election

The next government does not need to enter office to ‘open the books’; those books are transparently published and available for all to inspect.

So when Starmer gets elected and says it's worse than he thought, you know he's lying.

It does lay bare the desperation of the Tory's jam for all if elected (and they are only making the offer as they have conceded they are going to lose and hence won't have to actually honour it)

1nvest wrote:

Lootman wrote:I suspect that Labour has a very good idea of what our public finances look like. But it suits them to claim that they do not so that they can shout "no higher taxes" and then have a pretext in their back pocket for when they do raise them.

"Oh, but we had no idea things were so bad".

"It's a crisis".

"This is a short-term and temporary funding measure, to deal with the unexpected emergency".

Believe none of them.

It will be the same as ever.

40 new hospitals ... 40 old hospitals given a lick of paint and declared to be as good as new.

Fewer migrant dinghies reaching British shores ... send a large boat out to meet them half way so many dinghies reduced down to just a single boat.

No tax rises ... circumvented via some other twist that is no different to having increased taxes.

No tax rises ... circumvented via some other twist that is no different to having increased taxes.

One problem is that many people think of 'tax' as their 'income tax', despite the fact that there are many taxes. I'm sure our overlords want to keep it that way.

Thus, they will keep basic rate income tax the same, while yet again pushing more onto local authorities, increasing council tax, continuing to freeze allowances (stealth tax) and putting up duty taxes. Councils in turn will make more services as 'extras' that need to be paid for outside council tax, perhaps council tips, wheelie bins, maintenance within a distance of dwellings?

Little Johnny's mummy having to use her contactless to open the school gate and let him in? Police, ambulances and firemen asking for your credit card before coming?

Steve

stevensfo wrote:Thus, they will keep basic rate income tax the same, while yet again pushing more onto local authorities, increasing council tax, continuing to freeze allowances (stealth tax) and putting up duty taxes. Councils in turn will make more services as 'extras' that need to be paid for outside council tax, perhaps council tips, wheelie bins, maintenance within a distance of dwellings?

In 1978 California voters passed a state proposition (Prop 13) that significantly capped the ability of local authorities to raise taxes, particularly property taxes which are the equivalent of council tax here.

California went on to apply a huge range of "user fees" for services that were previously free. So for example everyone there pays for rubbish bin removal, which can cost $1,000 to $2,000 a year. Renewing a driving license (needed every 5 years) costs $70. And so on.

Now maybe people should pay for rubbish removal - it is a time-consuming and complicated process after all. But paying for things that used to be "free" is probably the way forward. The biggies would be paying for healthcare and school, of course. Oh, and those "free" public libraries?

I note the Green Party want to tax Wealth. The BBC covered it here.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czddq40z2zno

Tax on assets over £10m
The Green Party manifesto proposes to raise up to £151bn a year in new taxes by 2029. This would be a very large increase, equal to around 4.5% of GDP.

One of the big components of this is a new tax on the weathy, which they say would raise about £15bn. This would be levied at 1% a year on the assets of people with more than £10m and 2% on those with more than £1bn.

Some tax experts are doubtful this would raise as much as the Greens’ costings suggest, saying many wealthier people who are resident in the UK have only tenuous ties with the UK and could leave to avoid it.

However, Arun Advani of Warwick University, who was part of the Wealth Tax Commission, judges the idea of raising a sum from a wealth tax similar to that claimed by the Greens to be “economically credible”.

This would apply to the whole of the UK.

Probably won't affect many but the 8% on national insurance might. I think Andrew Neil gave them a difficult time over the wealth tax pointing out how after France introduced one 44k of millionaires left the country.

Gerry557 wrote: Arun Advani of Warwick University, who was part of the Wealth Tax Commission, judges the idea of raising a sum from a wealth tax similar to that claimed by the Greens to be “economically credible”.

Yeah. well he would, wouldn't he? He was the one droning on about this a year or two ago. I do not find him to be “economically credible”.

Gerry557 wrote:I think Andrew Neil gave them a difficult time over the wealth tax pointing out how after France introduced one 44k of millionaires left the country.

If you want to reduce "net migration", an increase in emigration is another way to do it.

No party seems to be directly proposing measures to increase emigration. It's existed in the past, the £ 10 tickets to Australia being a case in point.

Alaric wrote:

Gerry557 wrote:I think Andrew Neil gave them a difficult time over the wealth tax pointing out how after France introduced one 44k of millionaires left the country.

If you want to reduce "net migration", an increase in emigration is another way to do it.

No party seems to be directly proposing measures to increase emigration. It's existed in the past, the £ 10 tickets to Australia being a case in point.

Getting the millionaires to leave in droves and be replaced by penniless immigrants is unlikely to be helpful to the economy! Still that seems to the policy of the 2 main parties.

stevensfo wrote:

1nvest wrote:It will be the same as ever.

40 new hospitals ... 40 old hospitals given a lick of paint and declared to be as good as new.

Fewer migrant dinghies reaching British shores ... send a large boat out to meet them half way so many dinghies reduced down to just a single boat.

No tax rises ... circumvented via some other twist that is no different to having increased taxes.

No tax rises ... circumvented via some other twist that is no different to having increased taxes.

One problem is that many people think of 'tax' as their 'income tax', despite the fact that there are many taxes. I'm sure our overlords want to keep it that way.

Thus, they will keep basic rate income tax the same, while yet again pushing more onto local authorities, increasing council tax, continuing to freeze allowances (stealth tax) and putting up duty taxes. Councils in turn will make more services as 'extras' that need to be paid for outside council tax, perhaps council tips, wheelie bins, maintenance within a distance of dwellings?

Little Johnny's mummy having to use her contactless to open the school gate and let him in? Police, ambulances and firemen asking for your credit card before coming?

Steve

Abolition of IHT allowances, merging NI and income tax and making that equally applicable to capital gains and income, again with allowances abolished, green levies applied to house sales, the less efficient the home the higher the stamp duty, VAT registration applied to all, ISA exemptions removed ... and as promised VAT and income tax levels weren't increased. Certainty that whilst tax levels weren't increased that many will be far worse off. Council taxes and water rates are likely to double or more.

Taxing the wealthy is a good thing - check out Gary’s Economics on YouTube. He does a great job of explaining it all.

Trent wrote:Taxing the wealthy is a good thing - check out Gary’s Economics on YouTube. He does a great job of explaining it all.

Only if the wealthy stick around to be taxed.

Sorcery wrote:

Trent wrote:Taxing the wealthy is a good thing - check out Gary’s Economics on YouTube. He does a great job of explaining it all.

Only if the wealthy stick around to be taxed.

Starmer repeated again today that he wishes to promote "wealth creation".

Now of course he might wish to promote that purely so that he can then confiscate it. But I think it is fair to give him the benefit of the doubt here and assume that, at least in the short-term, a wealth tax is dead and buried.

It would be complicated to implement and not difficult to avoid, and I suspect that he'd prefer a number of isolated tax grabs that do not evoke too much resistance.

There is something refreshing about a Labour leader praising the accumulation of wealth as a national virtue, with none of that "inequality" snark to go with it.

The gap between the rich and the rest is getting wider - this has to be checked and the gap needs to narrow. The only way to do this is to tax the rich. The threat of the wealthy moving is worth the risk considering how the previous governments have been dire. Let’s try something different.

I think something that is being overlooked here is that a very large proportion of the UK population are now partly or wholly dependent on Government support. I think that we have gone past a tipping point and spending on keeping the population docile will not only grow but will accelerate.

Under the forthcoming Labour administration we will see accelerating borrowing, taxation on earnings, taxation on wealth and taxation on successful businessess.

The future is not particularly bright for those who cannot escape these shores. Sorry to be so negative.

Trent wrote:The gap between the rich and the rest is getting wider - this has to be checked and the gap needs to narrow. The only way to do this is to tax the rich. The threat of the wealthy moving is worth the risk considering how the previous governments have been dire. Let’s try something different.

History has told us that wealth taxes never raise anything like what is claimed, cause many people to emigrate, lead to a rise in tax avoidance (and evasion), causes a fall in investment (particularly in private businesses and farms) and many of the rich will adjust their behaviour in ways which further damages the economy (e.g. close their businesses)

Some of us on TLF are "the rich" and we (and our money) can be quite mobile.

Lootman wrote:Now of course he might wish to promote that purely so that he can then confiscate it. But I think it is fair to give him the benefit of the doubt here and assume that, at least in the short-term, a wealth tax is dead and buried.

It would be complicated to implement and not difficult to avoid, and I suspect that he'd prefer a number of isolated tax grabs that do not evoke too much resistance.

The problems in assessing and collecting wealth taxes aren't important to most Labour voters. Soaking the rich is red meat to the envious saddos who make up a significant proportion of Labour activists and voters.

Look at the comments sections of Guardian articles for how many of these people think. To them most "wealth" is landlords owning residential property and deposits in offshore bank accounts.

The idea that higher minimum wages and business taxes costs jobs does not compute with these people. We're seeing this in California where a $20 minimum wage introduced on April 1st has resulted in approximately 10,000 fast food jobs being axed.

https://nypost.com/2024/06/06/business/california-fast-food-restaurants-have-cut-10000-jobs-since-passing-20-minimum-wage-business-agency/