UK Politics General Discussion

[Smiley]

Starmer wouldn't be so bold - or stupid - to implement a wealth tax. Sounds like a good idea until 0.1% of the "wealthy" leave the UK and then you're back to square one (as Nick Ferrari put it, they leave the UK and then their chef, housekeeper, maintenance staff, two gardeners and driver are out of work). The wealthy are often also the "wealth creators" - remember that grow the economy bullshit, that currently isn't happening???

The wealthy will just avoid the taxes, to the benefit of other countries' tax systems. Wealth is easy to move around/hide from the tax system. Just like we all do - e.g. by putting savings into an ISA or voluntarily paying into a pension to avoid tax.

 

[Benzin]

Eat the rich it is then.

 

[rob666]

That was Bob Villain's backdrop at Glasto, wasn't it?

 

[JAperson]

Starmer wouldn't be so bold - or stupid - to implement a wealth tax. Sounds like a good idea until 0.1% of the "wealthy" leave the UK and then you're back to square one (as Nick Ferrari put it, they leave the UK and then their chef, housekeeper, maintenance staff, two gardeners and driver are out of work). The wealthy are often also the "wealth creators" - remember that grow the economy bullshit, that currently isn't happening???

The wealthy will just avoid the taxes, to the benefit of other countries' tax systems. Wealth is easy to move around/hide from the tax system. Just like we all do - e.g. by putting savings into an ISA or voluntarily paying into a pension to avoid tax.

They wouldn't leave as the idea of a wealth tax would be that its such a small amount extra. They'd kick off about it but very few would actually leave. Also Nick Ferrari is a raging tory so I don't think he's a reliable independent source.
However historically wealth taxes haven't really worked, not collecting anywhere near the predicated amount and come with large admin costs. If one could be made to work in some very clever way I don't have a fundamental issue, but it would have to be different to other countries systems that tried and failed. or haven't produced a significant enough income to bother using any political capital on it.

Also I don't think most people put money into pensions to avoid tax, I think they put money into pensions so they....have a pension.

 

[Matt.GC]

Sounds like a good idea until 0.1% of the "wealthy" leave the UK and then you're back to square one (as Nick Ferrari put it, they leave the UK and then their chef, housekeeper, maintenance staff, two gardeners and driver are out of work). The wealthy are often also the "wealth creators" - remember that grow the economy bullshit, that currently isn't happening???

I'm sorry, but this is the second time you've made this 1980's style claim and the facts clearly point against it being true.

If they are creating wealth for the nation, then how come the government has run a budget deficit for 17 years, the economy has entered the most stagnant period in modern history that cannot be attributed to war, and the the top 1% keep getting richer?

The poor remain poor. The working class is all but gone. What used to be the middle classes are now claiming universal credit. The government is poor. There's a pattern emerging here. It's funneling up and making it's way up the chain.

Economies work by wealth moving around. It's not moving around enough. It's being horded. So who cares if hoarders bugger off? They're creating wealth alright, for themselves. What use is that?

You may think you're ok, and Geoff down the golf club who spouts these arguments probably thinks he is as well. But if everyone but the super rich are generally getting poorer, and so is the government that is raising their taxes and cutting their services, where do you think they're going to look next? Geoff better flog his clubs

The thing I do wonder with tax rises is; do they not disincentivise working hard and striving to earn more if taken beyond a certain extreme? I’m not saying there isn’t room to raise taxes in the UK, but if we want people to earn lots of money and be good taxpayers, surely they need an incentive to do so? If people feel like they’re working hard to go up the career ladder and not getting anything from it in terms of increased disposable income and living standards, won’t many struggle to see the point of earning more?

It has never disincentivised me, even if a huge proportion was taken in tax.

If you were touching 45% tax and someone offered you a £10k pay rise, would you say "no thanks guv, keep your £5,500. I don't want it". No? Who would?

The arguments made about "wealth creators" (clearly not true as no one but them are getting significantly wealthier) and "disincentivising hard work" are tired tropes that the super rich peddle. People who think they're rich repeat their arguments for them like good little foot soldiers.

They won't when there's no more blood to be squeezed from the stone and they become the low hanging fruit themselves.

 

[rob666]

While we have four million young people living in poverty in this great nation of ours, we need to tax those who can afford to pay more, to set up a state where we don't have four million kids living in poverty.

If the very rich don't want to pay...sod off.
The vast majority are willing to pay, not happy, but willing.
It is all part of living in a safe, civilised society...but some want the society, but don't want to pay for it.
So the poor don't actually eat the rich...they just rob them, because of a lack of realistic alternatives.

 

[Alsty]

If wealth redistribution is the answer to get our economy moving, to improve public services, and help working people feel better off, why don't Labour crack on and do it? What's with this tinkering around the edges and "oh no we can't tax people"?

They need to be bold because 'more of the same' isn't what people voted for.

 

[rob666]

Because taxation is taboo and a vote loser...again, how do you think Blair managed to last so long?
He could have, should have, but didn't, because, you know, ride the wave of popularity, cool britannia and all that.
Stuff going for equality, feel those votes coming in.

 

[Benzin]

If wealth redistribution is the answer to get our economy moving, to improve public services, and help working people feel better off, why don't Labour crack on and do it? What's with this tinkering around the edges and "oh no we can't tax people"?

They need to be bold because 'more of the same' isn't what people voted for.

One of their "red lines" when campaigning was that they wouldn't raise taxes.

Then they found out the true extent of the financial issues but couldn't raise taxes because they'd be crucified by press and public.

So instead the disabled get screwed over. Again.

 

[rob666]

But the disabled are to be supported back "to independence" and there is no such thing as a welfare state any more.
Let alone a caring society.

They could be honest...

"Sorry folks, covid, brexit, climate... things are shit, taxes will have to go up, the rich will have to pay proportionately more, but thank god the election is four years away, so we can cut the taxes back to where they were just before the election and get re-elected.

 

[Smiley]

One of their "red lines" when campaigning was that they wouldn't raise taxes.

Their stupidity was re-iterating it once they were elected and kept repeating it. Then the only thing left is increasing taxes like employer NI, not increasing tax/inheritance brackets, slamming the old and disabled.

 

[Zeock]

The UK will be lowering the voting age to 16.

I'm not sure how popular said policy will be. My school is admittedly a small sample, but in my year group (Year 12), although a majority of people would call themselves left-wing (often identifying as democratic socialists), I barely know anyone who supports the voting age being lowered, as there tends to be a major worry about our collective immaturity.

The very few in favour actually lean to the right of the political spectrum here.

Voting age to be lowered to 16 by next general election

Other planned changes include expanding voter ID to include bank cards and moving to automatic registration.

www.bbc.com

 

[Matt N]

I actually think it’s a good thing myself.

16 year olds are eligible to pay tax, so why shouldn’t they get a say in how that tax is spent?

 

[BarryZola]

I get the impression that most youngsters would vote for more left-leaning parties, like Labour.

That's if you can get them off their iPads and smart phones (chuckle chuckle hee hee hahaha).

 

[Tom]

It was in their manifesto, so the many political activists that are in swipe mode should quietly do one.

 

[Matt N]

I get the impression that most youngsters would vote for more left-leaning parties, like Labour.

That's if you can get them off their iPads and smart phones (chuckle chuckle hee hee hahaha).

I'm not sure this is necessarily true.

My personal prediction (and this is just that; a prediction) is that 16-18 year olds will vote for further left or right parties in greater numbers than the older demographics. On Facebook last year after the election, my old secondary school put out the results of their "mock election", and while Labour won, the Greens and Reform also did very, very well. I feel that the young would be more likely to vote outside of the traditional two "status quo" parties (the Conservatives and Labour) rather than necessarily more left-wing.

You've also got an interesting phenomenon among younger generations at the moment wherein the sexes are very, very split; females are trending very liberal and left, and are voting for the likes of the Greens in larger numbers, while males are trending very conservative and right and voting for the likes of Reform in larger numbers. What's causing this is up for debate, but it was something reported at the last election.

 

[BarryZola]

I'm not sure this is necessarily true.

My personal prediction (and this is just that; a prediction) is that 16-18 year olds will vote for further left or right parties in greater numbers than the older demographics. On Facebook last year after the election, my old secondary school put out the results of their "mock election", and while Labour won, the Greens and Reform also did very, very well. I feel that the young would be more likely to vote outside of the traditional two "status quo" parties (the Conservatives and Labour) rather than necessarily more left-wing.

You've also got an interesting phenomenon among younger generations at the moment wherein the sexes are very, very split; females are trending very liberal and left, and are voting for the likes of the Greens in larger numbers, while males are trending very conservative and right and voting for the likes of Reform in larger numbers. What's causing this is up for debate, but it was something reported at the last election.

You could be right. I havn't done any research at all, I was just going off the old feelings and how it's always said that youngsters are generally more liberal.

 

[Matt.GC]

Whatever the youngsters decide, it's long overdue. If you can pay income tax and join the armed forces, you should vote.

For over a decade we've been busy setting fire to piles of dog muck and leaving them on the door steps of pretty much anyone under the age of 30.

Will be interesting to see how many use that right though. If more younger people who had the vote had actually bothered to turn out, they wouldn't have left people like me and older to have decided their futures for them. But then from what I've seen so far, the youngsters coming up now seem to have slightly different attitudes that those that came before them. But that's purely anecdotal of course.

 

[BarryZola]

Whatever the youngsters decide, it's long overdue. If you can pay income tax and join the armed forces, you should vote.

For over a decade we've been busy setting fire to piles of dog muck and leaving them on the door steps of pretty much anyone under the age of 30.

Will be interesting to see how many use that right though. If more younger people who had the vote had actually bothered to turn out, they wouldn't have left people like me and older to have decided their futures for them. But then from what I've seen so far, the youngsters coming up now seem to have slightly different attitudes that those that came before them. But that's purely anecdotal of course.

I think some of the ones coming through now actually realize how futile their efforts are, before they even start. The ones 10 years older still held onto some kind of belief that the world might be an OK place if they made some effort. Unless you absolutely excel in your field or something, of course, then you will probably have a chance. Who knows what happens to any of us in 25 years time though? They may be means testing pensions by then and if you've got a decent private pension left to draw they may deduct that from your state pension. I think that's actually quite likely, to some degree. Some may say it could be a decent idea to incrementally put away art works or precious metals for a rainy day that can't be counted/seen if our overlords decide to make means testing a thing.

 

[Benzin]

Can someone really accuse the 16/17 year olds being immature when faced with the likes of MAGA in the world.

Not surprised that young lads are getting right wing considering the grifter content the algorithm throws at them. Constantly being fed bull about "alpha males" and other assorted crap would drive some down the "own the libs" path.