• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

UK Politics General Discussion

What will be the result of the UK’s General Election?

  • Conservative Majority

    Votes: 3 2.5%

  • Conversative Biggest Party in Hung Parliament

    Votes: 2 1.7%

  • Labour Majority

    Votes: 87 72.5%

  • Labour Biggest Party in Hung Parliament

    Votes: 28 23.3%

  • Other Result (Please specify in your post)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    120
  • Poll closed .
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.
 
Smiley said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Smiley said:
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???
Click to expand...
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 on getting richer?

The poor remain poor. The working class is all but gone. What used to me 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 used 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
Matt N said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Alsty said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top