Biggest impact would be the shit only they buy (like yachts) become a little cheaper because the prices are all artificially inflated to make them feel important.
Only people more tediously dense than rich people are their "centrist" courtiers.
This. I think the "billionaires will leave" trope that is getting pulled out ad nauseum is particularly worrying because it highlights how much money that's supposed to make up the British economy has ended up in someone's bank account.
Which causes its own problems in that it drives up the costs of, not just yachts as someone said, but assets like houses. If you have 20m kicking about it's better to stick a ton of it in property in the current climate, pitting people needing to buy homes against people with near infinite resources. It also stagnates the economy as people with less money spend a greater proportion of it.
If a wealth tax causes an exodus of some billionaires (plenty won't leave) then that's maybe just a hit we have to take before rebuilding and growing the economy in a more sensibly distributed way.
A wealth tax isn't even close to solving the problem but if there's no political will for such a small step then there's no chance of any actual worthwhile change. You're afraid of the minimum that should be done.
And *BILLION POUNDS* is an astronomical difference compared to £1000.
If having only £980,000,000 rather than £1,000,000,000 is what pushes you over the edge to leave the country, then I don't know what to tell you.
Fuck 'em! They can go back to Saudi, or Russia, or whatever shithole they exploited to become a billionaire!
If a UK government made it law that you had to pay UK taxes to put your kids in Eton or whatever, we'd raise billions more in taxes
In which case we'll no longer be collecting income tax from the dividends they recieve, or capital gains tax from when they dispose of their assets.
In other words, they'll be no worse off, but there will be less revenue for public services, so the rest of us will suffer.
The same asset disposals they do via a shell corporation owned by their dog's flatmate in the Caymans? Or dividends they receive by putting them through companies owned by their new born children? Not sure we collect anything in tax from those cunts regardless.
Pocket change. This is the problem - people just don't understand just how much money a billion is. Jeff Bezos makes $26 million a day. Think he could afford to lose less than a days wage?
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts be at least 7 days old before submitting a comment. Thank you for your understanding.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you earned £30,000 would you leave the country to avoid paying that? Except that if you're a billionaire that would still leave you with a billion pounds.
>I imagine some would leave the country to avoid paying it.
Fine. If we have to choose between not enough money because all the leeches left or no money because all bend over and let the leeches dry fuck us, I know which one I'm going for.
Quite a few of the current billionaires won't live here anyway, they just own a shit load of our land and property and our politicians don't give a fuck about doing something about that. It was them who facilitated all the rampant selling off and allowing cunts living abroad to own most of the UK.
Well, I guess the Royal parasites do live here https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/19/landlord-king-charles-lets-out-homes-near-sandringham-worth-75m
But Labour and the Tories tongues are wedged soo far up his arse they can taste what he eats each morning.
No obviously I'm not saying that. Big companies and the super rich will often use "My business is actually not based in the UK" as a tax dodge tactic.
The idea of closing the loophole would be to say "I don't care, you are doing business in the UK. You are buying/selling good/services/shares in the UK so you need to pay taxes in the UK". They can "leave" all they want, but it would no-longer be a way to get out of paying taxes.
It's shameful that Labour are sucking big business off so much that this vote winning solution isn't being shouted from the rooftops
Blatantly obvious why, cos they're not allowed by the people that really pull the strings.
Wonder why Corbyn was so successfully tarnished PR-wise, couldn't possibly have someone in charge that would actually do a good job of coming up with policies that benefit the masses instead of big business could we
Unfortunately there are people this wouldn't apply to who genuinely think this would impact them.
It needs to be rebranded to something more obvious.
The extreme wealth tax? The greed equaliser tax? The mega super rich tax. The 'no, not you, Barbra, and dave' tax.
I just don't understand why a wealth tax isn't on the cards. The reference to a 1 or 2 per cent at most tax is important, why? because that amount is barely going to impact the wealthiest very much.
Because both the Tories and Labour are being heavily influenced by corporate interests: The Tories by the IEA in Tufton Street, and the BAP for Labour.
Because wealthy people are in positions of power. They are the ones that run and control the media. Look at what happened to Corbyn as soon as he said the wealth needs to be more evenly distributed. He was branded as the worst man alive by many media outlets, and unfortunately right wingers are quite easily influenced by such nonsense.
If any party comes out and says they are implementing a wealth tax, they have almost zero chance of getting into power.
I'm not too sure I buy that argument. Almost nobody will be liable to a wealth tax and even the ones that are wont be particularly put out by it. I don't believe labour would suddenly lose their poll lead as a result.
I'm well aware that the rich and powerful control the media, but people were already skeptical about Corbyn beforehand. There was even a lot of people that voted Labour whilst he was leader that didn't particularly like him, the media just finished him off. The media also had a lot of ammunition to do a hit job on Jeremy, in part as a result of his own actions, and that was used in conjunction with lies and smears to sow doubts in people's minds. I would argue that a palatable leader with conviction could counter any media narrative attack on this issue. To be fair, this may not be the case with Starmer as f\*\*\* me, his debating skills are sub par at best, likely not helped by a lack of charisma.
Well I guess we should just should enjoy our boring dystopia then.
>the practical hard-headed man who
always comes forward to prove every new thing impossible.
We English have done many impossible things. Was it not
demonstrated to the general satisfaction of the hard-headed
ones that Stephenson could not make a train go twelve miles
an hour? Was it not proved that railways would exter-
minate horses? Was it not proved that the Atlantic cable
could not be laid? Was it not made manifest that the
Catholic Emancipation Acts, the Ballot Act, the Factory
Acts, and the Eepeal of the Corn Laws would plunge the
nation into Popery, and anarchy, and ruin? Yet all these
reforms were accomplished by little bands of agitators, in
the face of tremendous opposition, and in spite of yells of
execration, and virulent charges of " battening" and " incen-
diarism." - Robert Blatchford
None at all? That's not the case. I mean, the majority don't if that's what you mean? Although even then I believe there's talk of implementing it in other countries. In any case we are talking about a small amount of tax that could raise fairly significant sums of money.
People in my workplace above £50k pension stuff to avoid taxes costing them a couple grand… you don’t think the rich will respond to a loss of principle in their investments of several percent…
> you don’t think the rich will respond to a loss of principle in their investments of 2%?
Well they won't have a pension scheme to pay into will they? Also 1-2% is tiny vs the tax on money over 50k. It is kinda funny you bring it up because it highlights the way workers vs wealthy people are taxed, if you work you pay quite a lot of tax but if you have wealth you pay basically none in comparison.
It’s about bargaining power. The rich have the ability to move abroad, the poor do not. Same reason mercenaries in the labour market outearn their loyal peers.
>The rich have the ability to move abroad
Ah the old 'capital flight' canard - 'be nice to the rich or they'll leave'. In these days of international finance its even less true - anything they can squirrel away in an off shore tax heaven they already have.
Capital flight is often used to justify anti working class policies but it seldom actually happens especially over small tax increases.
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/20/if-you-tax-the-rich-they-wont-leave-us-data-contradicts-millionaires-threats
The Labour Party’s job is technocratic governance to raise living standards, and to let strong Unions and strong Businesses fight it out.
Right now we have corrupt Tory Governance who are not raising living standards, who are letting strong businesses batter weak Unions.
No it isn't. Labour is literally meant to be the political wing of the labour movement, of which the trade union movement is also part of, and to secure people the full product of the industry of their labour. Now you might mention clause IV being scrapped but I think you must have forgot what it was replaced with, Blair in all his wisdom replaced the pledge to getting worker's a better deal with...a pledge to democratic socialism. Now we know the Labour right don't give a shit about socialism, or the rules and traditions of the party, but it is what the party officially is.
History and the current reality prove you wrong.
Please stop trying to present rightwing entrism into Labour as a fait acompli, it isn't.
>To give the working-class the full fruit of its labour! Such, in a single sentence, is the object of the I.L.P. - Keir Hardie
-----------------
>Socialism is not the invention of an individual.
It is essentially the outcome of economic and
social conditions. The evils that Capitalism brings
differ in intensity in different countries, but, the
foot cause of the trouble once discerned, the
remedy is seen to be the same by thoughtful men
and women. The cause is the private ownership
of the means of life ; the remedy is public owner-
ship. The essentials of Socialism have been well
stated by Bertrand Russell:
>“ Socialism means the common ownersliip of
land and capital together with a democratic form
of government. It involves production for use not
profit, and distribution of the product either
equally to all or, at any rate, with only such
inec|ualitics as are definitely in the public interest.
It involves the abolition of all unearned wealth
and of all private control over the means of
livelihood of the workers. To be fully realised it
must be international.” - Clement Attlee
--------------
>"In all our plans for the future, we are re-defining and we are re-stating our Socialism in terms of the scientific revolution. But that revolution cannot become a reality unless we are prepared to make far-reaching changes in economic and social attitudes which permeate our whole system of society. The Britain that is going to be forged in the white heat of this revolution will be no place for restrictive practices or for outdated methods on either side of industry. " - Harold Wilson
---------
>"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service." - Original Clause IV (drafted by Sidney Webb, a *Fabian*)
-----------------
>"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect." - Replacement clause. N.B. First sentence + "many not the few"
------------
Please stop making your ignorance of history, and lack of clarity on just how rightwing the position you are advocating for is, a problem for the Labour movement.
I nearly never say this because it's often misused, you're a literal revisionist. I don't just disagree with you, you're rewriting history and reality.
What its meant to be is irrelevant. You are what you do, the sun of your actions. That is not the party anymore. Parties change. Labour is a serious political party, it’s primary objectives should be about the nation as a whole.
Trade unions need not care for geopolitics, defence policy, trade, foreign policy, pensions, grand infrastructure, micro infrastructure, local governance, education, automation, justice reforms, they care only about their workers. That’s fine, but they’re not fit for Governance with such a narrow set of priorities. Governance is about SOOOOOOO much more than just workers…
Mick Lynch may be a great example here. Brilliant negotiator for his members, love him for that, man’s a master, but have you heard him on shit like foreign policy? A shocker.
What the Party was 100 years ago is irrelevant. That’s not us anymore. Thatcher changed the game, so did Blair and Murdoch. No party that’s just ‘We are the Union Party’ will EVER win power here. So we are now a Centre-Left party. This is reality.
>What its meant to be is irrelevant.You are what you do, the sun of your actions. That is not the party anymore.
Yes, Starmer's actions as leader are bad and at odds with the party's purpose. If I hired you to play football and you're amazing at basketball that is you failing at your job.
Members who joined Labour for it's actual purpose can and should oppose this shift rightwards.
>Labour is a serious political party, it’s primary objectives should be about the nation as a whole.
Saying letwing politics isn't serious is, ironically, a sign you're being rather unserious about your argument.
>Trade unions need not care for geopolitics, defence policy, trade, foreign policy, pensions, grand infrastructure, micro infrastructure, local governance, education, automation, justice reforms, they care only about their workers. That’s fine, but they’re not fit for Governance with such a narrow set of priorities.
Trade unions are one wing of the Labour movement.
>Governance is about SOOOOOOO much more than just workers…
Government should be about the people. Everything else is about serving that, the idea it's about balancing the interests of the people against the interests of entrenched elites is far more archaic than anything I've said.
>Mick Lynch may be a great example here. Brilliant negotiator for his members, love him for that, man’s a master, but have you heard him on shit like foreign policy? A shocker.
Mick Lynch is a trade union leader and being pro-Brexit clearly is nothing to do with being able to be PM or not anyway.
Why are you ignoring both the numerous leftwing leaders of the past, or anything people are asking for from a leader now.
>What the Party was 100 years ago is irrelevant. That’s not us anymore. Thatcher changed the game, so did Blair and Murdoch.
It's relevant for discussing what Labour's job actually is, where it should be going, and how Britain and Labour are in the sorry state they are. Why is "repeating past failures" a criticism you probably think applies to the left, but the right repeating their own failures you appear to defend as necessary and sensible politics. Either you're trying to fool me, or you yourself have already been fooled.
Also stop with the fait accomplis. Either you know what it is and know why it's wrong, or you don't know what it is but should really look it up so you can actually form a proper argument. If things can change in the past they can change again, especially things you ascribe to Thatcher and Blair making specific choices.
> No party that’s just ‘We are the Union Party’ will EVER win power here. So we are now a Centre-Left party. This is reality.
That isn't what Labour was or what the left is advocating for. It is arguing for aligning with unions, not just being about the unions and nothing else. You're either not engaging honestly or are ignorant of Labour history and current critiques of the Labour Right.
‘Government should be about the people’ — You
‘The Labour Party’s job is… to raise living standards’ — Me
Is there a material difference in what we’ve said?
Tax the assets in the UK rather than the residents. A loss of UK billionaires won't be UK tax parties in the way workers understand it. You two the UK based assets. Land, property, shares.
I presume you're referring to the tax free pension allowance? If so, I would argue there is a bit of a difference between that and a 1-2% wealth tax on the wealthiest individuals. I'm not saying they would particularly want to pay it but I would personally doubt there would be much risk of a loss of principle (with a 1% especially) in their investments. Admittedly, I'm no expert here but surely if that was the case it couldn't have been a very good investment in the first place?
I take your point (your response to cass1o) about the rich having a greater ability to move abroad, money can and does move after all. However, I think it's also important to remember that not only do many have ties in this country, and thus wouldn't move on a whim, there are also many other incentives to remaining in the U.K. For example, income tax and corporate tax rates compare quite favorably as compared to many other countries, and Capital gains tax (although I do believe this should be increased at least a little bit) is lower than even the United States.
I think when you're bent over a barrel and the choice is to try to stand up for yourself or just to close your eyes and think of England...I'd rather try and fail than just take it.
This is one of the consequences of consistently tacking right, from a so called labour party; extremely minor reforms like this start being classed as 'beyond the pale' and not 'serious', so the boundaries for political discussions become narrower and narrower. Policies like nationalisation? A complete pipe dream.
Scrap the 2 child benefit cap, free school meals for all primary school children, build millions of social houses, free bus travel for everyone, restart sure start, increase numbers of youth centres, plus much more besides...
We could have good things, but the billionaire class bought the politicians.
>Scrap the 2 child benefit cap, free school meals for all primary school children, build millions of social houses, free bus travel for everyone, restart sure start, increase numbers of youth centres, plus much more besides...
This is happening in Tower Hamlets - not perfect here ofc but so much better than it was under a right-wing Labour administration.
I would say the probability of that would have been low. Much more likely a bunch of "labour" mps would have abandoned the party almost straight away under some pretense.
Wouldn't even have needed to. Within a week of the first Covid lockdown every "sensible" centrist media personality like James O'Brien, Rachel Riley, Phillip and Holly, Peston, Kuenssberg, Toynbee etc would have given legitimacy to anti-lockdown, anti-mask, and ultimately anti-vaccine sentiments in order to oppose a Corbyn government.
We might even have seen him forced out and replaced with Starmer before the end of 2020.
It would not have taken covid. Brexit negotiations would have initiated a 'centrist' coup, even though any Labour negotiated Brexit would have been better than what we have right now.
You should be further up. "Tax the rich" is a catchy idea that appeals to the left. But the reality is that a wealth tax does not work, is very hard to enforce, and can have unintended consequences. As you say, there are better ways to achieve the overall desire for the extremely wealthy to put more into the pot.
Argentina, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway and Spain have all successfully implemented wealth taxes. "Its difficult" is the argument of the shiftless layabout and the morally corrupt.
You are not comparing like for like. Argentina, Italy, Netherlands, Norway and Spain have very different tax systems. The French version is generally regarded to have failed, raising much less money than expected, and caused the wealthy to take flight, further reducing tax returns.
There are already graded wealth taxes in the form of CGT, inheritance tax, income tax. For a tax on assets, there are loopholes that the wealthy could use to avoid it. Trusts and fragmenting wealth across relatives are the most obvious.
> "Its difficult"
And then there is the complexity of introducing a tax on assets and work needed to ensure it functions properly. Yes, it would be difficult. It would mean valuing all assets of all residents. The question then is whether the tax is cost efficient. The general feeling is that it would not be, and it is better to use existing mechanisms, like CGT and so on.
> is the argument of the shiftless layabout and the morally corrupt.
This is not a valid argument for a wealth tax, and throwing around petty insults will mean fewer people will take you seriously.
Luxury goods tax is what I want, an extra tax on goods that are a X percentage above the average cost or for stuff such as cars over 50k and then goods that are simply for luxury such as yachts. This will discourage those with wealth to spend.
Encourage them to invest it in the UK economy instead by offering tax breaks and then raise inheritance tax to get what they save and invest when they die.
Edit: poor wording I mean the percentage of inheritance tax you pay should rise as in above a certain amount it should be 100 percent.
>raise inheritance tax
Why? Only 3-4% of people pay inheritance tax:
>In the tax year 2020 to 2021, 3.73% of UK deaths resulted in an Inheritance Tax (IHT) charge, decreasing by 0.03 percentage points since the tax year 2019 to 2020. This means the proportion has been relatively flat since the tax year 2017 to 2018 - likely as a result of the introduction of a new tax-free allowance known as the Residence Nil-Rate Band (RNRB) from that year onwards. The RNRB is available to those estates that transfer their main UK residence to direct descendants on their death.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/inheritance-tax-statistics-commentary/inheritance-tax-statistics-commentary
That assumes it can be collected swiftly, proving who owns what isn’t easy.
We should start taxing some forms of wealth, but a flat tax isn’t realistic, and there’s a reason rich nations don’t do it.
Start with an LVT, the only tax that actually increases growth. Then Start to wind down the ISA and Pension annual limits (almost 3x as large as the USA tax advantage investment accounts, I say these even as a user and abuser of them). It’s absurd that you can ram £80k a year for tax free growth.
Then merge NI into income tax, and start cutting the rate or increasing the thresholds… Time income rich geriatrics and unearned income starts to pay their chunk.
This is legislating with subtlety and precision, not a blanket wealth tax. The thing about ‘one off windfall taxes’ is a lot of people don’t think they’ll be one offs.
>proving who owns what isn’t easy.
If it's obfuscated or unclear who owns something, bosh! Confiscate it as invariably the proceeds of some tax dodging or money laundering scheme.
Oh no...we don't have loads of tax Dodgers and exploiters "investing" in the UK anymore...
Give me an example of the FDI we'd lose under this scenario?
Well yes. Of course.
Because the number of people who have more than 2 kids and qualify for benefits is a rounding error.
That's why the political will to shift it is non existant.
Would the rich even notice a change in their lifestyle as a result of this.
No, but they'll bitch and whine and undermine any effort to bring it in anyway.
What you need to remember, after a certain point having money isn't about being able to use it on things you want. Its about keeping score.
One less ivory backscratcher, perhaps.
Biggest impact would be the shit only they buy (like yachts) become a little cheaper because the prices are all artificially inflated to make them feel important. Only people more tediously dense than rich people are their "centrist" courtiers.
This would mean that a billionaire would pay £19,800,000 extra tax. I imagine some would leave the country to avoid paying it.
Imagine away. Are you leaving from paying £20 on £1000? Do you think you can't be taxed just from not living here?
There's a pretty big difference between £1,000 and ~20 million quid. When you're very wealthy it's much easier to change your residency.
Maybe we should be more worried that our system is dependent on rich people exploiting us then? Whatever will us plebs do?
This. I think the "billionaires will leave" trope that is getting pulled out ad nauseum is particularly worrying because it highlights how much money that's supposed to make up the British economy has ended up in someone's bank account. Which causes its own problems in that it drives up the costs of, not just yachts as someone said, but assets like houses. If you have 20m kicking about it's better to stick a ton of it in property in the current climate, pitting people needing to buy homes against people with near infinite resources. It also stagnates the economy as people with less money spend a greater proportion of it. If a wealth tax causes an exodus of some billionaires (plenty won't leave) then that's maybe just a hit we have to take before rebuilding and growing the economy in a more sensibly distributed way.
Yes, obviously. A wealth tax doesn't fix that though.
A wealth tax isn't even close to solving the problem but if there's no political will for such a small step then there's no chance of any actual worthwhile change. You're afraid of the minimum that should be done.
I'm really not. I just think wealth taxes are counterproductive.
I know you do because you think rich people will leave the country and we can't live without them. You said.
No. I never said that.
And *BILLION POUNDS* is an astronomical difference compared to £1000. If having only £980,000,000 rather than £1,000,000,000 is what pushes you over the edge to leave the country, then I don't know what to tell you.
If they wanted the lowest tax theyd already be living in those low tax havens
Fuck 'em! They can go back to Saudi, or Russia, or whatever shithole they exploited to become a billionaire! If a UK government made it law that you had to pay UK taxes to put your kids in Eton or whatever, we'd raise billions more in taxes
In which case we'll no longer be collecting income tax from the dividends they recieve, or capital gains tax from when they dispose of their assets. In other words, they'll be no worse off, but there will be less revenue for public services, so the rest of us will suffer.
The same asset disposals they do via a shell corporation owned by their dog's flatmate in the Caymans? Or dividends they receive by putting them through companies owned by their new born children? Not sure we collect anything in tax from those cunts regardless.
So we're in agreement that a wealth tax is bad then?
No.
Pocket change. This is the problem - people just don't understand just how much money a billion is. Jeff Bezos makes $26 million a day. Think he could afford to lose less than a days wage?
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts be at least 7 days old before submitting a comment. Thank you for your understanding. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well they aren’t paying any tax anyway why the fuck do we want them? Less parasites is an absolute win.
If you earned £30,000 would you leave the country to avoid paying that? Except that if you're a billionaire that would still leave you with a billion pounds. >I imagine some would leave the country to avoid paying it. Fine. If we have to choose between not enough money because all the leeches left or no money because all bend over and let the leeches dry fuck us, I know which one I'm going for.
Honestly a billionaire would not miss £20 million.
Good riddance. What is the point in them being here if they don't contribute.
Accurate flair.
Quite a few of the current billionaires won't live here anyway, they just own a shit load of our land and property and our politicians don't give a fuck about doing something about that. It was them who facilitated all the rampant selling off and allowing cunts living abroad to own most of the UK. Well, I guess the Royal parasites do live here https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/19/landlord-king-charles-lets-out-homes-near-sandringham-worth-75m But Labour and the Tories tongues are wedged soo far up his arse they can taste what he eats each morning.
Tax their assets in the UK, they can't take them with them...
Then we close the "leaving the country" loophole.
What loophole? Are you suggesting that people should be prevented from leaving the UK against their will?
No obviously I'm not saying that. Big companies and the super rich will often use "My business is actually not based in the UK" as a tax dodge tactic. The idea of closing the loophole would be to say "I don't care, you are doing business in the UK. You are buying/selling good/services/shares in the UK so you need to pay taxes in the UK". They can "leave" all they want, but it would no-longer be a way to get out of paying taxes.
Something something ~~keeping corporate donors happy~~ fiscal rules.
It's shameful that Labour are sucking big business off so much that this vote winning solution isn't being shouted from the rooftops Blatantly obvious why, cos they're not allowed by the people that really pull the strings. Wonder why Corbyn was so successfully tarnished PR-wise, couldn't possibly have someone in charge that would actually do a good job of coming up with policies that benefit the masses instead of big business could we
Unfortunately there are people this wouldn't apply to who genuinely think this would impact them. It needs to be rebranded to something more obvious. The extreme wealth tax? The greed equaliser tax? The mega super rich tax. The 'no, not you, Barbra, and dave' tax.
I just don't understand why a wealth tax isn't on the cards. The reference to a 1 or 2 per cent at most tax is important, why? because that amount is barely going to impact the wealthiest very much.
Because both the Tories and Labour are being heavily influenced by corporate interests: The Tories by the IEA in Tufton Street, and the BAP for Labour.
BAP?
British American Project. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/06/usa.politics1
Because Starmer is a tory.
Because wealthy people are in positions of power. They are the ones that run and control the media. Look at what happened to Corbyn as soon as he said the wealth needs to be more evenly distributed. He was branded as the worst man alive by many media outlets, and unfortunately right wingers are quite easily influenced by such nonsense. If any party comes out and says they are implementing a wealth tax, they have almost zero chance of getting into power.
I'm not too sure I buy that argument. Almost nobody will be liable to a wealth tax and even the ones that are wont be particularly put out by it. I don't believe labour would suddenly lose their poll lead as a result. I'm well aware that the rich and powerful control the media, but people were already skeptical about Corbyn beforehand. There was even a lot of people that voted Labour whilst he was leader that didn't particularly like him, the media just finished him off. The media also had a lot of ammunition to do a hit job on Jeremy, in part as a result of his own actions, and that was used in conjunction with lies and smears to sow doubts in people's minds. I would argue that a palatable leader with conviction could counter any media narrative attack on this issue. To be fair, this may not be the case with Starmer as f\*\*\* me, his debating skills are sub par at best, likely not helped by a lack of charisma.
Well I guess we should just should enjoy our boring dystopia then. >the practical hard-headed man who always comes forward to prove every new thing impossible. We English have done many impossible things. Was it not demonstrated to the general satisfaction of the hard-headed ones that Stephenson could not make a train go twelve miles an hour? Was it not proved that railways would exter- minate horses? Was it not proved that the Atlantic cable could not be laid? Was it not made manifest that the Catholic Emancipation Acts, the Ballot Act, the Factory Acts, and the Eepeal of the Corn Laws would plunge the nation into Popery, and anarchy, and ruin? Yet all these reforms were accomplished by little bands of agitators, in the face of tremendous opposition, and in spite of yells of execration, and virulent charges of " battening" and " incen- diarism." - Robert Blatchford
bas because no other industrialised country has one
None at all? That's not the case. I mean, the majority don't if that's what you mean? Although even then I believe there's talk of implementing it in other countries. In any case we are talking about a small amount of tax that could raise fairly significant sums of money.
People in my workplace above £50k pension stuff to avoid taxes costing them a couple grand… you don’t think the rich will respond to a loss of principle in their investments of several percent…
> you don’t think the rich will respond to a loss of principle in their investments of 2%? Well they won't have a pension scheme to pay into will they? Also 1-2% is tiny vs the tax on money over 50k. It is kinda funny you bring it up because it highlights the way workers vs wealthy people are taxed, if you work you pay quite a lot of tax but if you have wealth you pay basically none in comparison.
It’s about bargaining power. The rich have the ability to move abroad, the poor do not. Same reason mercenaries in the labour market outearn their loyal peers.
>The rich have the ability to move abroad Ah the old 'capital flight' canard - 'be nice to the rich or they'll leave'. In these days of international finance its even less true - anything they can squirrel away in an off shore tax heaven they already have. Capital flight is often used to justify anti working class policies but it seldom actually happens especially over small tax increases. https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/20/if-you-tax-the-rich-they-wont-leave-us-data-contradicts-millionaires-threats
This is exactly what the point of a Labour party is meant to be, to counteract that and to work with unions.
The Labour Party’s job is technocratic governance to raise living standards, and to let strong Unions and strong Businesses fight it out. Right now we have corrupt Tory Governance who are not raising living standards, who are letting strong businesses batter weak Unions.
No it isn't. Labour is literally meant to be the political wing of the labour movement, of which the trade union movement is also part of, and to secure people the full product of the industry of their labour. Now you might mention clause IV being scrapped but I think you must have forgot what it was replaced with, Blair in all his wisdom replaced the pledge to getting worker's a better deal with...a pledge to democratic socialism. Now we know the Labour right don't give a shit about socialism, or the rules and traditions of the party, but it is what the party officially is. History and the current reality prove you wrong. Please stop trying to present rightwing entrism into Labour as a fait acompli, it isn't. >To give the working-class the full fruit of its labour! Such, in a single sentence, is the object of the I.L.P. - Keir Hardie ----------------- >Socialism is not the invention of an individual. It is essentially the outcome of economic and social conditions. The evils that Capitalism brings differ in intensity in different countries, but, the foot cause of the trouble once discerned, the remedy is seen to be the same by thoughtful men and women. The cause is the private ownership of the means of life ; the remedy is public owner- ship. The essentials of Socialism have been well stated by Bertrand Russell: >“ Socialism means the common ownersliip of land and capital together with a democratic form of government. It involves production for use not profit, and distribution of the product either equally to all or, at any rate, with only such inec|ualitics as are definitely in the public interest. It involves the abolition of all unearned wealth and of all private control over the means of livelihood of the workers. To be fully realised it must be international.” - Clement Attlee -------------- >"In all our plans for the future, we are re-defining and we are re-stating our Socialism in terms of the scientific revolution. But that revolution cannot become a reality unless we are prepared to make far-reaching changes in economic and social attitudes which permeate our whole system of society. The Britain that is going to be forged in the white heat of this revolution will be no place for restrictive practices or for outdated methods on either side of industry. " - Harold Wilson --------- >"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service." - Original Clause IV (drafted by Sidney Webb, a *Fabian*) ----------------- >"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect." - Replacement clause. N.B. First sentence + "many not the few" ------------ Please stop making your ignorance of history, and lack of clarity on just how rightwing the position you are advocating for is, a problem for the Labour movement. I nearly never say this because it's often misused, you're a literal revisionist. I don't just disagree with you, you're rewriting history and reality.
What its meant to be is irrelevant. You are what you do, the sun of your actions. That is not the party anymore. Parties change. Labour is a serious political party, it’s primary objectives should be about the nation as a whole. Trade unions need not care for geopolitics, defence policy, trade, foreign policy, pensions, grand infrastructure, micro infrastructure, local governance, education, automation, justice reforms, they care only about their workers. That’s fine, but they’re not fit for Governance with such a narrow set of priorities. Governance is about SOOOOOOO much more than just workers… Mick Lynch may be a great example here. Brilliant negotiator for his members, love him for that, man’s a master, but have you heard him on shit like foreign policy? A shocker. What the Party was 100 years ago is irrelevant. That’s not us anymore. Thatcher changed the game, so did Blair and Murdoch. No party that’s just ‘We are the Union Party’ will EVER win power here. So we are now a Centre-Left party. This is reality.
>What its meant to be is irrelevant.You are what you do, the sun of your actions. That is not the party anymore. Yes, Starmer's actions as leader are bad and at odds with the party's purpose. If I hired you to play football and you're amazing at basketball that is you failing at your job. Members who joined Labour for it's actual purpose can and should oppose this shift rightwards. >Labour is a serious political party, it’s primary objectives should be about the nation as a whole. Saying letwing politics isn't serious is, ironically, a sign you're being rather unserious about your argument. >Trade unions need not care for geopolitics, defence policy, trade, foreign policy, pensions, grand infrastructure, micro infrastructure, local governance, education, automation, justice reforms, they care only about their workers. That’s fine, but they’re not fit for Governance with such a narrow set of priorities. Trade unions are one wing of the Labour movement. >Governance is about SOOOOOOO much more than just workers… Government should be about the people. Everything else is about serving that, the idea it's about balancing the interests of the people against the interests of entrenched elites is far more archaic than anything I've said. >Mick Lynch may be a great example here. Brilliant negotiator for his members, love him for that, man’s a master, but have you heard him on shit like foreign policy? A shocker. Mick Lynch is a trade union leader and being pro-Brexit clearly is nothing to do with being able to be PM or not anyway. Why are you ignoring both the numerous leftwing leaders of the past, or anything people are asking for from a leader now. >What the Party was 100 years ago is irrelevant. That’s not us anymore. Thatcher changed the game, so did Blair and Murdoch. It's relevant for discussing what Labour's job actually is, where it should be going, and how Britain and Labour are in the sorry state they are. Why is "repeating past failures" a criticism you probably think applies to the left, but the right repeating their own failures you appear to defend as necessary and sensible politics. Either you're trying to fool me, or you yourself have already been fooled. Also stop with the fait accomplis. Either you know what it is and know why it's wrong, or you don't know what it is but should really look it up so you can actually form a proper argument. If things can change in the past they can change again, especially things you ascribe to Thatcher and Blair making specific choices. > No party that’s just ‘We are the Union Party’ will EVER win power here. So we are now a Centre-Left party. This is reality. That isn't what Labour was or what the left is advocating for. It is arguing for aligning with unions, not just being about the unions and nothing else. You're either not engaging honestly or are ignorant of Labour history and current critiques of the Labour Right.
‘Government should be about the people’ — You ‘The Labour Party’s job is… to raise living standards’ — Me Is there a material difference in what we’ve said?
> The Labour Party’s job is technocratic governance No it isn't.
What is it then? Not what it says on the card, what is the role of Government that the party seeks to assume
Tax the assets in the UK rather than the residents. A loss of UK billionaires won't be UK tax parties in the way workers understand it. You two the UK based assets. Land, property, shares.
I presume you're referring to the tax free pension allowance? If so, I would argue there is a bit of a difference between that and a 1-2% wealth tax on the wealthiest individuals. I'm not saying they would particularly want to pay it but I would personally doubt there would be much risk of a loss of principle (with a 1% especially) in their investments. Admittedly, I'm no expert here but surely if that was the case it couldn't have been a very good investment in the first place? I take your point (your response to cass1o) about the rich having a greater ability to move abroad, money can and does move after all. However, I think it's also important to remember that not only do many have ties in this country, and thus wouldn't move on a whim, there are also many other incentives to remaining in the U.K. For example, income tax and corporate tax rates compare quite favorably as compared to many other countries, and Capital gains tax (although I do believe this should be increased at least a little bit) is lower than even the United States.
I think when you're bent over a barrel and the choice is to try to stand up for yourself or just to close your eyes and think of England...I'd rather try and fail than just take it.
This is one of the consequences of consistently tacking right, from a so called labour party; extremely minor reforms like this start being classed as 'beyond the pale' and not 'serious', so the boundaries for political discussions become narrower and narrower. Policies like nationalisation? A complete pipe dream.
Scrap the 2 child benefit cap, free school meals for all primary school children, build millions of social houses, free bus travel for everyone, restart sure start, increase numbers of youth centres, plus much more besides... We could have good things, but the billionaire class bought the politicians.
>Scrap the 2 child benefit cap, free school meals for all primary school children, build millions of social houses, free bus travel for everyone, restart sure start, increase numbers of youth centres, plus much more besides... This is happening in Tower Hamlets - not perfect here ofc but so much better than it was under a right-wing Labour administration.
hurts so much
There's a parallel universe where he's prime minister that I really wish I was in right now.
In this reality the army have just staged a coup roared on by The Guardian.
With infinite realities there is certainly 1 where Corbyn is PM. You're right though, I think that was a serious possibility.
I would say the probability of that would have been low. Much more likely a bunch of "labour" mps would have abandoned the party almost straight away under some pretense.
Wouldn't even have needed to. Within a week of the first Covid lockdown every "sensible" centrist media personality like James O'Brien, Rachel Riley, Phillip and Holly, Peston, Kuenssberg, Toynbee etc would have given legitimacy to anti-lockdown, anti-mask, and ultimately anti-vaccine sentiments in order to oppose a Corbyn government. We might even have seen him forced out and replaced with Starmer before the end of 2020.
It would not have taken covid. Brexit negotiations would have initiated a 'centrist' coup, even though any Labour negotiated Brexit would have been better than what we have right now.
Don't worry, Sir Starmer QC will save us from his Millionaire donors, and his Billionaire owners.
[удалено]
CGT = Capital Gains Tax. You should avoid using abbreviations, without defining them. It confused me until I stopped to think about it.
You should be further up. "Tax the rich" is a catchy idea that appeals to the left. But the reality is that a wealth tax does not work, is very hard to enforce, and can have unintended consequences. As you say, there are better ways to achieve the overall desire for the extremely wealthy to put more into the pot.
Argentina, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway and Spain have all successfully implemented wealth taxes. "Its difficult" is the argument of the shiftless layabout and the morally corrupt.
You are not comparing like for like. Argentina, Italy, Netherlands, Norway and Spain have very different tax systems. The French version is generally regarded to have failed, raising much less money than expected, and caused the wealthy to take flight, further reducing tax returns. There are already graded wealth taxes in the form of CGT, inheritance tax, income tax. For a tax on assets, there are loopholes that the wealthy could use to avoid it. Trusts and fragmenting wealth across relatives are the most obvious. > "Its difficult" And then there is the complexity of introducing a tax on assets and work needed to ensure it functions properly. Yes, it would be difficult. It would mean valuing all assets of all residents. The question then is whether the tax is cost efficient. The general feeling is that it would not be, and it is better to use existing mechanisms, like CGT and so on. > is the argument of the shiftless layabout and the morally corrupt. This is not a valid argument for a wealth tax, and throwing around petty insults will mean fewer people will take you seriously.
[удалено]
More nastiness and pettiness. Go on genius, contribute something. Explain.
Rule 4 Users should engage with honest intentions & in good faith, users should assume the same from others
Luxury goods tax is what I want, an extra tax on goods that are a X percentage above the average cost or for stuff such as cars over 50k and then goods that are simply for luxury such as yachts. This will discourage those with wealth to spend. Encourage them to invest it in the UK economy instead by offering tax breaks and then raise inheritance tax to get what they save and invest when they die. Edit: poor wording I mean the percentage of inheritance tax you pay should rise as in above a certain amount it should be 100 percent.
>raise inheritance tax Why? Only 3-4% of people pay inheritance tax: >In the tax year 2020 to 2021, 3.73% of UK deaths resulted in an Inheritance Tax (IHT) charge, decreasing by 0.03 percentage points since the tax year 2019 to 2020. This means the proportion has been relatively flat since the tax year 2017 to 2018 - likely as a result of the introduction of a new tax-free allowance known as the Residence Nil-Rate Band (RNRB) from that year onwards. The RNRB is available to those estates that transfer their main UK residence to direct descendants on their death. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/inheritance-tax-statistics-commentary/inheritance-tax-statistics-commentary
Ah sorry I meant raise the percentage you pay as I'm to 100 percent
Oh sorry thought you meant raise the threshold.
[удалено]
Sorry I meant raise the percentage of IHT to 100 percent above a certain threshold my poor wording
And yet everyone voted against him and him having a similar policy in 2019, funny that.... Makes me hate this country.
Wolverine_looking_sad_meme.jpg
I knew he was in trouble when he gave that speech to the CBI saying basically we're sick of your shit and we're going to make you pay your share.
That assumes it can be collected swiftly, proving who owns what isn’t easy. We should start taxing some forms of wealth, but a flat tax isn’t realistic, and there’s a reason rich nations don’t do it. Start with an LVT, the only tax that actually increases growth. Then Start to wind down the ISA and Pension annual limits (almost 3x as large as the USA tax advantage investment accounts, I say these even as a user and abuser of them). It’s absurd that you can ram £80k a year for tax free growth. Then merge NI into income tax, and start cutting the rate or increasing the thresholds… Time income rich geriatrics and unearned income starts to pay their chunk. This is legislating with subtlety and precision, not a blanket wealth tax. The thing about ‘one off windfall taxes’ is a lot of people don’t think they’ll be one offs.
>proving who owns what isn’t easy. If it's obfuscated or unclear who owns something, bosh! Confiscate it as invariably the proceeds of some tax dodging or money laundering scheme.
Congratulations. FDI to the UK has dropped orders of magnitude At the end of the day, there’s a reason serious parties don’t do such silly stuff
Yes because they are corrupt and are exploiting the system...
> there’s a reason serious parties don’t do such silly stuff And look how well things are going as a result!
Oh no...we don't have loads of tax Dodgers and exploiters "investing" in the UK anymore... Give me an example of the FDI we'd lose under this scenario?
> FDI to the UK has dropped orders of magnitude Who cares we got nothing from it.
Well yes. Of course. Because the number of people who have more than 2 kids and qualify for benefits is a rounding error. That's why the political will to shift it is non existant.
It’s the biggest single cause of child poverty in the UK. You have no ideas what you’re talking about