To believe that if Labour wins we wont be hit with 98% taxes?

*Plus student loan payments

Plus the loss of childcare support*

Neither of these are tax and they can't be included in identifying the marginal tax rate because plenty of people have neither.

I do think the mechanics of the personal allowance cliff edge are mad though. It just means everyone I know works 4 days a week to avoid it. Or puts masses in pension.

@DistinguishedSocialCommentator ,

Unless you are actually arguing against tax, the only question is how much to take and the fairest way of taking it.

Throughout this, you are making the assumption that wealth is a measure of talent and ambition and that tax is a random unfair thing that thwarts this. It is, in part, in that most (but not all) rich people have some talent and most poor people (but not all) have less, but it is a really weak correlation, and gets weaker the more wealth can be passed down through generations. How many rich thickos do you know? I certainly know plenty!

Most economists would rather optimise on economic growth rather than increasing wealth for the few. Aspiration is possible where you get social mobility, which means allowing people to become wealthy, not just keeping the rich rich forever.

If you look at mean productivity, the U.S looks like a success of low taxes, but if you look at median productivity (a better measure), it suddenly looks a lot less impressive and the GINI coefficient is horrible, suggesting fewer and fewer people earn more and more wealth.

If houses were taxed, people would be more inclined to trade down and swathes of empty property in Central London, which are currently owned by very wealthy (often dodgy) foreigners, would become at least income generative, and maybe made available for actual residents. In addition, large family houses would be sold, making them available for the next generation of families.

We have a sick obsession with property value in this country, which is economically destructive. The effect of super high property prices is to keep the next generation our (except for a few very specific overpaid professionals), not to help the economy.

Or acquired through house price inflation. Our house is currently valued at four times what we paid for it, we didn’t work for a penny of that.

You're assuming that everyone who is wealthy and owns expensive property got there by dint of their own hard work. This isn't the case; much of it was simply inherited, no effort required.

Wealth taxes are incredibly expensive to administer. Realistically you cannot tax anyone more than let’s say 1 per cent of total wealth and then you need HMRC officers to check people properly.
So you need to tax easy stuff like house sales and probate. Stuff where HMRC does not need to do much more work.

The fact people are making hundreds of thousands of pounds on main homes and then leaving it tax free to their children when they die - this does not help anyone long term. There is already probate - they should be taxing all deaths properly.
And the tax free exemption on main residence needs to go too. It is an anomaly internationally speaking anyway. We have a housing crisis.

The NHS was not set up for people to live into their 90s. We also just have to accept that we all contribute a bit more ourselves. It cannot carry on like this. It is so bad now the country is unproductive. Some people literally get PTSD from sitting in A&E for 20 hours. Experiencing health problems is difficult enough. If the care is like going into a war zone, people come out with mental health issues too.

They should tax property values, not general wealth (on a sliding scale with a nil rated band). That would also allow them to reduce or scrap stamp duty, which prevents mobility and is also a tax on divorce.

Wealth taxes hit the aspirational and can be easily dodged by the truly wealthy, so those with a couple of million of ‘wealth’ will be hit but those with tens or hundreds of millions can easily duck it via offshore investments and trusts. If the tax is on the property, it is collected every year and hits offshore investors too. They should also charge CGT on people’s primary residence, maybe allowing it to be rolled up and paid on a voluntary basis when affordable (or added to inheritance tax at the end).

In addition, they should charge CGT at people’s top rate of tax.

All the above is patently fair and would raise significant money.

"Think about it, can you afford to send your kids to a private school and you are a fully fleged labour fan? If you can just about afford that, dont worry as Lab is putting vat on private schools - so save up, work harder do more over-time to get you kids the future you never had"
*
Or let's tax wealth (capital gains or maybe all wealth over £2m) and luxuries (like private education) and invest it in state schools to give all kids a better future, whilst boosting the economy.*

This is one of those threads where crazy posters try to confuse the poor OP with facts, isn't it?

A manifesto is the 'written statement declaring publicly the intentions, motives or views of its issuer'.

A manifesto the public does not see is not a manifesto.

That was the argument. It's a bribe to people in work. I assume they don't feel they need to bribe older people.

Wrong decision anyway. I don't want tax or NI cuts, I want functioning services.

I'm pretty sure the OP is a plant to convince us that an IQ test should be needed before people are allowed to vote

@DistinguishedSocialCommentator everyone pays tax, even those on benefits. VAT, for example, is a tax.

Other than that your posts are just more rubbish about how you can't be socialist unless you're poor.

A balanced tax system would tax wealth as well as income so that those living off dividends etc. would pay their share.

One could say the same about Liz Truss, who is very much still a Tory MP and has a gaggle of cronies in Tufton St keen to put her back in power.

But strangely it is Jeremy Corbyn you are worried about, not Liz bankrupting your pension fund and causing a run on the pound.

As an advocate of Jamie dimon from Jp morgan and chase, we need a balanced tax system rather than just tax the rich etc

If tax is cut would be cut for all types of income then and a cut for pensioners too (they don’t pay ni). Wasn’t the argument behind it was that it was to help workers so it that case cutting ni instread of tax makes sense, although I don’t actually agree with their being any cut

It's odd that the OP talks about tax hikes on pensioners as if it's something we ought to be concerned about. Given that pensioners currently avoid the 10% NI rate the rest of us have to pay (despite working age people often having higher outgoings such as mortgages and the cost of raising children) I'd welcome a levelling of the playing field. Low income pensioners wouldn't be affected as they'd fall below the personal allowance.

Talking of levelling the playing field, I'd also welcome it if dividends and capital gains were treated just the same as any other income (though obviously with an indexation allowance for CGT). There's a fair few billion to be recovered there.