We don't want the government to lurch to the left

They’ve equally backtracked on the disability benefits crackdown

Labour currently don’t seem to have a clue

Gary?? @Agrumpyknitter

I like this reply on Reddit regarding insta Gary

‘ It's the fact that Gary doesn't do what economists actually do. He doesn't write policy briefs or economic reports. He repeats a popular message over and over, sells his book, and makes more money.
He's a former trader, turned influencer, who has a masters degree in economics.
I have a degree in international relations, but it doesn't make me a diplomat.

I agree with this

Paid full tax for 43 years. Love paying tax because it’s the mark of a civilised society. Healthcare and education free at point of entry is fantastic. Albeit that health and education has been much undermined by trusts and academization. Along with Brexit, mass privatisation and selling off of public assets has been the biggest disaster. I can’t understand why so many people think business is so good. Pay people well so they can pay their taxes and buy products (also taxed) to boost the economy. That’s not lunching to the left, that’s making money to spend money.

One loophole is signing property over this has been done for generations as a way to keep wealth in the family

landlords earnings are taxed lower than wages, renting a property (or two) is not running a business (it’s not difficult) it’s extra money coming in so why isn’t it taxed in the same way

business especially large businesses have been able to lobby governments and persuade them with threats it’s time to stand up to this, they have kept wages low

what we have now is not working it hasn’t worked for some time and since 2008 all we have seen is the divide getting bigger. I’m disappointed to have a Labour government that are not willing to take risks and again pandering to large businesses and those who threaten to take money out of the country

Why?

Landlords can’t pay low tax on rent. And there are usually very good reasons why there are lower taxes on different sorts of income. Take dividend income for instance. This is taxed at a lower rate because people investing in dividends (ie companies) is something the government want to encourage. The government acknowledges that doing so if a risk so needs an incentive.

A government wants to encourage innovation and investment as this makes the whole country more wealthy - more jobs, more tax etc. it’s not going to be able to do that if it doesn’t offer any tax perks for investment.

You seem to think there are loopholes but aren’t willing to give any examples.

The biggest loophole for IHT was business and agriculture exemptions, where rich people pile in to buy land as a way of passing on their wealth free from IHT. The government rightly tried to close that loophole and it went down like a cup of cold sick!

(but admittedly they could have gone about the tax changes in a much more sophisticated way and therefore ensured they hit tax dodgers and left actual farmers alone).

They already paid London Living Wage as their lowest. It's the NICs increase.

What are you talking about there are numerous tax incentives that allow the wealthy and high earning business to pay less tax

laws regarding landlords increasing rent have been tightened along with landlords being able to just give notice to gain more rent to their next tenants

that landlords can pay low taxes on rent has been a large contributor to rent remaining high and pushing up the cost of housing, this also goes to the larger number of people who now own second home and more than one home they rent out (paying low taxes on the earnings)

its not going to fix issues over night but how things are now and the direction things have been going for the last 30 years, keeping wages down, low taxes for large corporations, middle classes (until recently) and the wealthy wealth increasing has only increased the divide in society and it has to change or it’s a society propped up by benefits

I don’t think that’s true. Politicians care about votes, even the local, regional and by-elections.

An indication their policies aren’t going well will be felt.

With a 170 seat majority what you care about OP is of no consequence.

I have no issue with paying to support people who, through age, illness or disability can’t work. Or those who temporarily fall on hard times.

i have a problem with paying for people on a higher salary than I’m on to receive Universal Credit, or to pay landlords’ mortgages, or to support people who won’t - rather than can’t - work.

Which loopholes? Which exactly? If you cannot name a loophole you want changed then you’re just blah, blah, blah ing because they don’t exist. You think there’s a magic money tree. There isn’t. It really annoys me because it’s just a way of sticking your head in the sand and ignoring reality. Oh we’ll cancel student debt and pay for it by closing a loophole. Oh we’ll pay the WASPI women by closing a loophole. Oh well keep the triple lock by closing a loophole. All sounds great but these loopholes just don’t exist.

And as an economist will tell you, taxing landlords never works. They pass the tax directly on to their tenant in increased rent. And due to the extra tax more landlords leave the business creating scarcity which again increases rent. And who are these renters? Those on housing benefit - so we pick up the extra tax in extra housing benefit - and young professionals with no bank of mum and dad to supply a deposit, who are trying to save up but are struggling due to ever increasing rents.

I don’t really give a shit about them, it’s so many of the future high earners (those that in 20 years time will be funding the entire nation) that are fleeing the country that’s the big issue.

I’m not talking about younger people though. I’m talking about rich right wing older people who are ‘fleeing’ the government.

Are we taxing earnings now not profits? And accounts already report earnings in the UK. What exactly are you proposing? You seem confused.

what I don't get is 16h requirement per parent.

With 32 hours of work between them they surely can cover 24/7, why do they need taxpayer sponsored childcare? when parents on 100k+ are nearly certain to work way much more than official 35-37h working week

I didn’t realise NHS recruitment was an issue though. I keep hearing about there being no jobs for nurses, midwives and medical students to go on to.

Why are they selfish? They can’t make life work here. Housing is too expensive, tax is too high. Move to say Scandinavia and your tax may be a bit higher but your housing may well be less, you can afford to have kids, infrastructure works, your health system works and if you’re made redundant you get benefits that in some way reflect your previous salary, not the same as all the freeloaders that have never bothered to get a job. It’s not selfish to expect decent public services for the tax you pay.

Agree. But we cannot keep handing pensioners perks such as the winter fuel allowance when they’re the demographic with the highest disposable income, and we have to ditch the triple lock. It was only ever meant to be a temporary solution.

I would be very happy to see changed to tax loop holes that serve the better off in society

and other tax changes around properties and landlords (i am a landlord myself)

that isn’t far left politics

it’d a shame Labour are not taking these bold steps to make society fairer, they would absolutely win back voters, they have the mandate to do this with their large majority but instead have taken easier routes to raise tax

@treeowl or any other mumsnetters to explain

Re your comments that there is
no free childcare

I have never had any Free childcare so can only go by the newer benefits and policies introduced

Here is a Google answer
Can anyone please explain why it is incorrect

if as you say there is no free childcare. This extract reads that , unlike in my kids nursery days, people aren’t paying for some hours whilst I paid for every hour.

’ In England, all 3 and 4-year-olds are entitled to 15 hours per week of free,
approved childcare for 38 weeks a year.
Eligible working families can access up to 30 hours, starting for children aged 9 months+ from September 2024/2025. Support is also available for 2-year-olds with specific government support.

3 & 4 Year Olds (Universal): 15 hours a week (570 hours/year) for all, regardless of income.

Working Parents (9 months to 4 years): Up to 30 hours a week for eligible families.

2 Year Olds (Support): 15 hours for families on specific benefits.

Eligibility Criteria (Working Families)
Each parent must earn at least 16 hours a week at the national minimum/living wage.
Neither parent can have an adjusted net income over £100,000 per year.
Valid for approved, Ofsted-registered providers.
What is Covered
The hours are free, but providers may charge for meals, nappies, or special activities.
Hours can be stretched over more than 38 weeks by using fewer hours per week.
Other UK Nations
Information for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland differs; check local government sites.

Possibly but until then the companies ethos was handmade. We weren't planning on going mass production, but you have to respond to market forces.

There are examples in every area of business. My classic example is before minimum wage be used to have a tea trolley in the offices with a lady who went round giving out tea and was paid pin money effectively. The reason she did it was the social aspect. But minimum wage put an end to that - just couldn't justify and put a kettle in the kitchen for staff to make their own. That is an extreme because was it ever really a "real" job, probably not but it was a mutually beneficial arrangement.

This doesn't relate to anything tree !

its more productive to tag the post you are referring to

Ps
I havent commented on MIRAS
I have never used it
I bought after 2000 so wouldn't know

There are loans now though dwp.