If Labour came into power

I think Kier Starmer would be more honest, but I am not sure we would see massive changes in terms of policy. He’s not going to hike taxes and we are in huge amounts of debt - so he cant go on a spending spree. I think we wouldn’t see a lot of changes and it would all be blamed on Tory mismanagement of the pandemic.

Wealth taxes and better public service funding

They are completely bananas on what a women is. Women are 50% of population so expect huge woke, PC projects around this.

They chose Corbyn as leader and show a huge lack of judgement. Did they really think they would win

They have swung too far to the left and Momentum and the unions have such a grip that unless they get another Blair they have no chance of winning. Starmer isnt the leader to do this. They are the only main party who has never had a women leader? Wonder why that is??

They would still have us in lockdown, potificating about what to do, where to get the vaccines from.

Angela Rayner is unelectable and comes across as a Vicky Pollard type figure with a massive chip on her shoulder about people who have done well.

They would more thank likely bankrupt us again and leave a note saying there is no money.

They wouldnt be able to get a grip of that the old dinosar the NHS. They would throw money at it with no clue how to keep it going

They would finish off the highest rate tax payers who can often move to other countries easily.

In summary, they are clueless. Their current leader whilst better than Corbyn is just wasting time. He is not going to lead them to victory.

Don't know because I've no idea what their policies are except that they don't know what women are.

^^ I hate to say it but same. I just can't take them seriously

Voting for a party that think men can grow a cervix
I'll just leave that there

I'm fairly sure I've read that paper too @Fifteentoes.

... And of course the first thing the Tories (the "party of low tax") did upon gaining office in 2010 was raise VAT.

Wealth tax on anything above £25k was proposed above by @Fujimora. I think that's setting the bar a bit low.

Ah, I get it now, sorry. The way the thread was going is read like people were discussing this as Labour policy. I see now it was just a suggestion.

It really demonstrates how much a lot of people misunderstand wealth, income and tax though. Fujimora proposed a wealth tax, and then defined who would have to pay it not by their wealth, but by their income. That doesn't make any sense. A billionaire with an ingerited fortune could quite possibly have an income of 25K pa, so could a struggling manual worker trying to feed a family of four. Both of these individuals could also have an income of £20K pa, or nothing.

Income doesn't mean anything about how much wealth people have, and the first thing anyone who becomes rich does is get an accountant to make their income look as low as possible, to minimise income tax. The whole point of a wealth tax is to address that, by taxing wealth, not income.

There are various ways that can be done: directly via more stratified council tax bands (or, better in my view, a land value tax) and inheritance tax. And indirectly via capital gains tax which, while technically an income tax, is taxing the income people get from investing their wealth, rather than directly from their labour. The fact that people pay lower rates of tax on the money they get for doing fuck all once they've gotten past the point of having to rely on their labour, than they do on the proceeds of that labour itself while they still need it to have a house and food next month, tells you all you need to know about what's wrong with this country.

However, the tax burden falls most heavily on the decently-but-not-excessively-rewarded. Low-earners don't pay much tax and UC top ups make them beneficiaries

The point about benefits is valid (though most benefit recipients are in work so subject to national insurance and income tax) but in percentage terms, the relative tax burden of poorest and richest is very different from what most people think. That's because low earners DO pay tax - they pay VAT on most stuff they buy (and everything they earn goes on buying stuff, unlike the rich where most of it goes into pensions, investments etc.), import duties passed on in the price of goods, etc. And national insurance, which is a tax in all but name and cuts out at middle income levels.

A while ago I came across a document that analysed all this and found that the lowest 20% of the income distribution actually pay far more tax ^as a proportion of their income* than most people think (simply because their income is so low), and more (again, in percentage terms) than the top 20%. Not sure if I've stll got it.

Not sure I care what they'd do better, at this point I'll just settle for different.

Wealth tax on anything above £25k was proposed above by @Fujimora. I think that's setting the bar a bit low.

However, the tax burden falls most heavily on the decently-but-not-excessively-rewarded. Low-earners don't pay much tax and UC top ups make them beneficiaries; the ultra-highly-paid (those earning £1 million plus, plus similar-sized annual bonuses) are few in real numbers and global-mobile, so if the UK tax regime became effective punitive, they would relocate.

"Taxation is like plucking a goose: getting the most feathers for the least hissing."

I’ll be voting Labour.
Detest the Tories - how could things possibly get any worse

So is there any evidence that the "25K wealth tax" is anything more than made up bollocks?

Can you be economically right wing without being a Tory:

I think it's actually really difficult to decide what this means and it's not the same to all who see themselves as natural members of the same parties.

Under the Labour umbrella you could conceivably have people who economically believe in:

• global capitalism, international trade deals, etc, but with a little state socialism to make it all run smoothly and make it moral -high level state programs and redistribution through government programs and services, or -a more historically British type of labour economics that is more grass-roots and community oriented and focuses on local productivity in industry and agriculture and small business, as well as some form of union type activity. Likely to support some protectionism in industry and movement of labour.

Voting Tory you could have people who see the right economic approach as:
-More or less radically libertarian free market capitalism with a small state and lots of privatization
-Business oriented but seeing the state as having a real role to play in major projects and infrastructure that is required to make business viable.

• Strong regional productivity in industry and agriculture, lots of powers to lower level regions and communities, supports stable communities, likely to support some protectionism and concern over movement of labour.

There is a lot of overlap there on several levels, but the dominant leadership is only slightly different versions of globalism for both.

I don't think in the end what makes people change their vote is harder to pin down than just what policies will they enact during this term.

Oh sure, totally. I didn't mean to suggest Labour are a serious alternative to the status quo. But there are many Conservative voters (including some here) who still consider them far to red to consider even under KS, and give one the impression there is simply no way they will ever vote for them.

I accept that, particularly since Labour are unlikely to substantively change anything anyone so nothing much is being lost. I don't really understand the right, but my point was simply that surely you can be economically right wing without being Tory? I suppose there'd be the fear that by not voting Tory you might let a Labour government in. But at least anywhere remotely marginal, can't we just get enough Tory voters to vote Lib Dem and get some realignment towards a modern liberal capitalism without the vile, entitled post-feudalism?

If you're that comfortable with capitalism and the status quo

Labour is hardly anti-capitalist though. They are pretty embarrassed about any real anti-globalists that have found their way into the party.

I suspect they'd push some social economic policies in a different direction, which could be good. Infrastructure investment would be good. It would be good if they could revamp elements of the benefits system that don't work well.

I'm surprised some thing there would be less ministerial shenanigans. Maybe for a bit but after a time in power that seems to happen across the board.

On the other hand I wonder if their hand might be a little tied with the results of coming out of covid, they might not have that much room to maneuver. I worry that they would id politics type targeting for a lot of their economic programs which would be a bad way to implement them IMO and I would really not like to see them promote any of that agenda in their social policy.

I'd like to think they'd try and revive local trade and industry and local food security, supporting small farms, but I don't feel terribly confident about that possibility.

And say what you like... the fact that ANYBODY apart from the super-rich could actually still vote for the Tories now just makes me feel like humanity is some foreign species I have no understanding of whatsoever. Certainly makes me give up on any hope of England reversing its steady decent into hell. I read report after each new nadir in their behaviour that the polls have seen their support drop from 40-something to 30-something percent, or whatever, and it's supposed to show how badly they're doing. But all I can think is "Jesus, there's a third of the electorate that are so fucking lobotomised the only response they can muster to their government laughing while beating them over the head with a club, is to ask for a bigger club".

If you're that comfortable with capitalism and the status quo (I'm not, but that's my problem) then just vote Liberal Democrat FFS. Anything - just someone who is actually a grown up and will take the business of governing you seriously.

Where does this 25K wealth tax come from? Some bollox made up by the Mail? Can anybody link to Labour actually saying that?

Having been a Labour member and witnessing Starmer's deceit, ruthlessness and total lack of integrity first hand, I rank him personally lower than the shit on my shoe. Which puts him several rungs higher than Johnson. Truth is Labour, Lib Dems and Tories all occupy much the same space now in terms of economic policy.

That being said, there's a case for changing the guard simply because governments that have been in place for a long time with little opposition and a deep sense of entitlement tend to become lazy and corrupt and not govern very well, which is of course exactly what is happening. So even if you have several contenders for implementing broadly the same economic agenda, the one that has had to fight to get there and win people over is likely to do it more accountably than the one who has been taking the piss already and getting away with it.

PR would help a lot and nothing is likely to change much until more people acknowledge just how broken the system is and how rigged it is against the interests of ordinary people.

Currently I don't think it's "what would they do" but rather "what wouldn't they"

weak.........

I think the £25k must be a typo?
Maybe she meant £250k.