“Tax the wealthy” (RR budget) what does this even mean?

Most owned by younger people are also heavily mortgaged. A “wealth” tax by definition would only tax the equity, not debt! It would be impossible to administer appropriately. It’s also a really silly idea because property is an illiquid asset and the majority of wealth for people who are actually wealthy is not held in property, so once again it would be a way of hammering the middle class who already pay far higher tax rates than the wealthy.

She needs to stop doing all of this economically damaging tinkering and actually remove the inequities and cliff edges in the tax system that are harming economic growth, and do the right thing which is to raise income tax, and remove the exemption from NI from pensioners. What she’s been doing already breaches her statements pre-election so the manifesto is now irrelevant.

Meanwhile she needs to overhaul public services; means-test the state pension; scrap the NHS and replace it with a continental European system that actually works; double the education budget and invest in decent infrastructure and put a sensible trade and industrial policy in place; implement new systems that prevent cash and black market working especially by sole traders; reform transfer pricing policy; and force UK tax havens to declare beneficial ownership of all assets properly.

Not a chance in hell she’d do anything sensible though. It will be more of blaming the Tories/ Covid/ Russia/ aliens 👽, Zombies 🧟‍♀️ etc…

Well, there have to be huge hikes somewhere unless they want to have another go at reining in spending. After backtracking on benefits reform I don’t think they will have the appetite to be as bold as needed to balance books without significant tax increases and they have basically said tax rises are going to be in the budget. The question is who gets hit and how much it hurts. Not optimistic.

What huge hikes? We don’t know what’s planned.

And?

Yep plus they pledged not to raise taxes at all pre GE so I’m not sure how they’re getting away with such huge hikes.

I only said it would go to the foodbank. In what way is that “battering anyone over the head”?

I think it’s more a case of the signalling being used to batter posters over the head, in order to drive home your point.

In the nicest possible way, of course.

I feel the same.

It’s really interesting - I don’t remember being that interested in budgets as it has some impact but not huge and you could choose to economise - less booze, less petrol etc. But the changes now feel like they are making penalties on things people have already done for their financial future - inheritance tax, property tax which many of us haven’t factored in, it’s feeling like they are government can’t be trusted and that any plans could be thwarted. So yes I am more apprehensive about the budget which I have not normally felt

Can’t win, can I? Either I’m a greedy bitch who accepts money I don’t need or I’m a do gooder. 🤷‍♀️

You see...Blossom not only does good but tells everyone else that she does good. The perfect left winger.

I’d never decline it. It will go straight to the foodbank as usual.

Good for you that you didn't miss it, not all pensioners were as lucky as you, did you remember to decline it this year, though the deadline had probably passed now if you haven't yet.

No we weren’t. I personally didn’t receive £150, I didn’t miss it and it won’t make much difference when I get it this year. The broadest shoulders were employers.

Last year those with the 'broadest shoulders' were pensioners on over about £11.5k

This.

She wants those with 'broadest shoulders' to carry the weight of tax. Her version of the broadest shoulders does not seem to be those with really wealth and tax avoiding corporate but anyone who has scrimped and saved to buy their own home or planned for their old age. Meanwhile the benefit / healthcare bill spirals out of control, waste and inefficiency goes un checked and private equity and shareholders get to count their money all the way to their banks overseas.

Public sector pensions are underwritten by the tax payer for a start.

My point is that public sector pensions are not better than everyone else’s- not your point but one made by people earlier. Public sector pay is lower than private (and the gap keeps getting bigger) how are you going to convince good people (and there are good people) to stay if you cut the DB? You could (further) lower the value of the pension (it’s no longer final salary) but you’d need to increase pay to compensate - bring it inline with private sector. How much would that cost?

Probably just be grateful you've got a job at all soon.

And the incentive would be what exactly? Do more with less and you don’t even have a pension to look forward to?

We have to live within our means and pay the wages we can afford to the number of people we can afford. Otherwise we go bankrupt. Pretty straightforward.

Plenty of incentive to work. Unemployment is steadily rising thanks to Rachel Reeves. People won't be able to afford to be fussy especially young people.

So if they stopped public sector pensions, what’s the incentive to work for them? So no NHS doctors, nurses, health care assistants, teachers, Police, ambulances, firemen, prison and probation staff, court staff, bin men, no DWP staff to assess the benefits that can’t be reduced under any circumstances… I mean I’d be happy for there to be no tax office but I’d quite like to keep the services that keep the country running on a shoestring.

I don't understand your point. Apologies.

My point is that public sector pensions are unaffordable and will bankrupt the country. And Keir Starmer keeps piling on the liability by giving pay rises. And because it's a contractual obligation the pensions have to be paid. Unlike the state pension which the government can tweak. So the taxpayers are making the public sector richer potentially at the cost of the state pension and those relying on it now and in future.

As far as I can see RR has not said much one way or the other about the budget other than saying she won’t increase VAT, NI or income tax. She’s made some guff about reducing energy costs via lowering VAT and some means of encouraging investors to the UK but in so far as she’s mentioned “wealth tax” (she doesn’t use the term as far as I know) she’s also mentioned cutting public spending.
I really wouldn’t be having nightmares about her taxing primary residences just yet!
And as far as public spending cuts I’d be curious to see how brave she would be - they backed off pretty quickly from what their initial plans were.
I can think of numerous ways they could fo the latter and I don’t mean the usual stuff about getting layabouts to work (I find those sorts of views naive and pointless) but they’ll never do what they could do or should do (I’ll never vote Labour again btw).