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

What an idiotic statement.

As DWP will soon to be able to look at everyones bank account will she simply slap a tax on anyone with cash over £500k in the bank, stocks, or shares?

Absolutely this and I never get why people don’t seem to grasp it or don’t want to.

But to date policies haven’t spared SMEs or family farms - if anything being a business owner or farmer has lumped you in with the ‘broad shouldered’ who are meant to fund everything.

and as a private school parent I have routinely been skewered by this government as ‘wealthy’ because of what I choose to spend my hard earned money on rather than any sort of accounting of my actual assets. From press we know a property tax is getting real consideration, and as someone who was hit hard by budget #1 I can assure you it won’t be a nuanced approach that considers regional differences let alone the broader impact on markets and longer term consequences .

What you propose is a sure fire way to reduce private rental availability- caps on rent and housing shortages go hand in hand.

Well they can't tax the actual wealthy so it always trickles down to the MC/middle earners
We will find out

@twistyizzy
I don’t think that’s true. I know you hate this government and that’s fair enough but I really don’t think it is house prices/value or smaller businesses that she means. Her interview statement certainly didn’t indicate as much

A lot of people are going to have a nasty shock that they are suddenly "wealthy" in a few weeks' time

The number of properties available at the moment is determined by supply and demand. If a landlord charges too much, they won't be able to rent it out, and if they charge too little the business won't be viable.

Assuming you're proposing a cap that's lower than the existing market, then it's reasonable to expect a large number of landlords would indeed sell their properties or decide to leave them empty.

A surge in properties hitting the market at the same time may reduce the price and be an opportunity for buyers to either rent out or live in.

This would inevitably result in less rental properties. This would be fine for those who have secured a property, but for those unable to find a property, they would ether need to buy, or be homeless.

Whilst we still live in a capitalist society the "fix", would be either increase the supply, by building more homes, or making it more attractive for landlords to do rent properties.

Tackling the demand is more challenging, especially with a growing population.

The idea of £1,000 per adult per month would make me considerably better off than I am!
And I would not want that - via this proposed method. I’d rather be able to work for it in a meaningful way.
As a married couple my DH and I would have £2,000 a month from the government as opposed to DLA (£441) for DD and carer’s allowance £333). I’d be twice as well off.
It would go a long way to helping my DD (severely physically disabled).
And to plan for her future - if she has one.
But I think of this idea as well as there are people who receive UC who rent and have severely disabled or disabled DC. They’d probably be getting over £2,000 already but that’s including rent costs.
My gain would be their loss - though we’d be in nearly identical situations re our DC but I’d be better off financially because I have a small mortgage and not rent.
Obviously that leaves out rent/mortgage and salary differences.
Everyone wants not to be in poverty but I wouldn’t want to see my imaginary counterparts in poverty while I have more spending money.
I’m qualified to phd level, I’ve worked in the Home Office (immigration law) and I’d FAR rather have better access to what other parents have - after school care for DD that she’d enjoy and would keep her safe (it’s not difficult but it might be expensive because private companies just rinse councils) or more flexible working conditions so I could use my fucking brain.
I know I’m in a weird situation but any government stooping to rob benefit depending family of poor Peter to encourage rich business owner Paul would be a government that was shortsighted and foolish, not to mention cruel.

I don’t know why Labour would never consider overhauling UC and grading disability benefits properly (There are good reasons for thinking the current grading system is just about functional).

I would support proper funding for medical and mobility equipment from a centralised government source that didn’t get pawned off to the council budgets (run by whichever party has power there and leads to a “lottery”).

In fact much of what is said about expenditure on social care boils down to private care companies charging whatever they like to councils, to the enormous costs of children who are “looked after children “ (not the children’s fault and I do NOT mean SEND children which is a different cost) and the extortionate costs of care in private care homes.

But as to what RR means by taxing wealth.. I don’t know. We will see soon enough.

There’s nothing socialist about this Labour government.

I will never vote Tory and definitely never Reform (their policies make absolutely no sense and are pie in the sky ( leaving aside the poisonous nature of some of their representatives)) and now never Labour again either, I used to vote Lib Dem.. but not now.

I hope whatever RR does its not just taxing people who really don’t have wealth but are forced to pay more because of the legacy of fucking Covid and the fatted calf that really was a hot air balloon of a calf of savings otherwise known as Brexit.

I really like the idea of a simple, flat UBI and abolishing all other benefits, although I think disability benefits for people who are incapable of working at all would need additional income/support. Everyone gets it, you can choose to work or not, but no additional help with housing costs etc. it would allow for more flexibility around work, childcare, and voluntary work, and allow people to move around the country more easily.

The likes of the Duke of Westminster et al need to start paying their fair share of tax. He didn't have to pay any IHT on his late father's estate (approx £9 BILLION)due to the assets technically being held in Trust. These tax avoidance schemes should stop.

Also, the God damn lazy Royal family need to start paying their fair share...and not just what they feel like paying.

They should cap private rental overall. This would reduce the housing benefit bill, make rental homes more affordable and people would have more money to spend. Would likely encourage people into work as they wouldn't have to worry about losing top ups if housing was a decent price. Im not a maths person but this seems a simple solution to me as a starting point. All rented accommodation to be assessed, a fair price agreed in line with LA rates and landlords have a choice to suck it up or sell up. Would make house prices more affordable too and help yp get on the housing ladder and give people more money in their pocket to spend.

@isthesolution why would they be more incentivise to work?

What would happen about other benefits like housing benefit, et cetera?

Do you mean on top of that?

I'm thinking every adult having £1000 a month from the state has got to be insanely expensive, hasn't it? But I don't know how much it cost to administer the welfare state.

There are very few examples of a universal benefit although trials of this in other countries had very positive results.

I think you’d find people were more incentivised to work not less but yes some would stop working. It’s not a perfect system but I’d love to see it trialled. I’m not sure there’s anything else I can see as an option - we are in a very bad place financially.

👏👏

Increasing any taxation is not a solution.
We are well beyond the point of "tax saturation". Raising it further on any sector will continue to stifle growth and discourage investment.

For example, four businesses local to me, have been trading for decades and making a reasonable profit around 10%. The recent increases in National Insurance and the minimum wage have directly impact the profit margin to the point where their businesses are barely viable. Three of them say they are planning to wind-up the business unless there's a positive outcome in the budget. I really don't think the cabinet understand how business actually work.

Increasing borrowing is not a solution.
The UK currently owes £3 trillion which incurs £350 million in interest payments daily. We are unable to repay the capital.

The interest rate is the highest it has been for 27 years at 5.75% largely because the bond markets no longer regard the UK as a safe investment and there are safer countries to lend to such as the US.

Most years we spend more than we collect in taxes, resulting in increased borrowing and worsening the situation. (There have only been five years since 1971 when the books balanced so this has been building up for decades through successive governments.)

How about growth?
Labour’s proposal for change was going to be driven by Growth, which flat-lined after they killed business confidence within weeks.

For investors, there are more attractive locations with lower taxation, reduced employee costs, lower energy costs and larger markets. Rising unemployment and inflation are accompanied by increasing tax receipts which are stifling the economy.

How about cutting public spending?
The truth is we have been spending far beyond our means on public spending since the 1970s, but cuts are so unpopular with the electorate that no party is prepared to make any meaningful change. The Conservatives did manage to reduce public spending in real terms, but it is generally accepted that this contributed to their loss in the 2024 general election.
The recent debacle with KS and RR trying to trim a morsel off public spending shows it certainly isn't going to happen with the current government either.

So what’s going to happen…?
I was rather hoping, we could carry on kicking the can down the road for another 20 years, but I think that's looking unlikely.

Much of Europe has the same problem, especially France. it will be interesting to see to see how that plays out as we will probably follow.

I do know that I should probably change my name no idea what's in the budget 😂

@BoredZelda how do we compensate for the tax loss if the multimillionaires leave?

@isthesolution I don't know how £1000 a month would compare in terms of cost of administering the benefit system but I've never heard of a situation where UBI works

A lot of people would just give up work if they got £1000 a month that they aren't already getting. And I wouldn't blame them I probably would too.

It would better to do a root and branch reform of the entire tax system with a view to encouraging more people to pay a lower rate of tax.

Get rid of all the silly complicated taxes that make people try and minimise what they think they owe. Get rid of cliff edge taxes that stop people being more economically productive.

Focus on that rather than trying to tax the hardest people to tax.

I think we need to try something completely different. For example - Give every adult £1000 a month. Get rid of all other benefits. Allow them to spend this however they choose. If people can’t/don’t want to work then that’s their choice but their lifestyle will be extremely basic. The economy will boom because those who already work and don’t ‘need’ this money will increase their saving/spending.

I’m sure people will jump on me with flaws to this system and I’m sure there are many But there are flaws to the current system and any other system that could be adopted and ultimately we cannot continue as we are.

We’ve come to expect benefits and believe we are ‘entitled’ to government money and it’s going to be extremely hard to go back to people understanding that they MUST work to live.

The current system is completely unsustainable- more and more people are diagnosed with things that they claim they can’t work because of which, although extremely sad and worrying, can’t just be funded by money that the country doesn’t have.

They’re fucked, they’ve managed to wind up the entire population. Who benefits from a Labour government? The more they tax the lower the tax take as millionaires fuck off and unemployment rises. Utter morons.

I agree.
It may 'trickle down' in the sense that a few crumbs from the king's table might make their way to the tables occupied by the peasants. But most of the wealth WHOOSHES straight up to those who are already extremely wealthy.

Agree i think a lower threshold and a lower % might work. If more people are paying but a smaller % maybe people would be less likely to do all sorts to avoid the 40%

Hard agree