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

I agree with you that she is incompetent and should not be in that role. My very first posts on this thread were about her incompetence.

I can’t see anybody within the Conservatives capable of doing it either. I mean, Mel Stride is their Shadow Chancellor!?

And who are Reform proposing to put forward for this role exactly, were they to be in power??

I don’t know which school you went to but they clearly didn’t focus much on reading comprehension, and seem to have done something that’s led to you having a very strange obsession with schools. I hope you get some help.

Agreed. However, if you create good infrastructure and an environment with a high standard of living and good trade links and fair tax rates they will pay more than they are paying currently in order to access this. As for all other voters they will do what they perceive to be most beneficial to them, but these ones generally do tend to make logical decisions because they have a host of professional advisors ensuring that they are told what is the rationally beneficial decision and rather than voting at the ballot box they vote with their feet. Meanwhile we can reform things like transfer pricing to ensure that profits are taxed in the country in which they are generated and other similar measures that are proportional and reasonable could be implemented in a non-damaging way that would be accepted (as opposed to the madness proposed of trying to tax non-doms inheritance tax on their worldwide assets - which genius came up with that idea? This is the type of thing that shows the level of cluelessness we’re dealing with here in the political leadership. What did they think would happen!?).

People in the middle who own properties that the Government deems to be expensive (like they really wanted to take out huge mortgages to have a secure roof over their heads and had any control over this) or who earn decent salaries that used to be comfortable but on a PAYE basis are easy targets but the limits of taxing these people more and pretending that they are “rich” have been pushed to the extreme already and have been shown to be having a “Laffer curve” effect with people retiring early, cutting hours, emigrating etc. In HMRC data there is “bunching” between each earnings threshold where more punitive measures kick in, showing the adverse behavioural effects of these policies and that they lower overall tax revenue. These are our most productive people, often in skills-shortage areas, and those whom the UK is currently very disproportionately reliant on for tax revenue in comparison to other countries due to our top-heavy tax system, and this approach to revenue raising cannot be pushed much further (if at all) because, as we’ve seen in recent years, raising further taxes on this group above the already high levels actually reduces overall tax revenue rather than increasing it because they simply cut hours/ leave/ retire etc. Ultimately, nobody is going to work for free.

Similar disincentives exist at different levels of earnings due to the withdrawal of child benefit, and for those claiming universal credit because the taper rate is far too high still. Tax policy should incentivise work, not the opposite. But none are as bad as the £100k cliff-edge which is patently absurd and does a lot of economic harm, as well as increasing the need for immigration (which many posters seem to not want…). No other country I’m aware of structures their tax system like this. The way tax law around employees and contractors has been designed similarly distorted the market. There are so many examples, all entirely within Government control to fix and well evidenced, so tax reform should be a top priority to smooth out rates and remove disparities between different types of income (with still some incentives for investment that carries risk) and also to ensure that households are taxed or given welfare based on household income, not individual income, otherwise you end up with immense distortions which is why, again, no other comparable developed country that I’m aware of structures things in this way.

It isn’t a question of people’s moral beliefs or preferences but economic and mathematical fact that the UK can’t possibly fund the type of public services which the UK public is demanding unless lower and middle earners pay more because of the numbers of people in each group. It’s literally a mathematical impossibility.

The only credible options are:

1. cut public services significantly;

2. raise taxes on middle and lower earners significantly;

3. reform public services and institutions so that you can redirect public spending to productive parts of the economy that will generate growth and higher productivity and raise living standards (i.e. a healthcare system more similar to those in France or Germany, means-test state pensions and mandate auto-enrolment with higher contributions (including from self-employed people), reform the tax system to remove cliff-edges and disincentives harming investment and economic growth and investment in new technology, remove unnecessary trade barriers that are harming economic growth, invest in a proper industrial strategy, total reform of education with a much increased budget and with focus on diversification to different routes through technical training and meaningful apprenticeships designed in partnership with companies that lead on to proper career routes for those who aren’t academic, a very large investment in our infrastructure that’s been run into the ground, provide support for small businesses to export and form clusters of start-ups in the sectors where we have a good knowledge base and competitive advantage… etc). And, meanwhile, reform the tax system per my comments above so that it actually encourages economic growth, work and investment.

Nobody likes 3) because it’s “too complicated”, can’t be put into a three-word-slogan, will take a while to have effect and will mean that some people have to give up some things that they like receiving currently. But given that 1) or 2) actually wouldn’t improve things sufficiently to make the long term sustainable anyway - only provide a short-term reprieve if they were implemented, which isn’t happening anyway because “CAKE!!!” - 3) really is the only viable option if the country is to have a positive future trajectory and I just wish that any political party would have the decency to explain this reality to the public and put forward a sensible policy prospectus before it becomes impossible and option 3) becomes almost unachievable.

I like to think that if they did so a sufficient enough proportion of the UK public, who are fed up with all of the extremist nonsense, would get behind it, because what alternative is there? I like to think the “silent majority” is actually the bulk of sensible, normal people who just want to get on with their lives and have a competent Government in place that they can trust to be making sensible, rational, moderate and not ideological decisions. But perhaps I’m being too optimistic to think that. Or perhaps all of our politicians are just too self-interested and don’t care about what the country actually needs but only their own careers and elections hence the extremely damaging short-term thinking.

Based on the discussions here, I won’t hold my breath for there being any positive change and fully expect the doom loop to continue, and most likely accelerate.

Plus some things are reinforced by various institutions so it makes sense those with lower exposure see things differently.

It doesn’t actually make the status quo right.

I think it is very difficult to tax the truly wealthy.

Governments find it easier to declare the particularly effective worker bees as wealthy and go after them. The problem with this is that it demoralises the worker bees we need the most!

Again. Reread your 10 point list and subsequent posts.

I know it's boring. But it's very hypocritical of you to make out you haven't been rude. You have, in any objective sense of the word. So we can agree to disagree but best for you not to then make out that you weren't rude at all. The language you used was rude.

If I wrote a 10 point list being disparaging about the intelligence of Labour voters and giving my view that the only reason someone would vote Labour was for wholly negative or selfish reasons (although I may think that to myself of course) I would be vigorously called out and rightly so.

One comment to your post.

I do not disagree with your assessment regarding voters, but you can over-intellectualise politics, as they say. Those people have the same vote as you and I, and are likely to vote premised on who/what they believe will make a positive difference to their lives.

Politicians ignore or diminish them, at their peril. Trump’s second term is a recent example of this.

How many times does this need to be repeated? It’s so boring.

Please quote any post where I have made a comment about the intelligence of Reform voters or called them “stupid”, as you have repeatedly claimed.

I have not, so you can’t.

I made comments about people making unwise decisions because of a lack of knowledge or poor education in economics, poor numeracy etc. It is you who then equated education levels with intelligence levels, not me. At no point have I called anybody “stupid”, you have invented this.

I expect so, but that cash cow has been milked dry already, with many in these kinds of earnings brackets paying some of the highest tax rates in the world for their level of earnings, while receiving shameful or non-existent public services in return, hence the brain drain that’s taking place with our brightest and most capable young people emigrating because for the same level of qualification/ expertise they can have a far higher salary, lower taxes and higher standard of living in other countries. This is economic suicide.

The fact of the matter is that to have the kind of public services that the UK population is demanding lower and middle earners would need to pay far more tax than they do currently. Their tax burden has fallen in real-terms over the last two decades, significantly. Meanwhile our Governments have done little to tax the truly wealthy more. That’s a delicate game because they are highly mobile, but it can be done fairly and sensibly if the UK remains an attractive place to live and invest, and the current Government (and previous one) have done the opposite of creating such an environment. As a result we now have a very precarious and unbalanced tax base and it is creating perverse economic incentives leading to our most productive workers cutting their hours, retiring early, emigrating, small and medium-sized businesses (who make up over 50% of our economy) laying off staff or not investing in productivity improvements/ expansion, or selling out to be consolidated into foreign-owned groups whose profits will not be kept in the UK.

This approach will not work, and has already been pushed to its limits (or arguably beyond) and if it is doubled down on yet again the results will be entirely predictable.

Well I agree. But unfortunately it's a little disingenuous of you to imply that you have been squeaky clean on the "not insulting others intelligence" front. Still. On we go. Some of what you say does make sense once you write it in a polite and objective manner.

I did not do any such thing. I have never stated that all Reform voters are racist, and I didn’t say any of them were stupid.

And will you give up this tiresome and absurd nonsense trying to imply I am a teacher in what, 9 or 10 different posts now? Can you explain what this is about because I genuinely don’t understand it.

I haven’t been in a classroom full of 14 year olds since I was one myself and have had nothing to do with working in education in my entire life. You are welcome to ask MNHQ to verify this if you wish. Otherwise, you should cease your random and bizarre personal attacks and get some treatment for this strange obsession with staff in the education sector and apparent desire to project this obsession onto random people online.

I hadn’t even seen that post from this poster. I think that makes 9 posts or perhaps more now where they’ve obsessively attempted to assert or imply that I am a teacher. 😆It really is the weirdest, random thing I’ve seen here. Not the nastiest by any means, but the oddest.

Anyway, as you’ll have seen, I have at no point said all reform voters are racist or stupid or anything like that. And I agree that MNHQ should be ensuring that everyone abides by the Talk Guidelines and doesn’t insult others as it makes any worthwhile discussion impossible.

Perfect response!

We are in agreement here.

Ok. Thanks. I hadn’t read all of the PP’s posts so didn’t know that, I was simply responding to what they’d said to me.

I think I’ve been clear that I don’t support extremists of any kind. In fact, I hold them entirely responsible for the position that the country is now in, which is why I also don’t believe that further extremism is the solution.

Comments stating that anyone who would vote for Reform are automatically racist, have no place on these threads.

MNHQ agrees.

No, it will not, because the birth rate is declining rapidly. A pension scheme based on a ponzi-type system will always be unstable in the face of changing demographics and life expectancies (although these have started to decline in recent years in the UK - an indictment of the economic mismanagement I’ve been talking about) they have not declined significantly enough that this or raising state pension ages will offset the impact of the ponzi-system with a population which will fall exponentially over the next few generations if birth rates continue on their current trajectory.

Again, this comes down to lack of understanding of mathematics and the exponential effect on population size that falling birth rates will have across generations. Some countries (e.g. South Korea) are ahead of us on this curve and the societal impact is enormous. Many countries that can see the writing on the wall are putting very family-friendly policies in place to try to boost their birth rates with big tax cuts for families, lots of financial support, free childcare. As usual, the UK policy position has no such foresight. It is going to be a massive problem regardless, made far worse if our public institutions have not been reformed to remove any unsustainable ponzi-scheme systems before the impact of it hits. The Boomers should have done this decades ago but the problem absolutely has not gone away. Not at all.

Much as the UK is now anti-immigration, in the future it is likely to be crying out for immigration once this population collapse hits. Not one country/ civilisation in history has ever reversed this trend in population collapse with falling birthrates once it has set in. This time there also won’t be any immigrants to plug the gap because birth rates are following the same falling trend in pretty much every country outside sub-Saharan Africa. But I’m sure the ostrich-syndrome approach of burying our heads in the sand and ignoring demographic trends and their inevitable mathematical implications will make everything work out very positively, just like it has done to date…

You posted ‘some of the comments on here have been really unpleasant’, and you referenced ‘personal attacks’, in response to another poster.

Said poster had previously made a sweeping generalisation about those who would vote for Reform.

My point being - posters on both sides of the argument, have evidently resorted to similar tactics.

You wrote a ten point list on why reform voters are racist and stupid, it’s why so many comments have been removed. This sort of attitude may wash with a classroom of 14 year olds but you’re going to get pulled up on it with adults.

Who has?

I honestly don’t want to get embroiled or dragging into any divisive, nasty culture-war type nonsense. That’s precisely what I’ve been saying is causing the problems.

It just seems you can’t have a rational discussion about public policy these days without this starting, from both extremes. It doesn’t bode well for any of us.

For the sake of balance, the PP has had posts removed for their repeated assertion that any person who would vote for Reform, is either a ‘racist’, or a ‘racist sympathiser’.

As I say, for the sake of balance.

Thank you. I agree. Some of the comments here have been really unpleasant, as well as very weird! It’s good to know that some other posters also don’t think this is appropriate. I don’t know who reported this poster - it wasn’t me - but it is depressing that so many posters seem incapable of a robust but factual discussion without resorting to personal attacks.

Also, by the way, age has been controlled for, obviously, in those analyses of the data, along with income and many other potential confounding factors. The statistically significant correlation between education level and voting choices persists across countries. Frankly, it’s a bit mad to suggest that the level of education that someone has had would have no impact at all on their ability to assess information and evidence, even in a country like the UK where the general quality of education is quite poor, because that is one of the main purposes of education.

I’m interested (genuinely! This is not sarcastic) in why you are so adamant that this isn’t the case despite all of the available data showing the same correlation that it is the case; and why you equate education levels to someone’s level of intelligence when (pesky data again!) shows clearly that these are not the same thing, yet you have implied repeatedly that being less educated means that somebody is stupid, i.e. that intelligence and knowledge are the same.

Again, my comments haven’t been about people’s political or “moral” beliefs or preferences. Those will always differ. I’m talking about data and evidence.

There is no shortage of evidence in the world today. There are various economic models around the world and there is copious evidence about the economic and societal effects of different policies, over long-term periods. The UK isn’t feeling its way in the dark and needing to say “oh, let’s try this and see what happens!” when pretty much every variation of every way of structuring public institutions like healthcare, education, and implementing welfare or pensions or taxation etc have been tried and tested for us already elsewhere. It is already quite possible to ascertain what is effective and not effective, what creates perverse incentives, what improves things, what makes things worse, what provides good value for money and raises living standards and what does not.

These are not opinions, they are evidenced facts. This isn’t about “beliefs”. I don’t know why you appear to be unable to grasp this.

Within the parameters of the facts on what we know works, and what we know does not work, as evidenced by this empirical data, there are of course variations to make things slightly more “left wing” or “right wing” (although I hate these terms and think again that they are a way to pigeon hole people when the majority of people aren’t extreme in one sense or the other, although it can appear that way because the most extreme people are often the loudest and most opinionated). But a good start would be to look at the copious evidence available which shows what actually works - in terms of improving living standards for everybody in the country - and structure our public institutions, public spending and tax policy within parameters that are based on that evidence, don’t you think?

If not, again, I’d like to hear what alternative approach you think would create better outcomes for the people of the UK, and why.