What do with think will be in Labour’s budget?

Are you answering the question I asked @Amythomas ?

Anyway. So if you are saying none of the EU countries are doing what the UK need to do, can you name a country anywhere that does what you think the UK should ?

Because then we can look up the data to see if it works.

Part of the problem with this whole discussion is words "Trickle-Down Economics".
Many people assume that this has something to do with Economics. It does not! The idea was invented in the 19th century as a criticism to some of the policies back then. Apparently the exact phrase "Trickle Down" was used by Will Rogers to criticize Herbert Hoover. It was then later brought back by people criticising Ronald Reagan.
The term is the creation of the critics, not the advocates, of tax cuts. That's one reason why it doesn't make a great deal of sense.
It's very important to understand that the impact of changes to corporate taxes are very different to the impact of changes to individual taxes.

Would this be a good idea?

‘Two percent minimum tax on richest households could raise £10 billion
Introducing a two per cent minimum annual tax on households with more than £100 million in wealth could raise around £10 billion in 2026, while affecting fewer than 1,000 households in the UK, suggests a report by academics at King’s College London, the Paris School of Economics and the University of California, Berkeley.’p

‘The proposed reform would require ultra-high-net-worth households with more than £100m to pay a minimum effective tax rate equivalent to 2 per cent of their total wealth, with any income taxes already paid deducted from this liability. Households already paying the equivalent of 2 per cent of their wealth in tax would pay nothing extra.
Key findings of the report include:

• £10.4 billion could be raised in 2026 – 10 times the estimated savings from cutting the 2024/25 Winter Fuel Allowance. £10.4 billion would reduce the UK's projected current budget deficit by almost one-third.
• Fewer than 1,000 households would be subject to the tax, substantially limiting administrative costs, which are estimated at less than one per cent of revenues.
• Households with more than £100 million in wealth would remain within the scope of the tax for up to ten years after ceasing UK residence to limit migratory responses - building on the principle recently introduced for the UK inheritance tax.
• This proposal fills a gap which even reforming capital gains tax and inheritance tax cannot fix. This is because the wealth of the super-rich is held in assets that can be accumulated for decades and borrowed against without ever triggering a taxable event. This proposal tackles this directly by taxing wealth itself.
• Revenues would continue to grow over time, reaching almost £18 billion annually by 2036.
• Nearly half of all revenues would come from fortunes primarily built in finance, real estate and land.

"Wealth taxes have too often been dismissed as politically attractive but practically impossible. This report shows that a well-designed minimum tax on the very wealthiest households is a realistic, targeted reform that would make the UK's tax system fairer while raising substantial revenues."

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/2-minimum-tax-on-richest-households-could-raise-10-billion-a-year

@Ellen2shoes

Even Tony Blair said taxing the wealthy more would not help. The top 1% of UK taxpayers pay almost 30 % of the total taxes paid in the UK. Wow!

Since Labour came into power, an estimated 27,000 millionaires left the UK. Recently, Chris Rokos left the UK. Previously he was paying £330 million per year in tax.

Both employing cheap labour from outside the UK and chasing the wealth creators away reduces the government’s total tax take. To balance the book, government has the following choices/

Increase taxes, or;
Increase borrowing, or;
Cut spending

None of which is helpful.

UK has more people who take from the system than those pay in to the system. That can never be sustainable for long.

Really interesting replies! Every economic expert I hear talking about the budget says the growing welfare bill needs to be cut! Benefits should be there to prop up people who work but can’t afford to cover all expenses. I know (and I’m sure most people know) someone who takes the piss out of the system. My example - one woman with four kids (one about to pop) she gets CMS for three kids plus benefits for then. She has two kids with a new partner. Neither of them work. Their whole life is funded by the government. The money is not spent on the kids, as they just stay inside on screens all day! But I guarantee Labour won’t do anything about this! This doesn’t make me a monster, I just don’t understand how these people are not allowed to work and get so much from the state.

Quote "Recently, Chris Rokos left the UK. Previously he was paying £330 million per year in tax."

Where do you get this data from? Because the 2025 top 10 taxpayers list does not have him.

"Sunday Times Tax List 2025 - top 10 taxpayers

1. Sir Chris Hohn (hedge fund tycoon) £339.5m
2. Fred and Peter Done and family (gambling) £273.4m
3. Denise, John and Peter Coates (gambling) £265m
4. Stephen Rubin and family (sportswear) £209.9m
5. Mark and Lindy O'Hara (finance) £204m
6. Alex Gerko (founded trading firm XTX) £202.2m
7. Mike Ashley (Sports Direct founder) £198.2m
8. Tim Martin (Wetherspoons founder) £170m
9. Weston Family (retail, including Primark) £151.8m
10. Tom Morris and family (founder of Home Bargains) £149.2m"

Source :

Britain's biggest taxpayers revealed - from JK Rowling to Wetherspoon boss Tim Martin - The Mirror

If trickledown has nothing to do with economics, why do economists talk about it ?

But what has not been discussed here is what it does. Instead, it seems to have been a pile on because I dared to suggest what a PP advocated for was trickle down.

My take on it is about corporate tax. The classic Reaganomics version, that reform seem to have adopted in a handwaving way, (without explaining how it works). The concept is simple enough. Let the rich get richer (companies mainly, but also individuals), by reducing corporate tax and regulations, and that will trickle down to the not rich. Because the rich will be spending more money.

But it does not work, because they do not spend the money. It takes money out of circulation. And the reduction in regs make it worse, because corporation spend less on meeting regs, taking more money out.

I think of it in terms of loaves of bread. Near everyone buys bread. It's a constant. But people do not buy more bread if they are rich. and the poor, they might struggle to buy any. So bread sales go down. And when that happens, production costs go up and the price goes up.

Now take that and put it into corporate tax, and how a corporation can reduce it's tax in a high tax environment. It spends money on other things. If the corporation tax is progressive, it can avoid higher tax bands by investment. R&D, people, machinery and equipment. And l that money is going into the system.

The high corporate taxation policy is effectively pushing it to be spent, rather than squirreled away, or going into bumper dividends.

Remove this push to reduce exposure to taxation, and the company becomes purely bigger profit driven. Combine that with less regs, and we get redundancies, cost cutting, lack of re-investment. Instead, the money vanishes into the ether of offshore bank accounts, and less bread is being bought. And a bigger welfare bill most likely.

A very rough overview of why trickledown does not work long term. I think it is enough of an overview to explain why the people advocating for it can't find any nation doing it.

And this is also why I ask people advocating for it to explain how it delivers what Reform promises it will. And nobody has. Just handwaving.

You're obsessed with trickle down economics, but no one is proposing that. And Gary's 'GCSE' Economics has been roundly debunked many months ago, to such an extent that he has flounced off to avoid further scrutiny.

No doubt the ideology you are pushing for though is some sort of economic equality, where the taller poppies have their stems trimmed or heads cut off to bring them down to the average, i.e. a society where everyone is made equally as poor.

Trickle up poverty?

Well someone has to pay for the amount of people needing UC top ups, due to them not being paid enough, from their jobs to support their living needs.

I am not obsessed with anything to do with economics. I am here chewing the cud on a chat forum.

And what ideology am I pushing for ? I am of the opinion that economics is not an exact science, and that is why there are so many different economic systems, and mixes of them. And with that in mind, I am in the wait and see what works camp.

What I am against though is people pushing what looks to be like Reform policy when nobody can explain how it works. And not only that, they can't name a country that enacts it, and where it works.

So you're against things simply because you believe that they are 'Reform-like', rather than because they might be good to get the UK off it's arse, out to work, taking pride in their success, and weaned off benefits?

So you're against things simply because you believe that they are 'Reform-like', rather than because they might be good to get the UK off it's arse, out to work, taking pride in their success, and weaned off benefits?

So you're against things simply because you believe that they are 'Reform-like', rather than because they might be good to get the UK off it's arse, out to work, taking pride in their success, and weaned off benefits?

@RedTagAlan

Low corporate taxes seemed to work for Ireland. They currently rank 3rd in the World for GDP/capita. Is that not a good thing?

What I am against though is people pushing what looks to be like Reform policy when nobody can explain how it works.

If people want to support or vote for reform, are they not allowed to choose for themselves.

@Amythomas

i.e. a society where everyone is made equally as poor.

Labour’s policy?

Can you give an example of where the policy has worked. That's all I have asked for. With 190 odd countries in the world there must be at least one that has put it into action and it was worked. As in worked better than any policy labour or the Tories have operated.

Because while there is no perfect system, there are plenty of terrible ones. And trickle down does seem to be a terrible one.

If you actually know what you're talking about, why don't you show some examples of where it hasn't worked, and reasons why an alternative approach would have worked better?

Started that business yet?

If you actually know what you're talking about, why don't you show some examples of where it hasn't worked, and reasons why an alternative approach would have worked better?

Started that business yet?

Yes lower CT has worked for them to create a surplus.

Despite the low tax percentage, the volume of multinational profit booking has generated massive tax revenues, leaving the Irish state with multi-billion-euro budget surpluses

It has changed recently, it is an example of how lower tax can markedly increase revenue.

@RedTagAlan

Low corporate taxes seemed to work for Ireland. They currently rank 3rd in the World for GDP/capita. Is that not a good thing?

What I am against though is people pushing what looks to be like Reform policy when nobody can explain how it works.

If people want to support or vote for reform, are they not allowed to choose for themselves.

@Amythomas

i.e. a society where everyone is made equally as poor.

Labour’s policy?

And Ireland has become a clearing house of sorts for US corporations to stash their rest of the world profits to escape US taxes. Apple for example.

And it leaves Ireland over exposed to US Presidents. As we are seeing.

And sure, it might work for Ireland. Different systems for different countries. The UK however is a different beast because a lot of the legacy R&D is still in the UK. It is much of the manufacturing that has been offshored, but the HQ and research remain. Ireland never really had that base.

Same as with the US multinationals operating their taxes through Ireland. They keep their R&D in the states, because it is tax deductible.

Also, and this is fairly important. Ireland is still in the EU. So if you want access to that market, that makes Ireland attractive. For some reason the UK gave up the EU bit.

Oh, and reading Irish news, it's not exactly a utopia. It has issues too.