What is labour coming for next?

[MikeRafone]

I reckon after 12 years of dozen fuel duty that drivers will be next

what tax will the collect next to fill the black hole

@Kitte321 This! Corporation tax already gone up under Conservatives, we suspect it will rise again. Then we are taxed when we draw dividends, alongside paying tax & NI on our salaries. We employ 7 people on v.good salaries for the sector we work in, match their pension, pay for health insurance, look after them well and at this rate we'd make just as much money making redundancies across the board and just working as sole consultants. Business owners will soon get sick I'm afraid. We are dreading a likely long term for Labour as both our parents were self employed and have also always suffered under Labour govts. They simply do nothing to inspire people to want to do better.

@godmum56

My privately purchased private health insurance is taxed the same as any other insurance with insurance premium tax.

IPT on health insurance is 12%. That could be increased to 20%, as some other insurance is. The healthcare itself isn't subject to VAT either. If it was (it would raise a lot) insurance premiums would increase.

Yeah I reckon so too.

IHT is already 40% for everything above the thresholds

Bye

I'd like to see them hammer second home owners with taxes because it was mrs. thatcher with her second mortgages and buy to lets that ruined the housing market for the younger generations. A house should be a home and not an investment,

There isn't much point building hospitals if you don't have the staff to work in them. Green belt land isn't much use to people sleeping in tents in under bridges.

Second homes and houses too big for the occupants should be taxed to high heavens. There are too many couples whose children have flown the coop still living in three or four (or more!) bedroom houses.

I think second homes and holiday homes should be taxed heavily. No one needs more than one home.
The Royal Family should give up some of their many homes.

Inheritance Tax has to be paid before the estate is released to the beneficiaries. If it isn’t then interest is charged.

£100 may seem like a trifle to many people, but there are some who would struggle to find even that to pay an upfront tax. The longer they delay, the more interest is charged. So by being too poor to pay IHT upfront, the beneficiary would be charged even more and receive even less.

Some people really do live hand to mouth.

If the beneficiary received a car and some cash valued at £10,000 under your proposal they would need to stump up £1,000.

If they received a house valued at £200,000 they would have to pay £20,000 before they accessed the inheritance. You may have that sort of money sitting idle in your bank account, most people don’t.

And if the rumours are correct and Capital Gains tax is charged at income tax rates on homes with the inheritance exemption removed, then after having taken out a loan (if they are able) to cover the £20,000 IHT fee, they would also lose 20% (if a lower rate tax payer) to CGT charges on any increase in value between inheriting the house and being able to sell it to pay back the loan taken out to access the inheritance in the first place!

There need to be properties to downsize to, though. There just aren’t vast numbers of one and two bedroom properties with manageable gardens out there.

That would be the worst thing for them to mess with.

They have to tax things that aren't under incredible pressure already.

Nail salons, coffee shops, barbers, takeaways.

Tax that lot first.

By 'etc etc' I take it you mean (but conveniently don't say, because it ruins your fan narrative) the Tory hard Brexit?

Those new hospitals that the Tories promised, the majority of which they had no intention of building?

Your awful sinking feeling about quality of life being due to plummet - well, if that was actually about to happen I'd say "welcome to how life has been for many of us under 14 years of Tory misrule".

Odd. How could they do that? Shops come under local government, not national.

So better for them to sell up and use the large amount of freed-up capital to buy a smaller 1-2 bedroom house, right?

You know, the sort of house people who are just starting on the property ladder struggle to buy.

Obviously it makes sense to pitch first-time buyers who may have a limited mortgage budget against downsizers who might well be cash buyers after the sale of their larger homes.

Then again, maybe all the first-time buyers you know are snapping up 4 bedroom houses!

So tax international businessman and investors more for visiting and investing?

So smart.

💯

In-work benefits for full-timers, other than CB, shouldn't be needed because National Living Wage should be enough.

When we give benefits to full-time workers, it's actually the employer who the taxpayer subsidises.

There aren't enough two-or-fewer bedroom houses and flats to go around to make that workable, as millions found out when the "bedroom tax" was introduced.

Yes let's have penalty levels of tax on the most internationally mobile taxpayers who consume the least amount of government services. Let's totally erode our tax revenue base, make the UK as unattractive as possible by taxing the rich so much that they leave, stop investing here and they go and pay tax elsewhere. Then when they have all gone and pay tax in foreign countries we can tax middle income people more. Brilliant.

Given we are not supposed to like migrants, and you are suggesting people will migrate, then presumably we shouldn't like those people anyway.

Are you sincerely suggesting that reporting your rape and having it ignored, and then the rape happening again and again (gang raped btw) is better? Honestly? I think sane people would say both are awful scenarios and leave it at that. Do you work in the British justice system which makes you determined to support it at all costs?

Thames Water shareholders lost billions.

I understand the distinction between the State abusing women and private citizens abusing women. Only the first is classed as a human rights abuse and only the first is something that the State have direct control over and could stop immediately any time they chose.

The State does not have absolute control over the actions of private citizens, so grooming gangs etc will happen everywhere, including in UAE. The State can control its own actions, and in UAE the State has chosen to jail rape victims. Can you not see how that is objectively an excellent reason for women not to go there?

Do you work in the British justice system which makes you determined to support it at all costs?

No. I just understand the difference between human rights abuses perpetrated by the State and crimes carried out by individuals. I also can see a very simple practical aspect: a woman or girl has at least some chance of fleeing a grooming gang to safety. She has no chance of escaping from prison.

Shareholders aren't bosses.

I'm not clear what point you are making?

Do you understand that you will pay a lot more tax in the long run if wealthy taxpayers leave the UK?