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

It baffles me how taxpayers top up lone parents income to what the government consider to be an acceptable level through benefits and then people get CM on top. People always argue that it's because CM isn't reliable which i completely understand, but many NRP do pay regularly and decent amounts and it can't be that hard to recoup some of this. Why should a lone parent who is already getting generous top ups from UC then get sometimes hundreds in CM and there be no effect on benefits? It can't be that hard to make these NRP pay and recoup some of it surely ???

It can't be that hard to make these NRP pay and recoup some of it surely

Yes, for many reasons. The first would be the cost of administration and the second would be cash being given rather than by bank transfer - thus avoiding the system, then those fathers that sometimes pay and sometimes don't or alter the amounts, it could leave RP in finacel pickle. For those reasons regardless of the morals its easier to pay working benefits or non working benefits without the CM taken into account.

If there’s only one beneficiary it amounts to the same. If the beneficiary is the executor then one person has to source the IHT before the estate is released. This sometimes involves taking out a specific loan in order to pay the IHT.

If they have a poor credit rating themselves that could prove problematic.

You are allowed to sell to release funds for the IHT. You may need a bridging loan, but it can be secured against the property.

With all due respect, that's not really relevant in your opinion. It is in mine.

Indeed. But that currently applies to estates valued over £325k.

The post I was replying to proposed that all estates were subject to IHT, irrespective of the value - there would be no IHT free threshold. So potentially someone with a few pieces of jewellery and maybe a sofa, oven etc. Because yes, under the notion of the entirety of an estate with no minimum value being subject to IHT and not just the bank balance or property, everything becomes chargeable on inheritance.

If the executor has to settle a bill for £200 but they themselves have poor credit rating and the total estate is valued at £1000, securing that bridging loan may not be as easy as it is at present.

And that’s why the proposal for a blanket tax on every estate irrespective of value is problematic and would hit those at the bottom end of the economic scale hardest.

No worries.

OK, so we agree that their have to be limits on what people can do, we just disagree to what extent.

I’m not doubting the sincerity of your opinion, just its relevance in forming industrial and tax policy.

Let the market decide eh? Because it's doing such a great job at the moment.

Don't tell me - is it because we don't have proper free market capitalism yet and that's why things are falling apart?

The market coincidentally decides to make the rich richer, to pump sewage into our rivers and seas, to have every call centre with long waiting times and staff who can not deal with anything slightly complex, to hire staff on zero hour contracts and treat them like serfs, to lower the standard of food and pump lots of health harming chemicals and fats into them, etc etc.

Let the market decide is a stupid idea even from an economic viewpoint. Why the hell do you think the 2008 market crashed? Because many controls were removed which led to mortgages being given to people who had no chance of paying them back, and then to sell on their debts to make money for the seller. It was a ponzi scheme that made some people very rich, and made the whole countries economy crash.

If you are a venture capitalist you want the market to decide. That is how you get rich. If you want to run a country with a strong economy that benefits the population as a whole you ignore that stupid idea.

There’s a long march between the current setup, and direct government interventions in the pay decisions of the private sector.

If the government decided they Drs should be paid 2x current wages i guess that’s fine (although they’d have to finance it).

If the government decided that HR directors, brokers (or anyone else on your list that you determine are “low value”) should be paid less, all I can see happening is that (1) firstly a bunch of shareholders make larger profits since they overall end up paying less, (2) shortly, after a bunch of people leave the UK to such famously free market countries such as France, Germany and Ireland and (3) the UK tax base and economy shrinks.

It's not a long march at all. The government until very recently dictated bankers bonuses for example.

in other news

UK faces shortage of skilled workers for in-demand roles, report suggests | Evening Standard

these roles are normally high earning ones and internationally mobile, exactly the target for Labour, so 30th Oct will be a perfect storm - there will be substantial number of people who will reduce hours, retire early or emigrate

Erm… no it didn’t!

It set a “bonus cap” of 200% base pay (as did the EU). All that happened was the base pay went up so the total didn’t change. It was a badly thought through policy which didn’t work even if it did create some short term positive headlines.

That’s why the regulators were all so keen to get rid of it, it just created more systematic financial risk since the fixed costs of banks went up.

www.fca.org.uk/publications/policy-statements/ps23-15-remuneration-ratio-between-fixed-and-variable-components-total-remuneration

You miss my point. I didn't say anything regarding it's effectiveness but they most definitely did interfere in the pay structure of a private enterprise. Just because it did not work in this instance (which is debatable) does not mean they cannot do so again.

I don't disagree with any of that, other than possibly to say that IHT is likely to become moot as care home fees increase. The likelihood of there being much left after those have been taken is lessening by the day unless you have millions. In that scenario, most wealthy people have already planned for IHT so wouldn't be paying it anyway.

And my point is that they just played politics/ optics and knowingly didn’t interfere in total pay, which is what you are suggesting that they start doing, and is all that really matters.

It would be a very large, and very damaging, move for the government to start deciding how much people in certain jobs should get paid if they aren’t actually paying the bill (as they do for civil servants, nurses etc).

Thankfully it is without global precedent outside of DPRK or Communist Russia so won’t happen, however much some people may wish it.

Look, you said it was a long road to the government interfering in the pay structure of the private sector, I pointed out that they did it less than 12 months ago.
What you or I think about it is beside the point (or at least that specific point).

Since you say it hasn't been tried how do you know it would be damaging?

You don’t need to poke yourself in the eye to know it’s going to hurt!

As it is, price controls in basically every other sphere in other countries have been a complete mess, and labour is much more sensitive and mobile

amp.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/apr/16/venezuela-economy-black-market-milk-and-toilet-paper

Labour will come for everything cgt, iht, fuel. Anything to squeeze the easy middle and do nothing to tax the super rich just like the previous government. Unfortunately, as income taxes are already at a high, these additional taxes will mean many will reduce hours, retire , emigrate to avoid these. It has already been going on. There is a risk that the tax net will decrease not to mention the potential impact to investment. They are doing nothing to promote growth which was their election appeal. That would sort the income to treasury. But alas that was just election rhetoric. UK already has a very bad reputation internationally among high earners.

I drive a larger vehicle as it’s taller and it’s the only car I can get my 96 year old grandad in and it has a large boot space so I can get my paraplegic sons wheelchair in it meaning we can go out in one car instead of two. Already stung left, right and centre purchasing suitable disability equipment so yes, please do tax me more. I pay my fair share through road tax for having a larger vehicle also.

It would be very easy to exempt Motability vehicles from any additional tax.

I’m with taxing richer people, larger cars (they are a blight on our small roads and car parks) and luxury goods. I’m also in agreement with taxing private education. Trouble is, Brits don’t like paying higher taxes. In France taxes are high but they have superb roads, railways and a good healthcare system. In the end you get what you pay for.

Not everyone who needs a bigger car is elegible for a mobility payment. Do you know what Motability actually is?