Labour isn't working - Thread 14

[TheNuthatch]

A chat thread for those who don't like this Labour government.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Previous thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5427475-labour-isnt-working-thread-13?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

I refer to the Grauniad article I linked above which cites “the top 10% of earners account for 60% of income tax revenue”.

It’s madness that they can’t see that the system is already massively out of balance.

And, that Labour mis positions constantly on tax as if they’ve come up with the principle of tax fairness and it hasn’t been fair for years and years.

jess Phillips on the bbc saying that there are no untainted institutions - but why does the main person have to come from one of the failing institutions? There’s no clear thought here. I understand they’d need to have advisors from social work, courts, police etc but the overall chair could be someone else…

.

Thanks for the link.
He's right that Labour could have reversed Hunt's NI cuts. Labour supporters often bang on about this, but there was nothing stopping Labour reversing them. They would still have won the election.
Labour need to ask themselves why they have to pledge sticking to tory fiscal policy to win elections.

Perhaps there haven't been many takers to lead the inquiry. I'm not sure I'd want to sacrifice years of my life to it when the outcome will be largely ignored for convenience. That seems to be the way other inquiries have gone.

It’s true - look at the Covid inquiry - do we think we’d do any better this time if there was another pandemic?

Nope

No.

But next time we'll fuck it up in a different way.

Right…. And of course you know the tax position of each of these donors?

No, I thought not. But rest assured they will all be paying far more tax in one year than the average UK taxpayer pays in their whole lifetime.

I’m sure you are also aware of the stats, kindly posted by others many times, that show just how much the UK relies on these sorts of tax payers.

For example, the top ten per cent of income tax payers earned 35.1 per cent of total income in 2024-25 and paid 60.2 per cent of income tax.

Does that really sound like they are not paying their fair share of tax?

My DH is not at all in the earnings league of our donors, but is nevertheless on a 6 figure income (somewhat less than £500k). He paid income tax at a rate of 47% last year, thanks to a hefty pension annual allowance tax charge. Yes. 47%. And no, that’s not a marginal rate on his income above £100k or whatever, that’s the overall percentage of his income that he had to pay over to HMRC. But I suppose because he is not (according to Labour) a “working person” then you think he’s not paying his fair share of income tax either? What overall percentage of YOUR income do you pay? I bet it is far, far less than 47%.

And as for “pet projects” and “there should be no need for charity”. Pfft. Unless you work in the sector you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I do agree that there should be no need in the UK for food banks, but we are where we are.

But what about institutions such as museums - should they all be 100% funded by central government? Or maybe they should all just charge the eye watering entrance fees that they would need to, to cover their costs if they did not receive philanthropic donations? After all, I’m sure people would be queuing up to pay Alton Towers-esque entrance fees to visit places like the Natural History Museum.

I'm sure people whose lives have been saved by RNLI volunteers and donors are very grateful that some people put some of their income into 'pet causes'. I can't see HMG running them any better.

Welsh government intend to make a statement about uni fees

rest assured they will all be paying far more tax in one year than the average UK taxpayer pays in their whole lifetime.

Yes, because they are very very wealthy.

I’m sure you are also aware of the stats, kindly posted by others many times, that show just how much the UK relies on these sorts of tax payers.

Again, that because they are very very wealthy. As you point out, they still have enough left over to make 6 figure donations on an annual basis and I'm pretty sure they don't go without, so what's the issue with us relying on them?

Does that really sound like they are not paying their fair share of tax?

Don't know, depends what their actual wealth is for a start.

What overall percentage of YOUR income do you pay? I bet it is far, far less than 47%.

Probably, yes, but if I had a huge income 53% of that would still leave me with a huge amount to live on.

I agree that donating to museums etc is a good cause and would not be affordable for it all to come from the public purse. But if tax receipts were higher then maybe it would be more affordable.

What overall percentage of YOUR income do you pay? I bet it is far, far less than 47%.

Probably, yes, but if I had a huge income 53% of that would still leave me with a huge amount to live on.

There is no probably about it.

What happens when you tax even a portion of the most mobile and wealthy people out of a country - who are you hoping will fill that financial hole then? Are you prepared to put your hand further in to your pocket?

I wonder what income you would be happy for someone to be left with.

Should wealthy individuals have to give away everything except, say £40k a year to live on? Or maybe they need to give away even more? Where would you draw the line?

And should that apply to everyone, or only to people with more money than you?

But I understand you now. You are in the camp of “it’s not fair that someone has more money than me, so they should be forced to give it all away”. It must be difficult to go through life being that bitter.

I know you may be thinking “it’s OK for Rockalock, her DH earns loads and so she doesn’t know what it’s like to struggle”. But you don’t know the half of it. You don’t know about my DS with his incredibly rare genetic condition that means he will struggle all his life. So yes, aren’t we “lucky” that my DH earns enough to be able to support him for as long as needed, instead of the taxpayer having to.

So quite frankly you can fuck right off with your sanctimonious “the rich must be bled dry” attitude. It’s not welcome here.

It's never mentioned, but I'm pretty sure that corporation tax is similarly weighted when you consider who has created the value which resulted in company profit. Ie in close proportion to income tax - possibly even more so. Of course, there's no real way to measure that, but it's how market forces work.

Even VAT: whilst it's not super-weighted to top earners since the rate isn't progressive, it's natural that since it's a tax on consumption of non-essentials, total VAT paid goes up with income.

Ie, its not just income tax which is almost entirely paid by higher earners: it's all tax.

Aha - there’s a thing in the Times - “Rachel Reeves will launch a £2 billion tax raid on lawyers, family doctors and accountants. [She] is expected to impose a new charge on people who use LLPs”.

Oh really, why is that?

What’s with the raids. As a reminder to Labour

Labour's manifesto is, "fully funded and fully costed - no ifs, no ands, no buts… no additional tax rises."

"I have been very clear that every policy we announce, and every line in our manifesto, will be fully costed and fully funded."

“Nothing in our plans requires any additional tax to be increased.”

“We’ve got the Office for Budget Responsibility now… You don’t need to win an election to find out [about the public finances].”

“I don’t believe that fiddling around with tax rates is the best way to grow the economy.”

God, she is so utterly, utterly clueless. Just when I think I can't despise her and Labour any more than I do, they do some new fuckwitted thing.

It almost makes me feel a bit sorry for Labour people who hated Thatcher so much. Can you imagine putting up with this shower for 11 years?!? Your soul would curl up and disappear into a swamp of despair.

But only 'almost', because at least Thatcher improved the economy. They may have hated her, but the UK was doing well. Whereas we get Labour destroying the UK...with occasional interludes of Labour spitefully destroying our own lives even more than everyone else's.

Should wealthy individuals have to give away everything except, say £40k a year to live on? Or maybe they need to give away even more? Where would you draw the line?
And should that apply to everyone, or only to people with more money than you

Come on, that's just silly isn't it? But, yes, I obviously think people with more money than me should pay more, just as I should pay more than those with less than me. That's just basic.

You are in the camp of “it’s not fair that someone has more money than me, so they should be forced to give it all away”. It must be difficult to go through life being that bitter.

Rubbish, I'm not bitter. No one is asking them to give it all away, but obviously they have to pay more. All this angst about us 'relying' on them is just illogical. Who else would we be relying - the poor?! Of course the wealthy have to pay more.

I'm not stupid enough to think people have plenty of money would never struggle about other things, and I am very sorry to hear about your son, but of course all children with health conditions should be supported, regardless of the parents' income or wealth, and much of the cost of that will have to be borne by the state, which is why we need those who can to pay more.

So quite frankly you can fuck right off with your sanctimonious “the rich must be bled dry” attitude. It’s not welcome here.

It's not me who sounds bitter, to be honest.

She’ll have trouble with that. It’ll save a good few Tory seats.

Let's ignore the numpties, folks.

Ah, but that's because she was assuming that the economy would tick along the way it was under the Conservatives, regardless of what stupid things she did.

Labour simply don't understand that government policy changes the economy.

They're a bit <ahem> apt to over-simplify.