Labour and tax

[Iwishicouldflyhigh]

Is anyone else concerned about all the talk about Labour getting in and then increasing lots of taxes - capital gains, CT, tax on pensions etc. I'm accepting that they are going to get in, but i am genuinely concerned that they are going to clobber the middle classes.

I don't think that KS is a bad person (actually - with a few exceptions - i think that most politicians at least START in politics with the correct intentions), but i 'm worried that his genuine ideals are far more left then he is making out. The rich will be all right (they always are), but the middle classes (of which i am one) - i'm genuinely worried. He supported JC for God's sake!!

I think that people are genuinely so pissed off (rightfully) with the Tories, that they are voting in Labour with the idea that they can't be any worse. But i'm concerned that they might be (for different reasons).

Can any party really fix the issues in this country?

Please talk me down, someone!

Not that scaremongering again...

Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson have overseen largest tax rises since Second World War.

Labour have already said they would not tax 'working people' more.

I have no issues with them taxing big corporations more and making sure that they close tax avoidance loopholes. Or with them making sure that millionaires, landlords with multiple properties, air BnBs owners and other parasites pay their fair share.

At the moment the burden is falling on low and middle income earners and that is unfair.

Labour have already said they would not tax 'working people' more.

Just remember that Labours definition of a “working person” is someone who relies on the state and doesn’t have any savings.

Under their definition my DC as a teacher, with modest savings towards a house deposit, is not a working person.

There will be tax increases, even the IFS said their manifesto (and the Tories) wasn’t fully costed. I just wish they’d be honest and upfront so the electorate could make a proper decision. Many people have commented that they’ll pay higher income tax to fund the problems that we face so why can’t they simply be honest with us rather than hiding behind soundbites.

Labour have already said they would not tax 'working people' more.

The IFS stated their manifesto a conspiracy of silence and there will be tax rises and spending cuts over the next five years

Their definition of working people isn’t what you think though, it’s not people like my family who have 2 working parents, earn too much to get benefits and have savings and investments.

There are a proportion of people in this country that are disproportionately asset rich. This means that others have no hope of securing assets. The more you own, the more you make, the more assets you can buy and so on. You make money hand over fist, for doing very little and you can pay very little tax by owning those assets within companies owned by companies based off shore. If you do pay tax it’s a flat rate of ?25% which is way lower than the higher income tax bracket. This is what needs to change.

And they said that this was true of all parties, not just Labour.

There is a big leap between Labours definition of a “working person” and the super rich you quote. It’s those in the middle that they will target too and it’s the dishonesty towards the electorate that I don’t like.

I’m not saying any other party is any different but if Labour want people to vote for them, rather than only voting to get the Tories out, they had the perfect opportunity to set themselves apart and provide real honest solutions and answers. The electorate have been led to believe that Labour will solve everything and, from what I have reviewed, I think there will be some disgruntled voters over the next few years.

@Wetellyourstory, couldnot agree more. He doesn't have to say much because he knows people will vote for Labour. In fact , probably less said the better.

@We@Wetellyourstory
'Just remember that Labours definition of a “working person” is someone who relies on the state and doesn’t have any savings. '

That's absolutely not what Starmer has said.

His definition when asked was someone who 'earns a living' and uses public services (schools, NHS). That's most of us.

It really does not help your cause if you simply make things up and try to pass them off as facts.

I hope that over time they will address this issue. The GP say they will be we don’t have a candidate here.

Unless you regularly "flip" your main residence election between the houses so that there'll be at least some main residence relief on both, or can claim one of many exemptions, i.e. second home required for job relocation, working abroad, requirement to live at your business for security purposes, etc etc.

That's exactly what he's doing. The less he promises, the less he'll be held to account to deliver. He knows Labour are going to win, so he really doesn't need to try too hard.

Trouble is that Labour did none of those things during their last term of 13 years in power. Instead they presided over "Sweatheart" deals, reduced capital taxes, reduced corporation tax, and tax evasion increased under their watch. Without them actually saying "HOW" they'll do it, then it's nothing more than another empty promise. They also increased national insurance which is a tax on workers!

But the Tories will be worse on that front.

'@taxguru 'Trouble is that Labour did none of those things during their last term of 13 years in power. Instead they presided over "Sweatheart" deals, reduced capital taxes, reduced corporation tax, and tax evasion increased under their watch. Without them actually saying "HOW" they'll do it, then it's nothing more than another empty promise. They also increased national insurance which is a tax on workers!'

That's completely irrelevant.

This is a new Labour leader with a completely different team of advisors and potential ministers/MPs.

What other Labour leaders did 14 or 20 years years ago in term of policy does not matter, what is important is the current Labour policies.

Absolutely this, I would quite happily pay a bit more tax if there was a guarantee that we would get a better nhs (shorter waits, better conditions in hospitals, higher quality care), fairer treatment for older people needing social care etc

Nothing made up - KS words were a working person was someone who cannot afford to write a cheque when they get into trouble. That by definition is anyone who has savings isn’t a working person.

It's very vague though, isn't it. If you have a few 100 in savings you can't cover many emergencies. On the other hand some people have 10's or 100's of thousands.

I doubt he thinks someone with £500 in savings is not a 'working person'. Someone with £500,000 in savings, on the other hand, doesn't have quite the same worries, as the normal emergencies (roof leak, boiler breakdown etc ) are all covered.

I see that as a kind of description of someone who doesn’t have to think twice about writing a cheque for a few thousand if there is a crisis. Not necessarily just has savings but has enough it’s not even a consideration. I didn’t take it literally.

Well we have to agree to differ as I believe they should be clear and honest, not using phrases that are still open to interpretation when answering questions. He wasn’t expecting someone to ask what he meant by a working person even though they repeatedly use it in their campaigning.

In reference to your earlier post, I have no “cause” apart from wanting clear, honest answers from all parties so people make an informed decision so they can understand what they are voting for rather than just voting to get the Tories out.

@Wetellyourstory

'Nothing made up - KS words were a working person was someone who cannot afford to write a cheque when they get into trouble. That by definition is anyone who has savings isn’t a working person'

Again, that is simply your interpretation because you want it to fit your narrative.

To me a 'working person' just means someone who relies on the NHS, state schools and public services in general and works for a living.

Rather than the type of people who simply open their chequebooks without a thought to send their kids to private school, purchase private health insurance and who do not have to rely on public transport or social services. The type of people who made their money from inherited wealth and property rather than working...

Basically someone whose money means they are insulated from all financial worries that the rest of us are having with the cost of living crisis.

I have no issues about Starmer making sure the wealthy and corporate companies pay their fair share of tax and put something back into society.

I have no narrative and you’ve probably made your own mind up who I am voting for, which you have no idea about.

Someone who can open their cheque book etc doesn’t mean they inherited wealth, they could work incredibly hard to be able to afford the things you mentioned and by my definition they are a working person. There is a big leap from that to someone who inherited a large amount of wealth.

If it was so clear what a working person was, I wonder why Labour (and I think it may have been Angela Raynor) the next day tried about 4 times to come up with a definition changing from something along the lines of had savings and might have now used them, using them to help with mortgage payments, to might have a small amount etc.

As I have said before, if you are using a definition in a manifesto, they should have a clear understanding of what it means and should be able to answer when questioned. That’s what I would expect from someone who wants me to vote for them, irrespective of which party they are from.

I was just saying how I interpreted it to be honest. I agree clarity would be better but it’s so easy for snippets then to be misquoted. Boris just answered ‘get Brexit done’ to every question. Politicians have to play the game to some extent. Corbyn was too honest and tried to talk about complexity and that didn’t work out well. Sadly, it is a bit of a game sometimes.

Also, I’m not sure that was my post about ‘cause’ but I’m peri so memory is rubbish!!

‘His definition when asked was someone who 'earns a living' and uses public services (schools, NHS). That's most of us.’

Thats nearly everyone. Mick Jagger is a working musician earning a living. If he got run over, an NHS ambulance would take him to an NHS A&E.

I’m sure Starmer doesn’t mean Jagger when he says ‘working people’. It’s a pretty woolly definition. So who is going to be targeted for tax rises? It won’t be non dom’s, or anyone not on PAYE because they can easily move their money. It will be the same group of higher earners on PAYE who’ll get clobbered again.

If there are tax rises to improve public services then EVERYONE should pay more tax, even the lower paid.

I'm a very high earner (in the 1% income wise). I really should be paying more tax and will happily vote labour.

The vast majority of the population will get far more back in the value of better public services by paying a little more tax, the broadest backs will bear the load.

Eg you might think "oh shit! 1% more tax, that £40 a month will hurt". But then when you can get your health issues sorted quicker and don't bear costs for time off work dealing with it, when childcare subsidies are more generous, when you get fleeced less for the bus pass etc, you're better off overall.