First 100 days

[Iwishicouldflyhigh]

whoever you voted for, what are your thoughts after the First 100 Days?
I didn’t vote for Labour, but I was quite excited in their first few weeks as Keir got his head down and I was excited fir change.

Now I just feel deflated. Same old….freebiegate, nitpicking, infighting. A bit depressing really.

i don’t even think there was a decent alternative really….and that’s even more depressing!!!!!

Why TAF should the government get nearly 40% of any capital gains I might make in tax?!?

Because it’s unearned profit. Wtaf shouldn’t it be taxed at the same rate as income? Maybe you should have sold up sooner.

How much of other people’s money do you consider you are entitled to?

I don't see a problem with unearned profit being taxed at higher levels, whether that applies to rental houses or inherited ones.

You mean socialise the profits and privatise the losses.

Or will the state pay me if I make a loss on my investment?

@PinkFruitbat I'm annoyed too, more than that.

My posts were a warning for tax rises and the usual pro Labour response was it hadn't been said, they won't do it.

Reading the 'I was clear' Starmer headline today is bloody annoying and wrong

The whole lot of them have obfuscated and hidden what they are doing now as much as possible. Duplicitous and dishonest

And the desirable was regarding the drive to take money from others, as long as someone else pays

I see it on mn rather than think it

I’ll decide on Wednesday afternoon.

Been pleased with the way they dealt with the riots.

Think changing the borrowing definitions is a good idea for more investment.

Glad they settled with the Doctors, not so much with the train companies who are just shit as far as I’m concerned.

Didnt Like the freebie stuff.

Budget - I’d be happy with increased NI for employers, changes to tax rates on CGT and making pension funds taxable on death before age 75 like they are after. Wouldn’t be so keen on other pension changes/IHT. Would like to see more support for working parents.

I smile sometimes at the lack of understanding so often exhibited by capitalists. Try to think about what you might deserve.

'Investment' by a private individual is the same - means the same - as 'bet'. You bet on something, hoping to make money thereby. Whether you do this via a stockbroker or a bookie, it's the same: you check out what you think the odds are, and (if you know what you're up to) work out the Expectation and moderate your bet accordingly. If you get it right - or sometimes if you're just lucky - you win. If not, you lose.

Winning a bet isn't the same as earning. You don't deserve your winnings in the same way as, say, a binman deserves his wages or a doctor her salary. Because of this lack of desert, taxation of unearned income has a wholly different moral basis from taxation of earnings.

In fact, most people don't have the original capital (of any sort) to enable them to gamble on the stock exchange (or property market, etc.) with any real chance of success. (That's what all the current chatter about 'working people' and tax is currently about, of course.) For those who do, of course they should be taxed to the hilt on any winnings, given the unearned nature of any such.

As for repaying any loss: why do you think you should be shielded from becoming - as most other people are already, by happenstance - devoid of capital you never deserved in the first place?

Over my lifetime (quite old now), I've done some earning and some making of money. Making it was always easier (I was born poor but smart) ... but I never confuse what I've earned with what I've made. So I think differently - as should you - of taxation of earned (deserved) income and unearned (undeserved) income.

Tax the rich! ... A sensible and practical slogan for the majority who aren't rich - and a moral imperative for all. That's kind of obvious; as I suggested, it's risible to see rich (or indeed would-be rich) people who don't understand.

Any investments I make are from my already taxed income. If I make a profit from that investment I should get the money; not the state. Equally if I suffer a loss from that investment then I should suffer the loss; not the state.

If you think there isn’t any effort in investing then you are incredibly naive.

No. You don't understand. You don't deserve that profit. Its value depends on other people's work - they deserve it more than you. (The 'state', however you reify it, is just the mechanism by which they should get their (just) deserts, albeit they often don't.)

As for the effort in investing, well I think you're having a laugh. As I said, I always found it easier - less effort, that is - to make money rather than earn it. (Even legally, in case you're wondering.) If it's taking a big effort, you're doing it wrong. Naive? Hmm.

What do we call a person who opens a shop or a B&B or a garage, aiming to make more money than they put in or pay to borrow? A gambler presumably.

How about a private pension? The risk is so low over time (assuming a decent fund manager moves out of equities approaching pension maturity) that it’s really only gambling in the sense that the state won’t destroy the pension or make more generous provision than the markets will provide over a working life.

Which, by that logic, means that all choices of use of money for other than basics are gambling, even wages: do you stay put or move to a job with better prospects?

The shielding argument and what’s deserved is perverse: if you deserve wages, why can’t you be shielded from losses to the use of those deserved wages? What do you do with wages? Spend them on property? Gambling? Pension? Gambling. Children’s education (not by any means private schooling - a house in the catchment of a good comp, for example)? Gambling. Etc etc.

The only way not to ‘gamble’ is to have no money.

I wonder this too. I am mainly bothered about CGT in relation to shares, where you take a huge gamble as to whether you’ll win or lose. One you need to take in order to protect any savings from being eroded year on year. I think taking 40% out of anything you have been fortunate enough to make gains on in that context is just too high. And, no, nobody is compensating you for shares that lose value or for cash savings affected by inflation.

I also get frustated in these discussions as they tend to focus on whether you should pay tax or not. Personally, it’s more about how much.

Guessing you're not a small business owner trying to make a living and provide jobs for a few others?

Wins from actual gambling are exempt from tax aren't they? Lottery wins etc?

I don’t deserve the profit of my investments?

We’ve reached peak socialism and moved straight towards communism!

Yes they are. As are financial spread bets (hedging).

It still isn't earned income in the same way that money you've worked for is. Quite happy to see investors and people gaining from passive income taxed at higher levels. Given the government has to find money from somewhere I'd sooner see it come from people who inherit property, sell rentals at a profit and from people who have the funds to invest in the first place than from money people have worked to earn.

It's about time that changed too then.

There is a bit of a positive here for people entering the market. These landlords selling their buy to let's to save tax on their property gains profits (not due to hard work just property increases) mean that prices in those areas might be a bit lower.

Maybe those could be taxed since the government needs more to cover public spending. Maybe lottery wins over £50k or large gambling wins could be taxed. Just a thought.

Saw this elsewhere:

Definition of a working person according to Sir Keir Starmer.

sorry forgot the attachment!

You are taxing, and taxing, and taxing the same 50% of households who already are the net contributors. Why should over 50% of all UK households not pay enough taxes to cover the benefits and services they receive?

Most of them can't. They don't earn enough (or get enough unearned income).

And that’s not sustainable.