A 1p / 2p raise to income tax should lawfully trigger a general election

[TesChique]

There are vague promises in manifestos, and there are those which are explicit and should be binding except in exceptional circumstances (war etc)

If labour, or any party reneges on a core manifesto promise it should lawfully trigger a general election

They have lied to the public.

AIBU to think we need to see this change in law?

Depends how much you raise them.

Also if they ended the pension contribution for higher rate taxpayers or at least reduced the maximum pot size people are allowed that would increase the tax take by a huge amount.

People are stuffing ridiculous amounts into their pensions because of the reliefs that they will never ever need.

Sounds exactly the same as the UK, apart from the labour markets.

The EU is struggling now and we’ll see how they do in the next few decades. Plus agree with @GasPanicit sounds similar to here.

Voting in an anti growth, high tax and spend party after covid too was always going be like this. Inability to stick to promises on no more taxes.

Hammering SMEs at the last budget leads to this one, Labour are creating their own cycle of tax and hammering growth.

Brexit was a long time ago now, about time to stop blaming everything on that,

🤣🤣

Another goady post and run thread.

Labour are creating their own cycle of tax and hammering growth

The Tories froze tax bands and despite years of them didn't result in any growth?

The rule is totally unworkable and would also probably have the opposite effect to the one you want.

Parties seeking election advertise the ‘easy’ choices: more spending, benefits for different groups, and yes often tax cuts too. Then they moderate in power because of the realities of the public finances.

The proposed rule would lock in those excessive promises and make it even harder to take fiscally responsible decisions.

Ensuring either permanent chaos as governments continually fell, or a one-way ticket to bankruptcy if governments just governed as they had campaigned.

The third option, that parties would campaign more modestly and the public would lower its expectations at the ballot box, is the least likely outcome.

Plus, no room to respond to big events without destabilising govt at just the moments that stability is most needed.

Sounds exactly the same as the UK, apart from the labour markets.

They have quite fucked over the young so much.

have not

A much better use of resources would be to teach MN posters how the UK constitution works.

Anyone up for learning ?

No of course not.

Do the 1p rise, pause the triple lock. Maybe review whether DLA, PIP & AA should be means tested. It's controversial but it would stop a lot of benefit bashing I think.

In this country there has always been an interesting narrative about tax. It's 'unfair' or a 'burden' or 'we shouldn't have to pay so much' some other unidentified poor sod should pay more but not me
Which is odd because we still aren't anywhere near the top tax taking countries ranked either against developed countries or overall. See the graphs (from the OBR and the non partisan tax foundation for balance).
What we have had (and this possibly feeds the narrative) for the last 20 or so years is a dogmatic belief in light touch regulation and free market capitalism as the solution to everything. Privatisation and market forces is great in some contexts and sectors utterly shit in others. Our taxes have been wasted. If the top of my head recent examples would include:
The olympic games G4 contract failure.
Carrilion failure
PPI for capital funding for hospitals and schools.
The privatisation of certain bits of national infrastructure (water, trains and I would argue buses, definitely BT weirdly keeping a monopoly on all the infrastructure for broadband etc effectively creating a monopoly).
More awfully still:- the PPE and COVID loans scandals, the privatisation then the nationalisation of the probation service, the corporate capture by venture capitalists of children's homes (children's homes FFS...) and the unsafe services they have provided, the 'green insulation' scandal where the levy from bill payers went to unregulated cowboy 'traders' who have wrecked homes, caused mould and damp and have now buggered off with the cash leaving the state to pick up the bill. The cladding scandal (again we will all be paying for this...).
The awful list has not just wasted taxes, but have caused harm. They are all market failures or a result of poor regulation and oversight. And that has been due to a frankly stupid and dogmatic belief that the market is always right and will correct things and that the state needs to get out of the way. Bullshit narratives about cutting red tape and releasing the transformative potential of the private sector. Unregulated and unfettered free market capitalism just does not serve the best interests of a whole society. It's a fantasy.
If course the equally stupid fantasy is that if we soak the rich and completely stifle capitals ability to move fluidly and re nationilse everything then we will be sorted.
Honestly watching the debate in this country sometimes is like being stuck in a third grade 6th form common room debate where no one has read animal farm.
Back to the OP...Tax is good. It's a mark of a civilised democracy, relatively speaking as a country we aren't really over taxed. Loopholes need to go and the distribution needs sorting (income tax is actually very good at this, it's quite progressive). And yes everyone probably does feel we pay 'too.much tax' for shit services, but that's because we haven't had a balanced approach where the state operated with appropriate checks and balances to make the private sector work for us and the good management of delivery functions of government/the public realm have been eroded. Poor scrutiny, lack of talent and a whole lot of bullshit have lead us to this place and depressingly I don't see it changing any time soon. We fall for grifters and bullshit and promises of quick fixes in this country not boring competence (which takes time).

Agreed for full reform but change can come through policy too. This would start to show the population that they were address costs.

Generally speaking, the richer you are, the lower the proportion of your income that is PAYE (and a vanishingly small amount is subject to NI)
Raising PAYE taxes hits the middle earners first, freezing tax thresholds hits the lower earners first, neither affects the richest

It's the exact reverse
The richer you are, the less, proportionally, tax you pay

@hettie the tax model is convoluted and lower & middle earners do pay less vs other countries. But a big problem with that is housing costs which comes back to your point of expecting the market to sort things. We really do seem to like short term gain.

The tories destroyed the economy (Brexit) to protect their bank accounts, tried to run the NHS and Education into the ground, let record numbers of illegal immigrants in, lied about everything and enriched themselves and their mates for well over a decade. Oh, and actually partied during Covid while fining the crap out of anyone else in the country for taking a drive or sitting on a park bench.

But you want Labour out for trying to balance the books, save the NHS, actually deport people who shouldn't be here, and wipe out poverty

Ok

We need to change the NHS model, we cannot afford it & the state pension. People need to pay a lot more tax for that & not just workers on PAYE.

> But I can’t imagine anyone would only have CG income.
Then you really don't understand how the world of the wealthy works

Don’t be daft - every party reneges on their manifesto promises. We can’t have everything for nothing and expect society and the economy to work and prosper. An extra 1p is not a huge amount but it should be taken from everyone over the tax threshold. It will raise a huge amount.

It should be coupled with major changes to the NHS but that will take a very long time.

I haven't expressed an opinion as yet; you are making assumptions.

100% this!

This is the best post I have read on Mumsnet in a long time.

🩷🩷🩷

I think it's fair that if there's a deficit to make up, we should all contribute towards it.

Obviously there will always be some lower earners who take more from the system then they contribute, which is right and proper But we can't rely on a few at/near the top to subsidise our whole society - it's not fair, and it's precarious (the Dubai exodus is well and truly in motion).