Andy Burnham - can we afford his proposals?

[ChirpieCheese]

How can we afford Andy Burnham's policies?!

What are Andy Burnham's potential policies? - BBC News share.google/vcQgOEAuZ9QJfhLzD

These articles make me laugh - he is "being tipped as the next PM" well, yes, because there is NO ONE ELSE...and he hasn't announced any of these, it is all media speculation, which is also what has helped to oust Starmer who was managing to keep us on an even, better than the last 10 years, keel. As long as we get all the clicks what are a few facts to a good story?

AB has said in the past he would like cgtex to be the same as income tax rates

Although these are all things he has talked about endlessly for years

Some of these ideas will guarantee Labour is out at the next election. We are a highly taxed nation with no growth. We get better services if we grow the economy. None of the article is about growth, it’s about yet more punishment. Plus few did well under the Tories! Under Blair - yes.

Which ones do you see as extra / or increased taxes
that aren’t then offset as potential savings or at least no worse off

They want to raise money so none of these will be intended to be revenue neutral

if I use the 0.48% then it triples my CT bill - and I’m not in a low council tax area

@WhatsAWeekend What potential savings? There are none. We need substantially more on defence and he will really struggle to curb nhs and welfare spending? Triple lock might go bit for many less well off pensioners, it’s a vote loser. In fact any welfare cuts are a vote loser. There are no savings anywhere! It’s tax tax tax and no growth! No growth means less tax take and possibly unemployment - we already see young people unemployed in their millions. Mo growth means more people unable to access services. He’s going to be another pm with no ability to do anything within the fiscal rules and our borrowing is sky high with increasing borrowing rates as we become unstable in the eyes of the lenders. We are fools and Burnham had no experience of anything. Nor wi
the unruly backbenchers let him make savings. They just care about their short term popularity and think Burnham is the messiah to keep them employed. It’s utterly atrocious.

Just to be a pedant, the increase in NMW and National Insurance for employers has cost companies money, not people. So I think what the PP's meant above is that their companies have had to pay more, not themselves personally.

This, of course, means that profits are less, and hence their own wages / dividends, which is related.

I speak from experience here as I was about to employ staff (sorry, I think they're all called 'colleagues' these days) for my business, however the increase in employers NI made it unsustainable, so I didn't. And subsequently I am unable to grow my business until the business can afford it. To enable the business to afford it, I need staff so that I can take on more work, but I can't afford to employ them etc etc.

So my own returns from the business are smaller as there is only so much I can do by myself. Oh, and of course that means less corporation tax as the business can't grow.

But your staff need to earn enough to live on. Their living costs will have increased steeply. If your business can’t afford to pay them a living wage, then it can’t really afford to expand.

Should the government subsidise small businesses in order to help them expand? Would this pay off in the long-term? I suppose it already subsidises businesses of all sizes by topping up the NMW with UC.

The bigger issue was the removal of the lower rate NI along with an increase and an increase of NMW - together it meant there was a big increase in employing the lowest earners

Pp noted proposals wouldn’t be popular
In wondering which ones

When I referred to potential savings or the same as now, I was referring to SDLT for example

I worked out a sale of £1mill and £1.5 mill properties.

I took the initial saving of Stamp and invested it ( in theory of course ) to a going rate bond.

Using part of the interest to pay the yearly cost instead of a one off stamp the figures equalled and
I would still have that money in the bank to pass on
So
If you have the lump sum cash to pay stamp but invest it it’s likely it will cost no extra and in fact be a saving

That’s all

exactly this, it can, in fact, have the opposite effect.

You are missing my point. I could afford to pay minimum wage, but the increase in employer contribution to National Insurance just tipped it over the edge to make my cost base too high. It was nothing to do with being able to afford to pay the minimum wage. I had not budgeted for the increased cost to the business of the additional NI.

There would have been no need for any government subsidy, and I had sufficient work in the pipeline that I probably would have been able to employ at least one additional person and possibly two by now, but I couldn't take on the additional work on my own.

I won't be the only one in this position, and you can see the impact of this by the lack of jobs advertised since the change came in. For larger employers, the increases to minimum wage and NI just get added to their prices, so eventually, it all gets passed on to the consumer anyway, which ironically increases the cost of living meaning the minimum wage needs to increase etc.

In which case
the Govn would retaliate with a 4 x council tax fee or some other disincentive

Actually, I think you're right about the increase in NI. The country has a problem in that too many people aren't paying enough into their pensions, but it's unfair to put that burden on to small businesses.

@EstoyRobandoSuCasaThats not the same thing. NI from employers and the employed is a tax. It has nothing to do with pensions! It’s not a savings scheme. It just goes into the government’s coffers and is spent. No one has a government pension pot funded by NI contributions but they are a gateway to a government pension. The self employed pay NI but also need a private pension as they have no occupational pension and no employer making contributions for them. We, the taxpayer, put in 25% to the pension scheme for doctors and of course that cost is sky high. Others get far less and employers pay, not the government!

Being an employer is very expensive and Labour thinks they are a cash cow ! My DH used to employ 120 staff. SMEs are the backbone of this country in terms of employment and governments take substantial sums of money business people: from their pensions, tax via NI, tax via business rates, tax via VAT, tax on profits or income tax and will tax just about anything that makes money so firms think very hard about employing anyone. And then we had Angela Rayner and her employment changes! It’s never ending.

It is to do with pensions because a lot of government spending is ON pensions. So as the welfare bill rises (because more people are claiming the state pension) the government needs to balance the books so takes more NI (or other tax) to pay that higher welfare bill.

If it's my job to buy biscuits and milk for the office and the cost of biscuits increases I need to ask people to put more money into the sundries box.

Wheter asking employers to fund it is wise is another question. But the reason they want to take more in NI is to fund the increasing cost of pensions.

It’s not that raising the rate would only bring in a little extra. It would probably bring in less than today’s rate .It’s only three years until we (probably) get a more right wing government who would likely cut CGT. People with big capital gains can probably wait that long.

Getting paid in shares is liable to income tax rather than CGT. The only way to voluntarily be paid through capital gains is to own your own company, in which case you’ll be liable to corporation tax as well as CGT and the overall rate will be much higher, so there’s no point.

You’re also ignoring inflation. One of the reasons CGT is lower than IT is that you’re being taxed on both real gains and inflation. IE if my shares double over ten years but inflation has been 50% cumulative, I’ve only really made 30% rather than 100% but I’m being taxed on the 100% nominal gain. Raising it to the 45% income tax top rate would essentially be a 100% tax on real gains.

They reduced the rate to simplify things by getting rid of indexation allowance. Simplifying things is a great way to reduce tax evasion/avoidance/mistakes.

they’ve also been reducing the tax free allowance to set against gains

So did labour. Labour want to keep people poor. No incentive to better yourself under them.