If Labour came into power

[Rosewaterblossom]

If Labour were to come into power tomorrow, what is it people think they would do better?

Not what Labour governments of the past have done.. I mean Labour 2022. What would be new/better?

Not sure I care what they'd do better, at this point I'll just settle for different.

Wealth tax on anything above £25k was proposed above by @Fujimora. I think that's setting the bar a bit low.

Ah, I get it now, sorry. The way the thread was going is read like people were discussing this as Labour policy. I see now it was just a suggestion.

It really demonstrates how much a lot of people misunderstand wealth, income and tax though. Fujimora proposed a wealth tax, and then defined who would have to pay it not by their wealth, but by their income. That doesn't make any sense. A billionaire with an ingerited fortune could quite possibly have an income of 25K pa, so could a struggling manual worker trying to feed a family of four. Both of these individuals could also have an income of £20K pa, or nothing.

Income doesn't mean anything about how much wealth people have, and the first thing anyone who becomes rich does is get an accountant to make their income look as low as possible, to minimise income tax. The whole point of a wealth tax is to address that, by taxing wealth, not income.

There are various ways that can be done: directly via more stratified council tax bands (or, better in my view, a land value tax) and inheritance tax. And indirectly via capital gains tax which, while technically an income tax, is taxing the income people get from investing their wealth, rather than directly from their labour. The fact that people pay lower rates of tax on the money they get for doing fuck all once they've gotten past the point of having to rely on their labour, than they do on the proceeds of that labour itself while they still need it to have a house and food next month, tells you all you need to know about what's wrong with this country.

However, the tax burden falls most heavily on the decently-but-not-excessively-rewarded. Low-earners don't pay much tax and UC top ups make them beneficiaries

The point about benefits is valid (though most benefit recipients are in work so subject to national insurance and income tax) but in percentage terms, the relative tax burden of poorest and richest is very different from what most people think. That's because low earners DO pay tax - they pay VAT on most stuff they buy (and everything they earn goes on buying stuff, unlike the rich where most of it goes into pensions, investments etc.), import duties passed on in the price of goods, etc. And national insurance, which is a tax in all but name and cuts out at middle income levels.

A while ago I came across a document that analysed all this and found that the lowest 20% of the income distribution actually pay far more tax ^as a proportion of their income* than most people think (simply because their income is so low), and more (again, in percentage terms) than the top 20%. Not sure if I've stll got it.

... And of course the first thing the Tories (the "party of low tax") did upon gaining office in 2010 was raise VAT.

I'm fairly sure I've read that paper too @Fifteentoes.

Voting for a party that think men can grow a cervix
I'll just leave that there

Don't know because I've no idea what their policies are except that they don't know what women are.

^^ I hate to say it but same. I just can't take them seriously

They are completely bananas on what a women is. Women are 50% of population so expect huge woke, PC projects around this.

They chose Corbyn as leader and show a huge lack of judgement. Did they really think they would win

They have swung too far to the left and Momentum and the unions have such a grip that unless they get another Blair they have no chance of winning. Starmer isnt the leader to do this. They are the only main party who has never had a women leader? Wonder why that is??

They would still have us in lockdown, potificating about what to do, where to get the vaccines from.

Angela Rayner is unelectable and comes across as a Vicky Pollard type figure with a massive chip on her shoulder about people who have done well.

They would more thank likely bankrupt us again and leave a note saying there is no money.

They wouldnt be able to get a grip of that the old dinosar the NHS. They would throw money at it with no clue how to keep it going

They would finish off the highest rate tax payers who can often move to other countries easily.

In summary, they are clueless. Their current leader whilst better than Corbyn is just wasting time. He is not going to lead them to victory.

Wealth taxes and better public service funding

@inmyslippers

Don't know because I've no idea what their policies are except that they don't know what women are.

^^ I hate to say it but same. I just can't take them seriously

Luckily the Tories are led by a man who knows exactly what a woman is, having had so many of them.

I think Kier Starmer would be more honest, but I am not sure we would see massive changes in terms of policy. He’s not going to hike taxes and we are in huge amounts of debt - so he cant go on a spending spree. I think we wouldn’t see a lot of changes and it would all be blamed on Tory mismanagement of the pandemic.

@MelCat

I think Kier Starmer would be more honest, but I am not sure we would see massive changes in terms of policy. He’s not going to hike taxes and we are in huge amounts of debt - so he cant go on a spending spree. I think we wouldn’t see a lot of changes and it would all be blamed on Tory mismanagement of the pandemic.

There won't be much space to hike taxes once Rishi "12 homes" Sunak has finished. Anyway I thought last month Keir introduced a bill to parliament to stop the increase in tax in April?

Interesting article in tomorrow's Spectator about the real size of NHS waiting lists, and the projections. The April tax hike ain't going to touch the sides....

I just wish there was a party which would stop throwing money at the NHS with no hope of anything changing very much. It's not fit for purpose and we need to look at a Europeon Style model.

People want it properly funded. They just dont want to pay it themselves! Its for others to do it.

Agree @Franklin12 I want a politically party brave enough to argue for reform. An actual reform not just a “policy”. Far more intergrated with social care.

You are right on the funding point. The problem also is everyone thinks someone else should and could pay, “tax Amazon/wealth tax etc” are common suggestions.

The wealth tax is a prime example. My DH and I earn well. Higher rate tax payers. We both come from really humble background. We work full time to afford our house etc. Have very little assets. We would probably say a wealth tax is fair. Our friends who have had financial help with deposits/large inheritances/grandparent help with school fees and often have one SAHP would say it was outrageous/they can’t just pay it as it’s all tied up and we should tax higher rate taxpayers more.

I do agree on the tax-paying. DH and I are crystallizing 45 years of work this week, and while we just thought we were earning sensible amounts for our age, the risks we've taken commercially (some of which meant forgoing one salary for almost two years) look as if they may have paid off. But it's not inherited wealth, and while we are a bit starry-eyed right now, it's not close to the earnings of a successful 35-year-old investment banker. Happy to pay some tax but we'd like to keep the seven people on our payroll (and their families) feeling as if we have behaved well, fair and square, while we walk into the sunset. But having played it fair and square with tax and paying our staff well, I really don't want to get stung for a sizeable chunk of the proceeds of very long days, ruined weekends and missed holidays once it's totted up. So I am in favour of a wealth tax, but imposed at a level that lets a successful small business create a pot for a comfortable retirement.

DH and I have worked our backsides to the bone for 40 years, and built a small business that provides a good family income/wage for our staff; they earn c £45k, which is a lot in our touristic area. So, given that we would like to shuffle off into retirement, how should we do so? I spend hours and hours on MN being given heaps of shit for having a successful business. The assumption is always that we have abused our employees to succeed. The truth is that unless they are doing well, they would go elsewhere to work for more money and better conditions, but no one has left in 15+ years, so we must have got some of it right.

So please, where do we fit into your taxation programme? I am ready for your answers: are we abusive capitalists? or just sensible people trying to provide for a comfortable old age? And at which point do you think it is fair to tax our income?

One of the most perplexing failures of the left in this country (and I include Corbyn and McDonnell in this) has been its failure to fundamentally challenge how people think about wealth, income and tax.

We all argue about whether the top rate of income tax should stay at 45%, go back down to 40% or go up to 50%. Which is does will make some difference to what the next government can afford to do, sure. But it won't make any serious structural difference to anything. The entrenched inequality and the barriers to a decent life for many are written into the economy's DNA long before anyone calculates their tax return. We live in a country where less than 1% of the population own over half of its land FFS, and its not because they all worked their way up from the factory floor. We have a government dominated by the Eton-educated, actively lobbied by the royal family. We have a media industry and a police force that both routinely fail in their duty to operate at arms length from political power and hold it to account. We have a trade union movement weakened by decades of attack by governments and media that can't protect workers' rights from unscrupulous employers, and insufficient social housing to counterbalance the perversion of the housing market by extreme inequality of land ownership (see above).

What is a fact is that inequality has measurably increased; that much of the country is effectively locked out of security of home ownership, whether social or private; that capital is more globally mobile now and it's easier for those at the other end of the scale to amass fortunes far beyond the reasonable parameters of any vaguely meritocratic society, while witholding more of those fortunes from tax. I'm no more of an expert than anyone here on how these factors have come about, much less how to fix them. But it starts as a question of will and intention. The Conservative party exists to protect and increase the prosperity of the rich while convincing enough of the poor to vote against their own interests, and tolerate falling living standards, to compensate for the fact that the rich are a minority. That is its intention, which is why that's the exact result we have from a decade of Conservative government.

Or it could just be a coincidence of course.

@XingMing

DH and I have worked our backsides to the bone for 40 years, and built a small business that provides a good family income/wage for our staff; they earn c £45k, which is a lot in our touristic area. So, given that we would like to shuffle off into retirement, how should we do so? I spend hours and hours on MN being given heaps of shit for having a successful business. The assumption is always that we have abused our employees to succeed. The truth is that unless they are doing well, they would go elsewhere to work for more money and better conditions, but no one has left in 15+ years, so we must have got some of it right.

So please, where do we fit into your taxation programme? I am ready for your answers: are we abusive capitalists? or just sensible people trying to provide for a comfortable old age? And at which point do you think it is fair to tax our income?

It's impossible to answer your question without more information about your specific situation (eg, regarding a wealth tax, how much wealth you have and in what asset classes) and of course nobody would expect you to provide that on a public forum.

From a more general philosophical point of view, I'm all for the capitalist argument for wealth as reward for personal endeavour and hard work. I just wish the UK were more honestly and consistently structured that way.

Gosh, @Fifteentoes, your final paragraph took me by surprise! I'm so inured to MN political thinkers' mindless assumption that all business people are fundamentally evil and willing to flog their reluctant employees to extract the last cent of profit from their bleeding hands, that your acceptance that wealth might be a legitimate reward for personal endeavour and hard work has me all shook up.

You are quite right though, I'm not going to make any declarations of assets here !

I'm not sure any country is in a position to really change the basis of it's capitalism. It would have to be completely cut off from the worldwide economy. I'm also not convinced that home ownership is capable of being the basis of stable wealth in the end.

An ideal world would see a distributed economy IMO, with lots of small business owners, co-op ventures, some employees but paid well with good benefits, localized industries, and very little in the way of large sized corporate bodies or multi-national companies - and those would be managed rather differently. But it would also be an economy with slow growth, slower innovation, and nothing like the amount of consumer goods we are now used to.

No one is going to accept that. The rich won't because that's the end of being rich. And the middle won't because they will have to give up their stuff. And the poor the hope of stuff.

As a family enterprise with well-paid employees, we share your vision, but it gets more difficult when the driving, energising centre reaches retirement age. One of the saddest facts in UK small/medium business life is that under 30% of small businesses continue once the founder retires or dies. As small businesses employ a huge number of staff, even if only one or two apiece, each loss or closure leaves a hole.

@XingMing

As a family enterprise with well-paid employees, we share your vision, but it gets more difficult when the driving, energising centre reaches retirement age. One of the saddest facts in UK small/medium business life is that under 30% of small businesses continue once the founder retires or dies. As small businesses employ a huge number of staff, even if only one or two apiece, each loss or closure leaves a hole.

That's an interesting point. I hadn't really thought about it this way before, but in the past, a large portion of people carried on in the same general trade as their parents. That created a lot of stability over time.

I would love to know.

This is my problem with Labour - I have literally no idea what they are proposing, their views, and their priorities.