Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

“Tax the wealthy” (RR budget) what does this even mean?

639 replies

gggddjkki · 16/10/2025 08:32

I don’t remember anxiously waiting for budgets like we have the last few years earlier on in my adulthood. But when you read statements like this (as I have seen in the headlines today) what do you interpret it to mean? What does taxing the wealthy look like to you? Taxing higher earners more? From what point? Higher taxes on industry?

OP posts:
Nolletimiere · 18/10/2025 10:47

HostaCentral · 18/10/2025 10:45

Oh, and you can't leave the country, because you may get hit with an exit tax. Insidious.

You can, currently.

But retaining UK exposure when you leave, means you retain risk however.

PeonyPatch · 18/10/2025 11:10

TeenagersAngst · 18/10/2025 10:20

Not sure if it’s a rhetorical question you’re asking there, but the answer is 5 years in coalition followed by 9 years as a majority government.

To all those who quote the 14 years of Tory mismanagement, I would remind them that we were not in a dictatorship. The Tories won several elections in that timeframe.

Why were Labour not able to win an election if the Tory mismanagement was so terrible and apparent to the electorate?

Yes, it was rhetorical

PeonyPatch · 18/10/2025 11:11

BadgernTheGarden · 18/10/2025 10:09

Pretty much everything is taxed already, income, interest from savings, which depending how much you have might be called wealth! Businesses have been hit hard by recent tax rises, capital gains tax on selling assets, inheritance tax. Not to mention things like road tax, council tax, etc.

If you tax the better off more they will spend less which then affects businesses, if you tax businesses more that will raise prices which affects everyone eventually. If they tax houses it will screw with the property market, put people into negative equity and have all sorts of unexpected consequences. How many people could find the cash to give the government say 10% of the value of their home, even 1% would be a struggle for many people.

Cutting spending should be the objective, catch the tax dodgers big and small, catch the benefit cheats, catch the people working in the black economy. All these people are stealing from all of us that pay our taxes, they are not victimless crimes. So often on here these sort of crimes are dismissed as no ones business and you should just let people get on with it and don't report it.

Agreeed 👏🏼

Enterthewolves · 18/10/2025 11:15

EasternStandard · 18/10/2025 10:02

The one you used which got deleted.

Edited

That people who vote for Reform are, by definition, racist? I stand by that. We need to be careful who we associate with or we are lost.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/18/crooked-cross-hitler-1933-novel-sally-carson?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Enterthewolves · 18/10/2025 11:17

Leavesfalling · 17/10/2025 08:15

Pretty good pensions though! Can't get those in the private sector. We will all be on the hock for that liability for generations.

Actually lots of private companies have DB pensions and public sector pensions are no longer final salary - costs will gradually come down.

EasternStandard · 18/10/2025 11:27

Enterthewolves · 18/10/2025 11:15

That people who vote for Reform are, by definition, racist? I stand by that. We need to be careful who we associate with or we are lost.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/18/crooked-cross-hitler-1933-novel-sally-carson?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Edited

No they are not by definition that.

Leavesfalling · 18/10/2025 11:39

Enterthewolves · 18/10/2025 11:17

Actually lots of private companies have DB pensions and public sector pensions are no longer final salary - costs will gradually come down.

Please can you provide some figures as I wasn't aware this was the case.

I assume you are also talking about new public sector pensions. The liability for the old ones cannot be changed as they are a contractual obligation.

BIossomtoes · 18/10/2025 11:40

Leavesfalling · 18/10/2025 11:39

Please can you provide some figures as I wasn't aware this was the case.

I assume you are also talking about new public sector pensions. The liability for the old ones cannot be changed as they are a contractual obligation.

Very few public sector pensions are final salary any more. They changed to career average some time ago.

Leavesfalling · 18/10/2025 11:41

Enterthewolves · 18/10/2025 11:15

That people who vote for Reform are, by definition, racist? I stand by that. We need to be careful who we associate with or we are lost.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/18/crooked-cross-hitler-1933-novel-sally-carson?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Edited

Well you are going to have to sit in your room for a few years as looking at the polls an awful lot of people you associate with will vote Reform. Obviously they may tell you otherwise but luckily voting doesn't require you to check their ballot paper.

Leavesfalling · 18/10/2025 11:42

BIossomtoes · 18/10/2025 11:40

Very few public sector pensions are final salary any more. They changed to career average some time ago.

Figures please for the existing liability and projected future liability for the next 20 years.

Luckily they are underwritten by the taxpayer. Unlike private sector pensions.

Bruisername · 18/10/2025 11:43

Targeting reform (or afd in Germany) voters as racist is precisely what led to the rise of these parties

remember Gordon brown calling that woman a bigot? It was the start of a trend to try and get people with genuine concerns to shut up by telling them they were morally wrong. Rather than address the issues. So people are voting for these parties to send a message

farage is a grifter and I doubt most people will actually vote reform at the next election but I imagine a lot are saying they will to try and get the mainstream politicians to listen to their concerns

Nolletimiere · 18/10/2025 11:44

Enterthewolves · 18/10/2025 11:15

That people who vote for Reform are, by definition, racist? I stand by that. We need to be careful who we associate with or we are lost.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/18/crooked-cross-hitler-1933-novel-sally-carson?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Edited

As things currently stand, I will vote for reform at the next GE.

What does that make me?

Leavesfalling · 18/10/2025 11:45

Nolletimiere · 18/10/2025 11:44

As things currently stand, I will vote for reform at the next GE.

What does that make me?

Sensible

Enterthewolves · 18/10/2025 11:47

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Leavesfalling · 18/10/2025 11:47

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

That applies to most of the country looking at the polls so everyone is in good company.

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 11:54

EasternStandard · 18/10/2025 05:59

Yes this level of lying, followed by the first budget which had a £70bn borrowing and tax hike.

And whatever next because that budget hammered growth.

Indeed. She was told that her budget last year would quite obviously harm growth and which addressed none of the underlying issues in order to offset this, would create a doom loop of further economic decline meaning lower tax revenues meaning another hole in the budget due to rising spending and falling tax revenues. For someone who has an economics degree she seems to have a minimal grasp of even the most basic concepts of how an economy works.

The bond markets were prepared to show her a great deal of goodwill, recognising the difficult situation she inherited. What they needed to see, however, was a credible plan for how to improve the situation.

Prior to the election she constantly stated that the only way to fix the problem was to create growth. This was correct because the only way to raise living standards sustainably is to increase productivity not rob one group of people and redistribute to another, and these statements were why she was given a great deal of goodwill to give her time to implement the policies to start this process. She has, in reality, taken not one measure that will have any statistically significant impact on increasing growth and many, many measures that will reduce it further, and thrown away all of this goodwill in just over a year. Idiotic.

The solutions are obvious and some (like removing cliff edges in the tax system which have been shown to be harming productivity) are entirely within Government control and would have an almost instantaneous effect. For example, the IFS calculated that if you raised the higher rate tax threshold to £75k, abolished the withdrawal of the personal allowance at £100k and made the higher rate tax threshold 45% from £75k upwards this would be fiscally neutral in immediate cost and remove huge economic distortions, increase workplace participation, lower skills shortages and the need for immigration to fill highly-skilled roles, reduce emmigration of our highest tax-payers, and therefore raise overall tax revenues and reduce public spending costs significantly.

Yet she isn’t doing this. Why? It’s extremely disingenuous to tell us that she “has to make hard decisions” when she’s not even making the very simple, easy, obvious ones that would mean that the gap she’s created between tax revenue and spending would decrease substantially. And in terms of longer-term plans, without investment in infrastructure and education and removing self-imposed trade barriers she has no hope whatsoever of growth increasing. How does she think this will happen? Unicorns nearly as large as the ones Mr Farage has been feeding with miracle grow.

Why do we have to have such incompetent people in these positions with seemingly no ability whatsoever to see the big picture or comprehend the obvious behavioural effects and consequences of their actions? The doom loop will continue until we have some grown ups in charge and these certainly are not, but sadly all other options at the moment seem even worse. The doom loop will cease to be a spiral slide and become a sheer drop like jumping from a plane with no parachute if we end up with Reform in charge, with no hope of reversal. Depressing in the extreme.

Leavesfalling · 18/10/2025 11:58

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 11:54

Indeed. She was told that her budget last year would quite obviously harm growth and which addressed none of the underlying issues in order to offset this, would create a doom loop of further economic decline meaning lower tax revenues meaning another hole in the budget due to rising spending and falling tax revenues. For someone who has an economics degree she seems to have a minimal grasp of even the most basic concepts of how an economy works.

The bond markets were prepared to show her a great deal of goodwill, recognising the difficult situation she inherited. What they needed to see, however, was a credible plan for how to improve the situation.

Prior to the election she constantly stated that the only way to fix the problem was to create growth. This was correct because the only way to raise living standards sustainably is to increase productivity not rob one group of people and redistribute to another, and these statements were why she was given a great deal of goodwill to give her time to implement the policies to start this process. She has, in reality, taken not one measure that will have any statistically significant impact on increasing growth and many, many measures that will reduce it further, and thrown away all of this goodwill in just over a year. Idiotic.

The solutions are obvious and some (like removing cliff edges in the tax system which have been shown to be harming productivity) are entirely within Government control and would have an almost instantaneous effect. For example, the IFS calculated that if you raised the higher rate tax threshold to £75k, abolished the withdrawal of the personal allowance at £100k and made the higher rate tax threshold 45% from £75k upwards this would be fiscally neutral in immediate cost and remove huge economic distortions, increase workplace participation, lower skills shortages and the need for immigration to fill highly-skilled roles, reduce emmigration of our highest tax-payers, and therefore raise overall tax revenues and reduce public spending costs significantly.

Yet she isn’t doing this. Why? It’s extremely disingenuous to tell us that she “has to make hard decisions” when she’s not even making the very simple, easy, obvious ones that would mean that the gap she’s created between tax revenue and spending would decrease substantially. And in terms of longer-term plans, without investment in infrastructure and education and removing self-imposed trade barriers she has no hope whatsoever of growth increasing. How does she think this will happen? Unicorns nearly as large as the ones Mr Farage has been feeding with miracle grow.

Why do we have to have such incompetent people in these positions with seemingly no ability whatsoever to see the big picture or comprehend the obvious behavioural effects and consequences of their actions? The doom loop will continue until we have some grown ups in charge and these certainly are not, but sadly all other options at the moment seem even worse. The doom loop will cease to be a spiral slide and become a sheer drop like jumping from a plane with no parachute if we end up with Reform in charge, with no hope of reversal. Depressing in the extreme.

That's what happens when you try and run an economy on an idealogical basis rather than a good basis that works.

BIossomtoes · 18/10/2025 11:59

Leavesfalling · 18/10/2025 11:42

Figures please for the existing liability and projected future liability for the next 20 years.

Luckily they are underwritten by the taxpayer. Unlike private sector pensions.

Edited

What has that got to do with my post?

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 12:01

Leavesfalling · 18/10/2025 11:58

That's what happens when you try and run an economy on an idealogical basis rather than a good basis that works.

Exactly. We need evidence-based policy making from people who actually understand economics not these ridiculous ideologies that every single political party is signed up to.

EasternStandard · 18/10/2025 12:08

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Not at all.

Nolletimiere · 18/10/2025 12:18

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 11:54

Indeed. She was told that her budget last year would quite obviously harm growth and which addressed none of the underlying issues in order to offset this, would create a doom loop of further economic decline meaning lower tax revenues meaning another hole in the budget due to rising spending and falling tax revenues. For someone who has an economics degree she seems to have a minimal grasp of even the most basic concepts of how an economy works.

The bond markets were prepared to show her a great deal of goodwill, recognising the difficult situation she inherited. What they needed to see, however, was a credible plan for how to improve the situation.

Prior to the election she constantly stated that the only way to fix the problem was to create growth. This was correct because the only way to raise living standards sustainably is to increase productivity not rob one group of people and redistribute to another, and these statements were why she was given a great deal of goodwill to give her time to implement the policies to start this process. She has, in reality, taken not one measure that will have any statistically significant impact on increasing growth and many, many measures that will reduce it further, and thrown away all of this goodwill in just over a year. Idiotic.

The solutions are obvious and some (like removing cliff edges in the tax system which have been shown to be harming productivity) are entirely within Government control and would have an almost instantaneous effect. For example, the IFS calculated that if you raised the higher rate tax threshold to £75k, abolished the withdrawal of the personal allowance at £100k and made the higher rate tax threshold 45% from £75k upwards this would be fiscally neutral in immediate cost and remove huge economic distortions, increase workplace participation, lower skills shortages and the need for immigration to fill highly-skilled roles, reduce emmigration of our highest tax-payers, and therefore raise overall tax revenues and reduce public spending costs significantly.

Yet she isn’t doing this. Why? It’s extremely disingenuous to tell us that she “has to make hard decisions” when she’s not even making the very simple, easy, obvious ones that would mean that the gap she’s created between tax revenue and spending would decrease substantially. And in terms of longer-term plans, without investment in infrastructure and education and removing self-imposed trade barriers she has no hope whatsoever of growth increasing. How does she think this will happen? Unicorns nearly as large as the ones Mr Farage has been feeding with miracle grow.

Why do we have to have such incompetent people in these positions with seemingly no ability whatsoever to see the big picture or comprehend the obvious behavioural effects and consequences of their actions? The doom loop will continue until we have some grown ups in charge and these certainly are not, but sadly all other options at the moment seem even worse. The doom loop will cease to be a spiral slide and become a sheer drop like jumping from a plane with no parachute if we end up with Reform in charge, with no hope of reversal. Depressing in the extreme.

Taking from the productive, and giving to the unproductive, in essence.

Greylakemirage · 18/10/2025 12:19

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

You are not reading the room. Start your own thread.

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 12:29

Nolletimiere · 18/10/2025 07:08

Yes, Reeves is a bare-faced liar - it is on record.

She is self-pitying, too - with the crocodile tears.

A Chancellor in name only.

They’re all liars. It’s pretty much the only qualification you have to have to become a politician.

My concern is their incompetence. Again, this applies to all of the UK political parties, not one of whom has put forward a sensible manifesto that would actually address the UK’s issues in decades, presumably because they know that our economically illiterate electorate wouldn’t elect them if they did so. Nobody is articulating what needs to be done and the electorate - who should be up in arms about this and demanding competent economic leadership - instead argue about trivial irrelevancies to the overall budget and apparently now seems to this Reform is the answer? Some people never learn.

Nolletimiere · 18/10/2025 12:41

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 12:29

They’re all liars. It’s pretty much the only qualification you have to have to become a politician.

My concern is their incompetence. Again, this applies to all of the UK political parties, not one of whom has put forward a sensible manifesto that would actually address the UK’s issues in decades, presumably because they know that our economically illiterate electorate wouldn’t elect them if they did so. Nobody is articulating what needs to be done and the electorate - who should be up in arms about this and demanding competent economic leadership - instead argue about trivial irrelevancies to the overall budget and apparently now seems to this Reform is the answer? Some people never learn.

Competence is a major issue - I do not believe that one member of the current cabinet possesses any commercial experience or acumen, and it shows.

This government are in hock to the unions and the backbenches - they could not even get through a GBP 5 bn rounding error of cuts from future welfare expenditure. Yes, they lied during electioneering - Sunak called it on numerous occasions.

There are no realistic growth prospects given that UK productivity is anaemic and Labour’s policies to date have proven anti-growth.

Reform’s recent rise in the ratings is is simply a consequence of Labour’s disastrous 15-months.

I am hoping that Reeves goes in hard on 26th November - the edifice crumbing sooner being preferable to death by a thousand cuts (if only).

Fraudornot · 18/10/2025 12:51

Do We think she is going to introduce this new yearly property tax? I think that will stagnate the housing market. We won’t move if this is the case