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

[gggddjkki]

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?

So you’re supporting a political party without ever having read their policy proposals? They published a “manifesto” on their website prior to the last general election, and have made further (completely unaffordable) policy announcements publicly since then.

I don’t think it’s correct. It’s too loaded and subjective.

That’s fine it’s only a post I’m just saying I don’t think it’s hitting the right reasons.

On the economic stuff I agree with much of you post on what to do.

Again, for balance.

‘We have fully costed, fully funded plans,” Labour told the country during the election campaign. “Nothing in our plans requires any additional tax to be increased.” Ramming home that message, Rachel Reeves promised every Labour policy was “fully funded and fully costed – no ifs, no ands, no buts … no additional tax rises”.

In total, Labour pledged not to put up taxes at least 50 times before polling day.

Yep. And then £70bn tax and borrowing hike at first opportunity.

The value of a business may decrease if it is now liable for IHT if previously it wasn't. Same with a farm...market value may fall. They would never have been "valued" as such as 100% bpr would have been available in many cases. A drop in the underlying collateral say for an investment will reduce the cushion for bondholders. A business may need to sell assets to raise cash for IHT which may mean a greater risk for lenders or investors. If the value of an asset changes due to IHT (which you won't know the date this becomes relevant) the loan to value debt service coverage may change which again may increase the risk of a default. Reversing it (if Reform try) will.be tricky as behavior will have adjusted in the market and the market doesn't like uncertainty and pricing in another change will take a long time.

That's what I understand is the issue but perhaps an expert could explain it more clearly.

Yes, as there aren’t any concrete policy proposals. Is your purely data driven analysis based on their previous manifesto? What other completely unaffordable policy announcements have been announced that your modelling is based on?
Maybe you could reference back to your ten point list.

That’s fine - unlike my posts about the economy that post that seems to have riled up particular posters (who notably haven’t engaged with the economic discussion at all, despite it being the subject of the thread) was clearly an opinion. It was clear in the original context that it was (given that it was a response to another poster asking my opinion about the motivations) and I had also specifically stated that Reform supporters are millions of people, I am not one of them and am not a mind reader, so all I could write was the reasons that I am aware of based on research on the topic and the stated opinions of Reform supporters who have stated them either publicly in the media or to me in person.

I also specifically stated that I’d be interested to hear from others who are supporting them/ considering supporting them about their reasons for doing so and how they think that this will impact the UK’s economy, fiscal position, and therefore the living standards of its residents (given that this is a thread about fiscal policy and its effect on the economy) because I wanted to understand their reasoning. Sadly, the only responses received were a series of personal attacks and then some very bizarre comments from somebody deranged and in need of medical help due to a strange obsession with teachers. Furthermore, I noted that I’m autistic so use language bluntly and said sorry if I had caused offence as this was not intended; I was simply answering that particular question I was asked which was about my opinion on motivations. I’m not a psychologist, however, so not my area of expertise to give anything more than an opinion. I am interested in the economics and evidence and data, and it seems that me having given an opinion in ONE POST which was specifically asked for and therefore clearly was not presented as fact but personal opinion has been used by certain people to try to derail the thread and prevent any factual discussion about the economics, which those same posters haven’t engaged with in any meaningful way at all. Quelle surprise….

I have read so many comments on various forums/ newspaper column sections online stating that “nobody understands Reform supporters” and “nobody will listen to their point of view”. Yet the outrage if someone else states a point of view even when asked to do so has taken up multiple pages of the thread. And if you ask for their reasoned analysis of how they think Farage’s policies will improve the fiscal situation/ economy etc (which presumably anybody on this thread is interested in, given that is the subject of it!) so that you can try to understand their point of view you get met with a barrage of personal insults and no substantive response at all. It’s difficult for others to fathom why Reform’s supporters believe that the party’s stated fiscal policies will be an improvement when not a single credible economist agrees and not one Reform supporter on this thread has been able to articulate and argument to support that their policies would be beneficial to the economy.

Instead, these posters continue to claim to be “misunderstood”, like sulky teenagers, so I have to admit that I am now inclined to think that their “nobody will listen to us” retort is disingenuous because the ones who have posted here haven’t been able to articulate any analysis of why Reform’ stated policies would have any positive economic impact and have refused to discuss this at all - even on a thread that is specifically about the fiscal impact of Government policy!

Instead we get “are you a teacher?” X 10 or whatever other nonsense. And false claims from the very people who’ve made lots of nasty personal comments that others are “insulting” them personally by discussing general economic or voting trends and what the motivations for those might be, in general terms without referring at all to any specific poster.

The cognitive dissonance appears to be the size of Mount Everest. How do these posters know the motivations of millions of other Reform posters and know that my list was wrong (note again - I didn’t say that even in my opinion this was an exhaustive list of motivations, just some of those I have noted). Once you decide to support Reform do you get access to some kind of Hive Mind where you can read the minds of all other Reform supporters and know why they are supporting Reform and, therefore, that all of the reasons that I listed as reasons why some people are supporting them are incorrect?

What? Why would you be supporting a party if it had no policy proposals? 🤔

Of course it does. It has the manifesto that it published on its website just over a year ago, and it has the additional policies that it has announced since then in addition.

On what basis do you think people should be assessing their competence? By ignoring everything they have stated in writing to the public on their own website and in the media and basing our judgement on what, exactly, instead?

What? Why would you be supporting a party if it had no policy proposals?

I already covered that :
They make the right noises about reversing most of what Labour have implemented from education and farmer taxes through to hints at wanting to lower the tax burden and increase the birth rate. That’s why people like them, because they’ll attempt to undo what Labour has caused. I’m not sure how your ‘there’s no one to vote for idea’ is going to work out in reality, Reform is the current best option.

I didn’t claim my views were purely data driven, complain about everyone else not being data driven, write a ten point list of why other people are stupid or claim I’m an ‘economist’. All I’m asking is what Reform policies did you use in your data modelling that convinced you people who are now supporting them ‘have the economic understanding of an 8 year old’.

Thanks - the confusion lies in the distinction between UK sovereign bonds (gilts), and corpororate bonds.

The former is relevant given the forthcoming budget, of course.

“Undoing what Labour has caused” would not solve the UK’s economic problems. Obviously it’d be a good start, but given pretty much everybody was agreed at the last election that the country was a mess, obviously competent leadership requires more than saying “this new measure has been unpopular, let’s reverse it!”.

Per earlier posts in the thread, Reform’s entire stated programme of policies at present leads to a black hole of £90bn in tax revenues, further economic damage which will make this hole grow larger, and spending commitments of another £40bn or so given the things they’ve added on top of this post-election, with not one policy proposed about how to increase growth to fund this.

So the options, as usual, with then be higher tax (which they stated they will cut), or cuts to public spending (which they have even admitted that their various policy proposals will increase). So where is this £130bn going to come from? Given that total UK public spending is currently running at £1.2bn per year, that is 11% of additional money they need to magic out of thin air.

Do you believe in unicorns?

I totally agree with this. I thought, given the topic of this thread, that the people posting here would be some of the sub-set of people who actually do want to engage with the evidence and intellectual conversation about the economy. Politics is increasingly detached from economics, which is what has led to the very negative outcomes that we’re all experiencing now. Politics is all about manipulating people into convincing them that they will do what is best for you/ your descendants/ wider society (in whatever proportion the individual balances those objectives). The entire reason I’ve wasted so much of my time responding to this is precisely because of the risk of the UK becoming Trumpified due to this polarisation of politics which will, inevitably, mean that the very factors causing it (primarily lower living standards) get worse. Perhaps people should consider a different approach and evidence-based policy making might be beneficial. But I agree with you that - as we’ve seen here!! - many people are not rational so I hold little hope that this will happen. But those engaging in this kind of extremist left/ right nonsense and “culture war” populist politics at either extreme will need to own the outcome which will inevitably be living standards and national wealth and state provision declining even further and taxes rising ever higher because it is an absolute certainty that this approach - at either extreme - will accelerate the current economic trends, not slow or reverse them.

You are correct - this will impact individual business values and risk ratings in specific circumstances, which clearly will depress economic activity further particularly in certain affected sectors, but is separate to gilts/ the national debt/ public spending/ tax decisions generally.

Yes, what are these ‘stated programme of policies’ that lead to a 90bn deficit?

It’s the cost of Reform’s stated plans at the last election. Actually I’m surprised it’s as little as £90 billion given their bright idea of front line healthcare staff being exempt from income tax if they earned less than £50k. Bonkers.

I do find posts underpinned by economics interesting and they’re not often posted on here, however politics also addresses some other major pressures and atm we’re seeing many western countries deal with immigration primarily.

I also don’t think it’s worthwhile talking about stupidity etc because it doesn’t help, but also I don’t believe educated to a certain level means much. Institutions can reinforce the status quo and it might not be the right thing.

Which policies are those specifically? what are their stated policies for the next election? You know the election where they are actually odds on favourites to form the next Government.

The policies that they published on their own website as their “manifesto” - I believe they called it some kind of “contract with the British people” or something ridiculous like that, so pompous - which they have not retracted plus the public media announcements of further policies since the general election.

Multiple independent economic studies have been done of the economic impact that their policies would have on the UK public finances. None of the conclusions were good. All of them from any credible source have concluded that these policies are pie in the sky nonsense reliant on the unicorns leading us to a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and in any other circumstances are unimplementable fantasy with no credibility whatsoever. 🦄

This is now funny and disturbing in equal measures. What’s is it now, 11 times that you’ve posted this nonsense?

It seems apparent that whomever your teachers were, they failed you pretty badly for you to have this strange obsession about them that you project and such terrible reading comprehension. I’ll try once more to help you in the simplest language that I can muster to help you with your struggles:

I am not a teacher, nor have I ever been a teacher.

I genuinely think you need to seek some psychological support.

If Labour’s manifesto is the new benchmark, then Reform clearly do not have a monopoly on fanciful economic policy.

‘We have fully costed, fully funded plans,” Labour told the country during the election campaign. “Nothing in our plans requires any additional tax to be increased.” Ramming home that message, Rachel Reeves promised every Labour policy was “fully funded and fully costed – no ifs, no ands, no buts … no additional tax rises”.

Labour lied to secure power - Sunak called it.

But I did outline how Reform might benefit the economy (and I'm not even a Reform voter yet). You just didn't agree with the answer. And that's fine.

I don't discriminate against people with autism. If you can dish it out, you can take it.

Ah OK. Thank you for clarifying. My understanding was that this policy once implemented won't be reversed as it will be too disruptive for the markets. So we are stuck with those APR/BPR limits. I'm in the legal sector not economics (so don't have your understanding) and so continuity is the thing I'm looking for re planning. Bit of a shame though.

No we’re not stuck with them, why would it affect the Gilt market to any meaningful degree?