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:
IDoHaveACrystalBall · 16/10/2025 17:49

@isthesolution why would they be more incentivise to work?

What would happen about other benefits like housing benefit, et cetera?

Do you mean on top of that?

I'm thinking every adult having £1000 a month from the state has got to be insanely expensive, hasn't it? But I don't know how much it cost to administer the welfare state.

Barleycat · 16/10/2025 18:02

They should cap private rental overall. This would reduce the housing benefit bill, make rental homes more affordable and people would have more money to spend. Would likely encourage people into work as they wouldn't have to worry about losing top ups if housing was a decent price. Im not a maths person but this seems a simple solution to me as a starting point. All rented accommodation to be assessed, a fair price agreed in line with LA rates and landlords have a choice to suck it up or sell up. Would make house prices more affordable too and help yp get on the housing ladder and give people more money in their pocket to spend.

Ihateboris · 16/10/2025 18:41

The likes of the Duke of Westminster et al need to start paying their fair share of tax. He didn't have to pay any IHT on his late father's estate (approx £9 BILLION)due to the assets technically being held in Trust. These tax avoidance schemes should stop.

Also, the God damn lazy Royal family need to start paying their fair share...and not just what they feel like paying.

SisterTeatime · 16/10/2025 18:54

I really like the idea of a simple, flat UBI and abolishing all other benefits, although I think disability benefits for people who are incapable of working at all would need additional income/support. Everyone gets it, you can choose to work or not, but no additional help with housing costs etc. it would allow for more flexibility around work, childcare, and voluntary work, and allow people to move around the country more easily.

Overthemhills · 16/10/2025 19:24

The idea of £1,000 per adult per month would make me considerably better off than I am!
And I would not want that - via this proposed method. I’d rather be able to work for it in a meaningful way.
As a married couple my DH and I would have £2,000 a month from the government as opposed to DLA (£441) for DD and carer’s allowance £333). I’d be twice as well off.
It would go a long way to helping my DD (severely physically disabled).
And to plan for her future - if she has one.
But I think of this idea as well as there are people who receive UC who rent and have severely disabled or disabled DC. They’d probably be getting over £2,000 already but that’s including rent costs.
My gain would be their loss - though we’d be in nearly identical situations re our DC but I’d be better off financially because I have a small mortgage and not rent.
Obviously that leaves out rent/mortgage and salary differences.
Everyone wants not to be in poverty but I wouldn’t want to see my imaginary counterparts in poverty while I have more spending money.
I’m qualified to phd level, I’ve worked in the Home Office (immigration law) and I’d FAR rather have better access to what other parents have - after school care for DD that she’d enjoy and would keep her safe (it’s not difficult but it might be expensive because private companies just rinse councils) or more flexible working conditions so I could use my fucking brain.
I know I’m in a weird situation but any government stooping to rob benefit depending family of poor Peter to encourage rich business owner Paul would be a government that was shortsighted and foolish, not to mention cruel.

I don’t know why Labour would never consider overhauling UC and grading disability benefits properly (There are good reasons for thinking the current grading system is just about functional).

I would support proper funding for medical and mobility equipment from a centralised government source that didn’t get pawned off to the council budgets (run by whichever party has power there and leads to a “lottery”).

In fact much of what is said about expenditure on social care boils down to private care companies charging whatever they like to councils, to the enormous costs of children who are “looked after children “ (not the children’s fault and I do NOT mean SEND children which is a different cost) and the extortionate costs of care in private care homes.

But as to what RR means by taxing wealth.. I don’t know. We will see soon enough.

There’s nothing socialist about this Labour government.

I will never vote Tory and definitely never Reform (their policies make absolutely no sense and are pie in the sky ( leaving aside the poisonous nature of some of their representatives)) and now never Labour again either, I used to vote Lib Dem.. but not now.

I hope whatever RR does its not just taxing people who really don’t have wealth but are forced to pay more because of the legacy of fucking Covid and the fatted calf that really was a hot air balloon of a calf of savings otherwise known as Brexit.

Dbank · 16/10/2025 19:45

Barleycat · 16/10/2025 18:02

They should cap private rental overall. This would reduce the housing benefit bill, make rental homes more affordable and people would have more money to spend. Would likely encourage people into work as they wouldn't have to worry about losing top ups if housing was a decent price. Im not a maths person but this seems a simple solution to me as a starting point. All rented accommodation to be assessed, a fair price agreed in line with LA rates and landlords have a choice to suck it up or sell up. Would make house prices more affordable too and help yp get on the housing ladder and give people more money in their pocket to spend.

The number of properties available at the moment is determined by supply and demand. If a landlord charges too much, they won't be able to rent it out, and if they charge too little the business won't be viable.

Assuming you're proposing a cap that's lower than the existing market, then it's reasonable to expect a large number of landlords would indeed sell their properties or decide to leave them empty.

A surge in properties hitting the market at the same time may reduce the price and be an opportunity for buyers to either rent out or live in.

This would inevitably result in less rental properties. This would be fine for those who have secured a property, but for those unable to find a property, they would ether need to buy, or be homeless.

Whilst we still live in a capitalist society the "fix", would be either increase the supply, by building more homes, or making it more attractive for landlords to do rent properties.

Tackling the demand is more challenging, especially with a growing population.

twistyizzy · 16/10/2025 19:47

A lot of people are going to have a nasty shock that they are suddenly "wealthy" in a few weeks' time

Overthemhills · 16/10/2025 20:04

@twistyizzy
I don’t think that’s true. I know you hate this government and that’s fair enough but I really don’t think it is house prices/value or smaller businesses that she means. Her interview statement certainly didn’t indicate as much

twistyizzy · 16/10/2025 21:02

Overthemhills · 16/10/2025 20:04

@twistyizzy
I don’t think that’s true. I know you hate this government and that’s fair enough but I really don’t think it is house prices/value or smaller businesses that she means. Her interview statement certainly didn’t indicate as much

Well they can't tax the actual wealthy so it always trickles down to the MC/middle earners
We will find out

Labraradabrador · 16/10/2025 21:44

Barleycat · 16/10/2025 18:02

They should cap private rental overall. This would reduce the housing benefit bill, make rental homes more affordable and people would have more money to spend. Would likely encourage people into work as they wouldn't have to worry about losing top ups if housing was a decent price. Im not a maths person but this seems a simple solution to me as a starting point. All rented accommodation to be assessed, a fair price agreed in line with LA rates and landlords have a choice to suck it up or sell up. Would make house prices more affordable too and help yp get on the housing ladder and give people more money in their pocket to spend.

What you propose is a sure fire way to reduce private rental availability- caps on rent and housing shortages go hand in hand.

Labraradabrador · 16/10/2025 21:55

Overthemhills · 16/10/2025 20:04

@twistyizzy
I don’t think that’s true. I know you hate this government and that’s fair enough but I really don’t think it is house prices/value or smaller businesses that she means. Her interview statement certainly didn’t indicate as much

But to date policies haven’t spared SMEs or family farms - if anything being a business owner or farmer has lumped you in with the ‘broad shouldered’ who are meant to fund everything.

and as a private school parent I have routinely been skewered by this government as ‘wealthy’ because of what I choose to spend my hard earned money on rather than any sort of accounting of my actual assets. From press we know a property tax is getting real consideration, and as someone who was hit hard by budget #1 I can assure you it won’t be a nuanced approach that considers regional differences let alone the broader impact on markets and longer term consequences .

cupfinalchaos · 16/10/2025 21:56

sesquipedalian · 16/10/2025 10:46

“An estimated 142,000 millionaires are set to relocate to a new country this year, with the UK set to lose a record 16,500 in the coming 12 months.” (Independent, June 2025).
If Rachel Reeves makes conditions too onerous for those with the most money (who are also the most mobile), then they will leave. Any colour of government should be worried about the fact that the top 1% of taxpayers contribute almost 30% of income tax, and the top 10% pay 60%. Get rid of them, and you have a very large fiscal hole to fill.

Absolutely this and I never get why people don’t seem to grasp it or don’t want to.

caringcarer · 16/10/2025 22:03

As DWP will soon to be able to look at everyones bank account will she simply slap a tax on anyone with cash over £500k in the bank, stocks, or shares?

Timeforabitofpeace · 16/10/2025 23:15

PlaceIntheClouds · 16/10/2025 09:34

Take from the workers and give to the shirkers.
Labour 2024-2029

Make it stop

What an idiotic statement.

Unexpectedlysinglemum · 16/10/2025 23:37

IDoHaveACrystalBall · 16/10/2025 10:34

Valued by whom?

That's exactly the kind of thing this government won't think about - the consequences of their decisions and how they work in practice.

they need to make cuts, but they will never do that. The Conservatives didn't do it either.

reform of inheritance tax could be reasonable, but They'd literally have to announce "from this moment on, anyone who dies, their estate will be subject to..." and fix a time!

The sad thing is, they probably haven't considered that either.

Yes and someone with a big mortgage? Or has it paid off? My parents house has gone way up
in value in the 40 years since they bought it but they have modest pensions

IDoHaveACrystalBall · 16/10/2025 23:44

caringcarer · 16/10/2025 22:03

As DWP will soon to be able to look at everyones bank account will she simply slap a tax on anyone with cash over £500k in the bank, stocks, or shares?

As per my question on mortgages

How would they value the shares? With different prices every day.

Iwishicouldflyhigh · 16/10/2025 23:52

PlaceIntheClouds · 16/10/2025 09:34

Take from the workers and give to the shirkers.
Labour 2024-2029

Make it stop

Oh god, it’s so depressing when I see that year. 2029…..it feels a looonnng way away . God give us mercy, give us a GE!

MajesticWhine · 17/10/2025 00:12

National Insurance on rental income has been floated as an idea. I don’t like it but it’s better than a “mansion” tax.

TeenagersAngst · 17/10/2025 05:23

Labraradabrador · 16/10/2025 21:44

What you propose is a sure fire way to reduce private rental availability- caps on rent and housing shortages go hand in hand.

As anyone who knows anything about the rental market already knows (presumably not @Barleycat), landlords are already being driven out of the market and selling up. It started under George Osborne in 2015.

I think tenants are worse off, not better. They certainly don’t have any more money to spend.

Any more bright ideas @Barleycat?

TeenagersAngst · 17/10/2025 05:26

MajesticWhine · 17/10/2025 00:12

National Insurance on rental income has been floated as an idea. I don’t like it but it’s better than a “mansion” tax.

As long as you’re ok with the cost being passed on to tenants?

Nolletimiere · 17/10/2025 06:10

Reeves should be encouraged to really go for the ‘squeezed middle’, yes including taxing property over 500k - preferably lower, say 350k.

80smonster · 17/10/2025 06:14

It means rinse the middle class, doubt they will go for the actual wealthy, it’s more complicated than taxing people who can’t afford to run. Someone who owns a house over 500k in London is probably living in a flat anyway. Such utter bullshit.

Readyforslippers · 17/10/2025 06:18

EasternStandard · 16/10/2025 11:28

Yeh £500k is a bad idea. There are many cash strapped and with regular jobs in SE in a house like that.

Not just the SE.

Blarghism · 17/10/2025 07:03

Leavesfalling · 16/10/2025 10:00

The IFS says the UK needs to cut benefits to regain credibility with the bond markets. The trouble is the Labour benches won't allow that.
Income tax rise will be what will have to happen. We all need to chip in not just the wealthy who bear a disproportionate burden already. It's a fine balance. One that Labour won't strike.

Well, look what happened when they tried to scrap the winter fuel allowance for wealthy pensioners, following the advice of the IFS and scrapping the triple lock is also likely to cause upset no matter how much it is needed.

EasternStandard · 17/10/2025 07:17

Overthemhills · 16/10/2025 20:04

@twistyizzy
I don’t think that’s true. I know you hate this government and that’s fair enough but I really don’t think it is house prices/value or smaller businesses that she means. Her interview statement certainly didn’t indicate as much

She’s already hammered smaller businesses. That’s why she and Starmer need to come back for more after saying they would not.

This a their failing and they should stick to the pledge not to rinse people again after the last borrowing and tax hike budget.

Swipe left for the next trending thread