“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?

What?

Oh bore off - public sector workers are taxed the same as everyone else and largely do jobs that are essential - almost all local authority spend is on social care, education and homelessness

Typical socialism. What you think is yours actually belongs to the state. And they decide how much you can keep (and what you are allowed to spend it on. Certainly not your child's education)

As would charging corporations more tax. Lots of people seem to conveniently forget that the largest shareholders which they love to hate in large corporations are their own pension funds.

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

She wants to raise a lot of money, so she will need to tax a lot of people. That doesn’t just mean the rich as there aren’t enough of them.

Any company that makes 10xprofit more than the lowest paid salary of the companies worker should be taxed heavily, so the aim would be to bring everyone who is employed by that company up the line at scales so they get to keep more of the profits. It’s not right company’s are making millions in profit but have minimum wage workers.

That would go down well up north 🤣

Troll hunting is banned on MN. If you have any reason to suspect someone isn't genuine then report using that function.

Otherwise either contribute or keep quiet.

When did you last get a payrise and how much is your pension?

About as well as it will go down in the south.

I didn't necessarily disagree with this as a policy but they went about it all wrong.

There was no notice or warning and it was introduced at the start of the most expensive months - during a period of very expensive energy costs.

Tell people in April. Let them save to cover it over the summer.

Make the cut off reasonable. Instead it set the 'saved nothing and get pension credit ' against the 'worked and saved but get a private pension only a few pounds over benefit thresholds' directly against each other.

And so even for better off pensioners it became symbolic of the fail to provide for yourself and we'll do it but sod the rest of you attitude. Which is what we are now all fearing with every budget.

Not to set one region against the other because the whole idea is completely appalling. But at least down south you have the equity in your house. Very few people could ever move down south from the north east. And prices are the same in the shops. It's just a much poorer region.

Anyway I don't want to argue about this specific thing as otherwise Rachel Reeves will be dividing and conquering!

I get where you’re coming from with that, but that isn’t how stamp duty is currently worked out so I don’t think there’s any reason why the gov would see that a new tax would “need” to be done that why either.

The private sector have not enjoyed inflation-busting wage settlements, and nor do they enjoy public sector pensions, nor tenure.

Be serious.

It's too complicated, even to do regionally.

Some parts of north Yorkshire are as pricey as the south for example.

I live in a very cheap part of Scotland but anyone trying to buy a starter home in Edinburgh would disagree that Scotland is cheap.

At one point Jeremy Corbyn mooted taxing by garden size. I live in a rural area where land is much cheaper and it is the council houses with the biggest gardens.

I can't see how you ever get a one size fits all option.

Council tax needs looking at as there are wildly different bandings for similar houses and massively extended ones don't pay higher rates until sold.

My proposal would be the opposite of setting region against it would be setting a fair position based on the local market.

That sounds really nice but in this scenario why would people do jobs that are really boring and repetitive or very long hours and stressful or involve cleaning up shit? Especially when they would be working to fund everyone to stay at home with their kids and their hobbies. There is quite a lot of seething resentment in society as it is.

Salaries are higher in the south and services & investments are significantly higher in the south so we are in reality it’s all the same. My house is worth £500K, 20 mins from Manchester but I can assure you it’s a boring ordinary house, not some mansion cos it’s up north

Another Labour response. How unusual.

Very pre GE too.

We can agree to disagree. The house price disparity winds me up enough.

I don't actually think it would change anything. The people who were motivated would go to work in order to live more than a basic life. The same people today who can't be arsed would then also want that more than basic life, but would as they do today blame those who work for them not having it.

At least the the polls would suggest there are getting to be fewer and fewer labour bots . One poll yesterday had them third place tied with the Greens. If we had a Reform government with a Tory opposition the country would really get going.

This is somewhat correct.

You cannot specify where the money goes to. The payment is to general expenditure.

(Alternatively you can offer to repay part of the national debt, which given it has been many years since the UK had a budget surplus, is much the same thing).

You sound very out of touch.