Which taxes should Burnham put up?

[Toohotforwork]

It seems pretty clear that in the Autumn we are in for another massive tax rising budget. Starmer has done of the ground work to show what we need to spend and how there isn't any money, I'm sure the "blackholes" were co-ordinated with the new team for messaging. Labour don't have it in them to cut the welfare bill and to be fair the Tories didn't either - so I can't see that changing.

Which taxes would up increase to fund the country properly?

Personally I'd go the easy route and put 1 or 2p on the basic rate of income tax. It would break the manifesto but one short sharp initiative has got to be better than death by a thousand small increases.

I think the care proposals of getting rid of inheritance tax and replacing it with a 10% charge on everyone is very sensible.

Equalising income tax and capital gains tax seems an easy win as well.

At this point it’s about need, not want. Very few people actually NEED to receive paper letters confirming appointments, not least because they very often arrive too late. Some might, and they absolutely could be accommodated, whilst creating efficiencies for the majority who don’t.
And you said a charge of £10 for private appointments would raise £130m.
Maintaining paper records for SOME patients at a cost of £230m pa, in case of the vanishingly slim possibility of an attack from a foreign power is not, by anyone’s calculations, an efficient spend of tax revenue.

Surely to goodness NHS IT manages to keep uncorrupted backups nowadays?

I very much doubt the NHS do it for shits and giggles. Their admin roles are diminishing and AI use is increasing so costs on staff (other than the head honchos) should be staying the same if you account for increasing nurses, midwives, consultants where waiting lists and outcomes call for it.

I am not sure why you keep citing the 230k for these letters you are so worried about.

I only get paper letters from NHS when I have a hospital appointment which usually gives clear directions on how to get there and who to ask for as well as instructions to prep for whatever examination. Usually these are at least 2 weeks if not several months away, so I doubt many people get them "late" anyway.

And yet, if you receive treatment via private healthcare, the vast, vast majority of communication is done via email and text message and works just fine.

Controversial, but properly crack down and enforce tax on tradesmen.

We have spent £250K on renovation over the last 5 years. Didn't have a project manager and dealt with all the trades directly. In that whole time, only a couple of specific tradesmen didn't offer to do it cheaper for cash. That included medium-sized companies that we had a £10K, £30K, £40K contract with.

These guys were taking £250-300 a day in labour costs minimum, so they weren't hard done by.

The secondary benefit is that there wouldn't be so many men getting out of paying proper child maintenance because they earned F all on paper.

Do you have figures for that? Private missed appointments are not tracked so you have no way of knowing if it "works" better than letters and the app. If people are paying they are clearly less likely to miss appointments and the smaller hospitals with fewer patients and helpful reception usually can sort out any confusion, largely because they have a tiny fraction of people to manage.

Health communication is all about making it accessible for all. Many people over 60 do not like using mobiles and emails for their health information, and as I am sure you are aware they are the people who use the NHS the most.

Not sure where you are getting your figures from but provision is no where near that amount!

Having been briefly involved in NHS IT a few years ago, I certainly wouldn’t guarantee it!

If it involves an element of boarding you would be lucky to see change out of £120k!

Actually thinking about it I had several letters when I saw a consultant at the private hospital, including a parking permit. I live one road away...

But there is, obviously the super rich will do anything to make us think it is not possible but as discussed by people like Gary and the French economist Gabriel Zucman, there are ways. Everyone is on the same page that something has to change, I just think it’s worth listening to what people like this are saying. I can’t see a reasonable argument against aggressively taxing the super rich and saying they won’t like it doesn’t count!

Majority of SEN are not boarders.

The biggest problem with the NHS isn’t funding. It is the way it is managed by competing interests where none of those interests are patient care. This dates back to the very beginning of the NHS and the need to bring private doctors running private hospitals into the NHS system.

Incentivise growth and give reasons for business to invest in the UK. Raising taxes and employment regulations on business just drives them away. Increase tax receipts through increased profits and higher employment rather than just making it harder and harder for businesses to operate.

Reform the NHS. Make it free for the most basic care and then introduce part payment in the way Europe does. Charge for appointments unless someone has an exemption and reduce the layers of bureaucracy.

Develop a strategy for AI. It has the capacity to automate, save money and give strategic advantage. Businesses are doing this right now, the government should be leading the way here.

Stop being scared of doing hard things because you’ll make people unhappy. That’s ultimately why we have Brexit - and now we’re worse off and people are still (maybe even more) unhappy. Be the grown up in the room that takes advice from competent analysts and strategists, rather than trying to just appease everyone. Public services have to be paid for, and we need to trust that our government is operating at the highest level of responsibility rather than just chasing popularity.

I’d go after people and businesses who defrauded the country during Covid.
i’d limit benefits.
I’d also subsidise childcare more to create a multiplier effect and encourage more productivity in society from those able and willing to work but discouraged by the cost.

I’m not sure there’s anything controversial about that, @DeedlessIndeed - the problem is how in practice to do it.

But SEN school spaces are easily £50k or more for day spaces. Remember mainstream not-for-profit independent schools are £25k or more without the additional staffing, equipment and therapists needing for an SEN placement.

I’m a fan of Gary Stevenson too. We need to understand that the majority of the middle classes are getting poorer, much poorer, at the hands of the super rich. We are failing to understand that money is a finite resource and that those who have that resource are increasing their wealth at our expense and this is speeding up. Yet here we are, blaming those who have next to nothing for causing the problem.

The problem isn't whether the super-rich can be taxed more; it's whether any government is willing or able to do so.

In realpolitik terms, wealth translates into political influence, lobbying power, legal resources, media access, and capital mobility. Governments compete for investment and tax revenue, so there are strong incentives not to alienate major investors.

Even when politicians campaign on taxing the wealthy, the final legislation is often diluted through exemptions, negotiations, or international competitive pressures.

The issue is less economics than political power. In practice, the wealthiest individuals are often beyond the reach of the kind of aggressive redistribution people imagine not because it is technically impossible, but because the balance of power makes it extremely difficult to sustain.

It’s an interesting point about tradesman or the self employed. I regularly see jokes bandied about how they all earn £12400 or whatever is under threshold a year. Do they just keep cash in the mattress? Comes down to taxing turnover and not profit, properly closely loopholes and making people very uncomfortable with supporting people that evade tax.

the other issue is companies not paying proper wages for what the values should be

You would be surprised at some people's reactions when cash in hand is discussed.

It's okay, they are "getting one over on the government" / "taxed to death anyway, the odd job cash wont hurt" / "working men just trying to feed their family" etc etc.

I agree that it is tricky to tackle but other countries do some interesting things. It became a bit of a pet peeve of mine, so I have read far too many examples of this.

In Sweden the Home owner gets a percentage of the labour cost of tradespeople working on their home as personal tax relief - so all customers are keen to ensure all work is done through the books. Similar scheme happens in Canada for some limited types of renovation work. Same in Brazil - only with an official receipt the customer gets a small tax rebate.

In Taiwan when you buy a service from a self employed person you get the equivalent of a VAT receipt. And the receipts have a code that is a lottery ticket, that gets drawn regularly and you could win £100K or equivalent. Similar thing happens in Greece and is cheaper than employing a lot of tax inspectors, as customers insist on getting the receipt.

Or perhaps work could only be guaranteed / registered as compliant via building regs with a receipt that includes a VAT number? In Chile you can't claim against a builder for a civil issue if you haven't got an official receipt. The receipt must go through a government app which immediately takes off the tax.

Or builders merchants accounts could be linked to NI numbers, so if someone is buying £20K of materials a month, and only putting through that they work 1 day a week could flag an investigation. I think Australia and US have some techy ways to track these inconsistencies to investigate and minimise this type of fraud.

Yes absolutely, that is exactly the point. The question of the thread is which taxes should Burnham put up and the fundamental answer before anything else, is he should put up the tax for the super rich. Whether he or anyone else is brave enough I think we can all agree is highly unlikely but as @Nonimity says, one day it will be too late, all the money will have been funnelled upwards and therefore these conversations are fruitless without tackling this issue.

Governments managed a redistribution of wealth after WW2 including having top tax rates of 90%, it has and can be done. I appreciate things hadn’t spiralled to the extremes they have these days with billionaires controlling the media and pretty much everything else beyond most of our comprehension but there is still a way and it really is the only thing that will make it possible to have all of these other conversations.

I suppose you could tackle cash in hand very easily by saying that if you use a service and don't get a VAT invoice the service user is responsible for the VAT plus a penalty. At the moment people just turn a blind eye but if they knew that would be risking them getting a bill they'd probably ask for the VAT invoice.

They could follow the public health success of the sugar tax, with a fat tax on saturated fat, or a UPF tax. I'm not sure it would raise much as producers could reformulate but it could save a lot of money in the long term on health.