The two-child benefit cap is social cleansing. Starmer must end it - Rosie Duffield

[IwantToRetire]

In an outspoken challenge to her leader, Labour’s Rosie Duffield says Tory rules penalising women with three or more children are worthy of The Handmaid’s Tale

Key points

• Labour MP condemns “anti-feminist and unequal” legislation, especially its “rape clause”
• Sir Keir Starmer has said scrapping the law is unaffordable at present
• More than a dozen backbenchers are forcing the issue with an amendment to the King’s Speech
• Like her friend JK Rowling, Duffield has previously attacked Labour’s record on women

The two-child limit is a feminist issue. It is a heinous piece of legislation and the reason above all others that I was driven to stand as a member of parliament. With the introduction of such a sinister and overtly sexist law, I was propelled towards Westminster to stop it.

article continues at https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/rosie-duffield-mp-two-child-benefit-cap-scncpn9dd

and at https://archive.ph/5On4a

My bad, I completely missed Sunak in it 🤦‍♂️

Same thing though, as Sunak's tax returns were also published. Total income £329k, tax paid £120k. Capital gains £1.6m, capital gains tax paid £326k. Total tax £433k. Nothing illegal there. Again, if we don't like the system we should change it, not criticise those using it which is what we would all do given the chance.

Completely disagree about ISAs being a loophole. They are still a means for us mere mortals to save tax free and they have an upper limit precisely to stop the wealthy from over investing.

And I am not sure what point you are making about investment overseas. This is the joy of a global market. People invest money where there is most growth. Unfortunately, since leaving the EU and the Trussterfuck, there is no growth here which is the real problem that needs to be addressed. If we had better growth than overseas it would be attracting investment. That problem will take decades to solve though. Personally, I am very pleased that it is possible to invest overseas as, otherwise, I would be completely screwed.

As far as i'm aware, total ISA's do not have an upper limit, other than the 20k per person per year.
So in other words a couple can move an investment into ISA's at 40k per year, essentially, over time, removing income from taxation.

Perhaps Reeves will introduce an upper limit, getting back to their original purpose.

We should be encouraging investment in the UK but yes Truss and Brexit have reduced growth opportunities, i believe Labour have said they will try and reverse the amounts pension funds invested overseas.

As i ve repeatedly said, Sunak hasn't done anything illegal but imho tax on earned and unearned income should narrow.

20k per person per year is the upper limit I referred to. Wealthy people would potentially put 2m per person per year or more, so 20k is definitely a limit for them.

T'is true they could still build up over time, however there are other (legal) methods of being tax efficient when talking about sums larger than 20k per year, so it is unlikely that anyone that wealthy would bother with ISAs.

Also, what do you mean by tax on earned and unearned narrowing? It's 45% for both at his level, so how can that narrow?

Thats definitely not correct on both fronts - ISA wrapping investments is a very common vehicle to avoid paying tax.

&

Sunak paid 20% on his almost 2m of unearned (investment) income, had that been PAYE, he'd have paid 45%.

Same on CGT on additional property, other than main residence or any other investment gain.

Thats the gap.

20% is the correct rate for capital gains on the type of gain he made. And it was 1.6m, not nearly 2m. Also, a capital gain it not investment income, it is when you sell something for more than you paid. Investment income would be taxed at 45%. Of course it could have been an investment he was selling, but he would have already paid tax on the dividend at the appropriate rate in that scenario.

It is not appropriate to compare that rate to PAYE as it wasn't the same type of income. And, per my previous point, if we don't like it, we should change the rules. He is paying everything that he should pay, and that you or I would pay in that situation.

I still don't get why you don't like ISAs. They are a very effective vehicle for minimising tax on a small amount of money. They are also available to you and me. Sure, very wealthy people use them, but as I said earlier, once you get into the realms that some of these people are, there are much better options, and the ISA gains, while useful, are small beer to them. My point is that there are other things that would have a much greater impact, while not removing them for the average saver.

I am sure people save and invest. But Bangladesh, along with other countries where corruption is endemic, tend not to get investment from outside, and there is not enough domestic product to generate the wealth for industrialisation.

What's wrong with that?

It's only 20K a year, per person

I mean for the middle of the road people

I understand what you're saying about Rishi and he won't be the only one.

Wealth generates money

Most would not consider 30k to be high earning. It won't get you far even in the city I live in, 100 miles from London.
People on a sink estate are not benefitting from policing in the way the rich are. And the rich benefit from the welfare given them. E.g. subsidising wages in their companies. They also benefit from the removal of exchange controls (exchange controls are one of the ways a country can make sure it's own infrastructure is owned by its nationals, and not outsourced - currently the UK owns almost none of its infrastructure or businesses so that the profits from them go elsewhere - this benefits the very rich who do not consider that they have a national base and so can take their money anywhere and choose where they have their income paid).
Also although the rich may spend large amounts on high-end products they are not spending much more than the rest of the population on day-to-day spending, and they can employ accountants to find all the ways one can avoid tax.
People claiming benefit are not getting any advantages from the tax they pay, which goes mainly to fund the things (diplomacy, armed forces abroad, exchange mechanisms, policing (more likely to be used against the poor than for them) and other services.

One could say it's a Vimes' boots problem. The rich can buy a pair of boots that will last ten years - they will have that benefit and they do not have to find more income to replace the boots, so they can save money. The poor buy cheap boots that might last a year, so at the end of the year they have to buy another pair. After ten years they have spent more than it cost the rich man to buy his boots, and they do not have a pair of boots. The rich man still has his boots and can now afford to repair them if needed.
This situation makes it much harder for the poor to save - they cannot use the economies of scale the rich benefit from.
As a fraction of their income, the poor pay more than the rich for the goods they have. This was first noted around 1900, when a study was made of the urban poor - it's called 'Roundabout a £1 a week'. One finding was that the poor paid more per square foot for accommodation than the very rich.

My understanding is that ISA funds are chosen so that they contribute to the economy's growth. That's why they're allowed to be tax free, you're helping the uk economy by investing in them instead of overseas investments. That's what I understood

For example ISAs often include govt bonds. It's a way of lending money to the treasury

Stocks and shares ISA's can be invested in any stock, anywhere, inc uk gilts but you certainly do not have too.

The previous Govt said that they were looking into a higher allowance of ISA if the investment was in the UK only.

Re PP - Thats how an investment will work, you re continually re investing profits, you then sell to realise these, CGT rates apply, hence why Sunak, for many years pays just 20%.

Same principal on a house etc etc.

This 100%

Cumulative. So you can remove income from taxation. That's what is wrong with it - if you think tax avoidance wrong.

You've already been taxed on it though so I have no problem with it

No, I don't think tax avoidance is wrong. Tax evasion is wrong, tax avoidance is not.

I think the point here is that it doesn't really matter what people think. What matters is the facts. 30k isn't a lot I agree, but it is the national average. That's why they proportionally pay so much less tax per my breakdown.

I would say people on a sink estate benefit from policing much more than wealthy people do. I doubt they are called to Brigadier Waff Waff Jones' establishment anywhere near as often as they are called to sink estates, so per call, the sink estates are getting much better value.

You are also conflating personal tax with business tax again when you say companies are being subsidised. I don't agree for two reasons.

1. Not all wealthy people have companies.
2. A job has a wage rate associated, so even if the first point was not true, and all wealthy people owned companies, if they tried to employ everyone on minimum wage, they would struggle for staff.

I think it's a bit late to worry about who owns what here (industries owned outside the UK), that ship has sailed long ago.

People claiming benefits get a huge advantage from the tax they pay, and also the tax other people pay. They get it in the form of benefits. Of course, it would be nice if they didn't need to, but that is one of the benefits (no pun intended) of living in a society like ours.

I think you have the maths skewed with the boots, as a pair such as you speak of costs way more than ten times the price. I can buy a pair of decent shoes for under £100, however to have bespoke shoes made would be north of £2500. I could buy 25 pairs of decent shoes for that much.

It sounds to me like you are actually unhappy that there are wealthy people. I don't know what there is to do about that. Sure, there are things that can be done to extract more from them, however they already pay a massive amount more. Things like VAT on private schooling is one thing that is happening to further tax the wealthy, however there are some less wealthy who are caught in the crossfire, so there is no perfect solution. Taxation is a very complicated issue.

My personal view is that, while our levels of tax are the highest they have been for decades, we still have low levels of tax compared to other countries. If we want the level of social services they have, we collectively need to pay more tax. All of us, not just the wealthy. Then we need a government who we trust to administer it properly. Fingers crossed, the current one will be better at that than the previous one. Early signs look good.

As it happens, I think tax avoidance is fine, too. I was just pointing out that many people think it is wrong and should not be allowed.

I don't object to the wealthy, but I object to the squeezed middle paying a great deal of tax, whilst those who run the planet - not the 1%, we are the 1%, but the 1% of the 1% - have produced globalization, which removes agency from elected governments and endows multi-national companies with greater wealth and power than those governments, but with no accountability for their actions except themselves. This presages a world in which people like you and me have no control over how our country works, what our country owns and the commodification of everything around us. Everything has a price and no value exists except that of the market.

Better scrap VAT then, already been taxed on my salary, don't want to be taxed again....

The only difference between evasion and avoidance is whatever rules the Government introduce or change.

At a time when the average worker cannot afford more taxation, we should look at ways to get people who already have substantial funds to pay more.

The total value of ISAs that can be held should be limited, keep the original aim (to encourage the smaller investor) but stop them being used by the wealthy for tax avoidance.

It really is the politics of envy...

How about we just make some cuts to government spending - e.g. DLA for kids with ADHD, PIP for people with anxiety and UC for the workshy?

Why is it always new taxes to fund the excessive government spending?

@Pollensa76

Yes I take your point😀

It’s not the politics of envy, it’s the politics of compassion. The way to fund it isn’t by robbing another disadvantaged group. Raising inheritance tax is my favourite, that will become more lucrative every year for the next 20 years.

We could cut funding for these groups but what would you expect them to live on?

Many people on these types of benefits have no skills an employer wants/they have no transport/have caring responsibilities.

I would tax unearned income more in line with earned income.

Not sure why you say politics of envy, this line is always trottered out by those on the right when they run out of argument.

@suburburban This isn't double taxation, any investment capital is never taxed again, its the growth that should be taxed, ISA's can be used (among other means) to avoid any taxation.

@BIossomtoes Not a fan of large changes in IHT, for many, albeit fortunate people, its the only way they can afford to ever retire or buy a property, yes inherited wealth but if you remove or limit inheritances, all you do is make life harder for many people whilst not addressing the housing or pensions crisis.

Would be good to remove the vehicles the v wealthy use to avoid any IHT, such as trusts but someone passing on a modest 2/3 bed to their kids? no.

@Pollensa76

Good, let it stay that way