If its all meaningless the richest few thousand in the country surely wont mind paying a 0.5% of that meaningless stuff each year?
I can't speak for them, but it's a massive economic fallacy, one worthy of Richard Murphy, to assume that notional wealth can simply be taxed (i.e. converted into real cash and grabbed by the government) without clobbering its value or triggering behaviour to take it out of reach. This of course is especially true of illiquid assets.
That's not to say that there's no scope for intelligently-designed taxes to raise more from the wealthy, but the idea that there are trillions lying around which the tax authorities in multiple countries have perversely failed to help themselves to is very naive.
Ten, fifteen years ago the landscape was very different. The richest 1% had fewer assets. It was more likely to be earnt than windfall gains from QE. And importantly on the other side of the equation most people who worked full time had a clear path where they could improve their lot. Financial controls and transparency are tighter now than they were then.
It is you being naive if you think it is sustainable for the richest 1% to see their wealth grow at double the rate of the rest of us, be exempt from targeted asset taxes and democracy to last. At least one of them will have to give.
Absolutely.
And I quite like democracy. So if it’s a choice between that and a wealth tax, I’m gonna plump for the latter.
And please don’t tell me wealth is hard to tax. It transmutes into physical assets, the most notable being housing.
We don’t really tax wealth in this country, we just expect the plebs to pick up the bill.
So it all comes back to a land value tax?
Why not be bold and put up a 5% value surcharge on non-primary residential property? That would raise a lot of money and fix the housing market. Also put up CGT on property investment to 45% with a non-transferable reduction to 28% for new builds. We could also make landlords liable for triple council tax for any property which has been empty for longer than 6 months and commercial landlords liable for quadruple rates for commercial premises that have been empty for longer than 6 months.
These are all revenue raising and would tilt both residential and commercial property back from asset owners to the people who actually use them.
How would anyone enforce a tripling of council tax for empty properties? Do we know exactly which properties are empty and which are not?
All good ideas though.
When the tenant leaves it reverts back to the owner, they then declare it empty so they don't have to pay. This gives them a 6 month countdown.
PPS - and might IoM play a major role in UK application to TTP, given that UK's Pacific link is Pitcairn Island, where many locals are of Manx heritage?
PS - never heard one!
PPS - really? Must be pretty distant by now for the 30 or so people.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
The problem I have with the LVT is that it's just a tax on London and the SE which results in our money further being spent somewhere else. I don't, in theory, have a problem with it, however, when we consider that there are 2m retired people with £50k+ in income that don't pay any NI, they get at least £9k per year in benefits and will be heavy users of the NHS and other services and a big chunk will also be private landlords.
If we're going to put up taxes then I'd suggest that any LVT should be net of any secured borrowing against the land/property.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
Wes Streeting is about to challenge SKS
I expect Rayner will join in once Streeting announces
Source?
Various sources say WS has been deleting tweets for a couple of days
Then Aaron Bastani @AaronBastani · 5h New: Sources tell me Labour’s Wes Streeting has raised over a £100k in recent weeks & has allegedly hired Adam McNicholas company to build/run a leadership campaign.
Nah anyone who was involved in student "politics" shouldn't be anywhere near real politics
That is his big weakness, having never worked outside of the political circuit. He'd have done better to have spent some time working in the real world.
Goodness with Wes as stalking horse, women MPs forced to stay away the prep for the Labour conference is all going swimmingly. Maybe they should all stay home and read the Thoughts of the Starm....
PPS - and might IoM play a major role in UK application to TTP, given that UK's Pacific link is Pitcairn Island, where many locals are of Manx heritage?
PS - never heard one!
PPS - really? Must be pretty distant by now for the 30 or so people.
Re: accent, you can hear some Manxers live on the link
Re: ancestry, note that Pitcairn Islands Council includes two members with surname Christian, while the House of Keys has one Christian (in this sense) who is running for re-election.
I was watching the Eng v NZ women's match on Sky Sports' YouTube channel, and with 1 run needed off 3 balls the live stream ended. How could they do that? But I noticed it happened at exactly 8pm so it must have been an automatic cut out. I assume it wasn't just me and was the same for everyone else watching that YouTube channel.
On topic, I like Angela Rayner because she's a redhead fellow learner of BSL.
That said, if she became leader I think some in the media and Tory social conservatism might go heavy on the fact that she became a grandmother at 37.
That might see her get a sympathy and make her opponents look a bit hypocritical given the number of times Boris Johnson has sired issue.
Based on past comments about her on here I think its more likely they'd snobbily go after her lack of educational qualifications, albeit the two are connected.
I'm old enough to remember when @HYUFD claimed she was wasn't intelligent enough to become PM
Yes but from the PB'er who long touted JRM as next Tory Leader and Farage as next PM, such predictions are far from conclusive
I'm typing this on my (still perfectly functioning) 10 year old Macbook Air.
In the previous 10 years I'd had to jettision three Windows PCs because they becmae totally unworkable due to uninvited junk and unrunnable OS upgrades.
That, plus the simple interconnectivity of my Macbook, iMac, iPads, and iPhone, are the reasons I'm an Apple fan.
Sinister tinge to the interconnectivity point: you will read any amount of accounts on mumsnet.com of wives being screwed over by husbands (mainly that way round) who were reading all the wife's iPhone messages on a connected ipad. I know of one really serious case in real life.
I do recall one prolific male poster on this site, to whom that very issue (but the other way around, with her reading his messages), contributed to his divorce.
Did LadyG find out what Byronic was up to?
Way more prolific than those two.
I also discovered that text messages deleted from your iPhone remain on your Apple Watch.
You have to delete the message on your watch as well.
Or alternatively, let your spouse borrow your phone. There shouldn't be anything to hide*.
* apart from a crush on the deputy leader of the Labour Party, perhaps 😆
Only this week I let my girlfriend use my laptop.
I haven't been that scared since my last plane journey with extreme turbulence.
Show her how much you love her, by creating her own account on your laptop…
And remember, the sole purpose of the incognito or private mode in the browser is so you can search for her anniversary present without her knowing. The SOLE purpose, do you hear me?
Goodness with Wes as stalking horse, women MPs forced to stay away the prep for the Labour conference is all going swimmingly. Maybe they should all stay home and read the Thoughts of the Starm....
.... helpfully placed in a , not so little, Grey book?
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
PPS - and might IoM play a major role in UK application to TTP, given that UK's Pacific link is Pitcairn Island, where many locals are of Manx heritage?
The accent is said to be similar to Liverpool although not as strong.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
PPS - and might IoM play a major role in UK application to TTP, given that UK's Pacific link is Pitcairn Island, where many locals are of Manx heritage?
I remember an ill fated Manxman at my Medical School who took the Rugby Club on tour of his island. They all got deported when the Rugby Club decided to take the 3 legged sign that they saw as a souvenir. Unfortunately it was on their parliament...
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
To be fair to Labour, the last election with an actual socialist in charge didn't go very well. Which way were they supposed to go after 2019?
Starmer is a crap writer. But there is a but, IMO. That pamphlet is clearly signalling where he wants to take Labour's focus from here until the election: away from what matters most to party members and towards the primary concerns of regular voters.
He has identified those concerns as being insecurity - in the workplace, in housing, on the streets, in the environment, etc; and inequality - the opportunities that were once available to someone with his background are no longer there. Those, I think, are the basis for a strong message and for a set of coherent policies.
The message is this government has failed to deliver the security that people want and need; and it has failed to tackle the deep-seated inequalities that have developed in the UK over the last 30 years. The policies will be all about how Labour will change that.
Did this require 14,000 words? Probably not. Is it the beginnings of something that could resonate? I think it could be. Is Starmer capable of delivering? Increasingly, that looks unlikely. But I don't think the Labour party is currently capable of allowing anyone to.
I would very much like to be wrong.
He's a worse speaker
He wants security in jobs, yet was one of the biggest cheerleadersfor the policy that undermined traditional Labour voters jobs - Freedom of Movement. When they voted for it to stop, he spent three years trying to ignore or overturn the vote, which drove them to the Tories
He wants working class kids to have the same opportunities he had - Do they get a shot at going to a Grammar School as he did? Or to a Private School, possibly paid for by the state if it wasn't his parents, as he did?
I'd take the Wes Streeting rumours with a pinch of salt, and not waste money on them. If he was going to challenge anybody, it would have been Corbyn a few years ago. He's on the right of the party and is happy with Starmer's direction of travel. Even if he challenged, he'd have no chance under current election rules. Jess Phillips' praiseworthy tweet mentioned above was simply in reference to an article on Wes in The Times.
He may be one for the future, though. Bright as a button, quite charismatic, gay. Maybe in 10 years' time, but not now.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
To be fair to Labour, the last election with an actual socialist in charge didn't go very well. Which way were they supposed to go after 2019?
An actual socialist who had stupid ideas and also didn't actually address any of these issues but instead said he would raise £100bn from people earning £80k+. We have the government, the Tory party, saying that they're putting up taxes but are going to feather the beds of their client vote. Where is Labour with their tax plan to say "everyone pays" or "those with the most property/assets will pay the most" it's not even very difficult and will get IMO, a lot of support if it's done right.
Goodness with Wes as stalking horse, women MPs forced to stay away the prep for the Labour conference is all going swimmingly. Maybe they should all stay home and read the Thoughts of the Starm....
Sometimes you're reasonable, other times you're just unreasonably partisan, No woman (let alone women) has been forced to stay away from Conference. Wes is not a stalking horse. Apart from that, spot on.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
To be fair to Labour, the last election with an actual socialist in charge didn't go very well. Which way were they supposed to go after 2019?
Again as with many you are seeing this as a left vs right issue. It really needn't be.
I am not suggesting taxing the elite because I dont like people being rich. I am suggesting taxing the elite because they have made trillions of windfall gains directly because of government policies at the same time as working people on median incomes and below have really struggled.
It is not about wanting socialism but wanting fairness. This policy will attract many across the political spectrum who have no time for socialist policies in general.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
Labour aren't in power. They may well do as you wish when they are. But they certainly aren't going to announce such policies in advance of an election campaign, and maybe not even then. But the direction of travel will be taxing wealth/assets/property more, and income (of the low/average paid) less. Looking forward to your vote in 2023/24.
I'd take the Wes Streeting rumours with a pinch of salt, and not waste money on them. If he was going to challenge anybody, it would have been Corbyn a few years ago. He's on the right of the party and is happy with Starmer's direction of travel. Even if he challenged, he'd have no chance under current election rules. Jess Phillips' praiseworthy tweet mentioned above was simply in reference to an article on Wes in The Times.
He may be one for the future, though. Bright as a button, quite charismatic, gay. Maybe in 10 years' time, but not now.
In other words, he may well be the next Labour leader to win a general election.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
To be fair to Labour, the last election with an actual socialist in charge didn't go very well. Which way were they supposed to go after 2019?
An actual socialist who had stupid ideas and also didn't actually address any of these issues but instead said he would raise £100bn from people earning £80k+. We have the government, the Tory party, saying that they're putting up taxes but are going to feather the beds of their client vote. Where is Labour with their tax plan to say "everyone pays" or "those with the most property/assets will pay the most" it's not even very difficult and will get IMO, a lot of support if it's done right.
It will not get the support that matters.
The 50+ property owning plurality are spread well enough around the country that with FPTP you need to be wining a good percentage of them for a majority government of English/Welsh MPs.
People overlook that the oldies in red wall seats swung the North towards Johnson. The working younglings voted Corbyn.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
To be fair to Labour, the last election with an actual socialist in charge didn't go very well. Which way were they supposed to go after 2019?
Again as with many you are seeing this as a left vs right issue. It really needn't be.
I am not suggesting taxing the elite because I dont like people being rich. I am suggesting taxing the elite because they have made trillions of windfall gains directly because of government policies at the same time as working people on median incomes and below have really struggled.
It is not about wanting socialism but wanting fairness. This policy will attract many across the political spectrum who have no time for socialist policies in general.
As an additional rate tax payer, if someone said the higher rate is going up to 43% and additional rate to 48% I'd actually probably live with it because everyone pays it then. My issue is that the way try government is implementing tax rises is to exempt its client voters from any tax rises and lump it all on workers. It's time for Labour to attack that client vote and show it's on the side of workers. It's the "Labour" party. Fucking act like one.
PPS - and might IoM play a major role in UK application to TTP, given that UK's Pacific link is Pitcairn Island, where many locals are of Manx heritage?
I remember an ill fated Manxman at my Medical School who took the Rugby Club on tour of his island. They all got deported when the Rugby Club decided to take the 3 legged sign that they saw as a souvenir. Unfortunately it was on their parliament...
Coolest thing about them is, their judges are called Deemsters. I think that has a real Dredd vibe about it.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
Labour aren't in power. They may well do as you wish when they are. But they certainly aren't going to announce such policies in advance of an election campaign, and maybe not even then. But the direction of travel will be taxing wealth/assets/property more, and income (of the low/average paid) less. Looking forward to your vote in 2023/24.
And this is why Labour are buggered, they stand for nothing. No one knows what they are for, hence my irritation with the 14,000 words of nonsense. I tried to read it, it's just so dull. I understand I'm not the intended audience, however, it's still just such a load of boring nothingness. Platitude after platitude.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
To be fair to Labour, the last election with an actual socialist in charge didn't go very well. Which way were they supposed to go after 2019?
An actual socialist who had stupid ideas and also didn't actually address any of these issues but instead said he would raise £100bn from people earning £80k+. We have the government, the Tory party, saying that they're putting up taxes but are going to feather the beds of their client vote. Where is Labour with their tax plan to say "everyone pays" or "those with the most property/assets will pay the most" it's not even very difficult and will get IMO, a lot of support if it's done right.
It will not get the support that matters.
The 50+ property owning plurality are spread well enough around the country that with FPTP you need to be wining a good percentage of them for a majority government of English/Welsh MPs.
People overlook that the oldies in red wall seats swung the North towards Boris. The working younglings voted Corbyn.
Which group is more winnable for Labour? Retired, brexiteers from the North and Midlands who don't like woke Londoners or younger centre right workers across the country who are being hit by new taxes?
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
Labour aren't in power. They may well do as you wish when they are. But they certainly aren't going to announce such policies in advance of an election campaign, and maybe not even then. But the direction of travel will be taxing wealth/assets/property more, and income (of the low/average paid) less. Looking forward to your vote in 2023/24.
I wouldnt be entirely surprised if the Tories nab the wealth tax first. Not announcing a popular policy can be a mistake.
PPS - and might IoM play a major role in UK application to TTP, given that UK's Pacific link is Pitcairn Island, where many locals are of Manx heritage?
I remember an ill fated Manxman at my Medical School who took the Rugby Club on tour of his island. They all got deported when the Rugby Club decided to take the 3 legged sign that they saw as a souvenir. Unfortunately it was on their parliament...
Coolest thing about them is, their judges are called Deemsters. I think that has a real Dredd vibe about it.
Deem stems from the same word as doom. Doomsday derives its apocalyptic mean from the sense of judgement day. So, more Terminator than Dredd...
If its all meaningless the richest few thousand in the country surely wont mind paying a 0.5% of that meaningless stuff each year?
I can't speak for them, but it's a massive economic fallacy, one worthy of Richard Murphy, to assume that notional wealth can simply be taxed (i.e. converted into real cash and grabbed by the government) without clobbering its value or triggering behaviour to take it out of reach. This of course is especially true of illiquid assets.
That's not to say that there's no scope for intelligently-designed taxes to raise more from the wealthy, but the idea that there are trillions lying around which the tax authorities in multiple countries have perversely failed to help themselves to is very naive.
Ten, fifteen years ago the landscape was very different. The richest 1% had fewer assets. It was more likely to be earnt than windfall gains from QE. And importantly on the other side of the equation most people who worked full time had a clear path where they could improve their lot. Financial controls and transparency are tighter now than they were then.
It is you being naive if you think it is sustainable for the richest 1% to see their wealth grow at double the rate of the rest of us, be exempt from targeted asset taxes and democracy to last. At least one of them will have to give.
Absolutely.
And I quite like democracy. So if it’s a choice between that and a wealth tax, I’m gonna plump for the latter.
And please don’t tell me wealth is hard to tax. It transmutes into physical assets, the most notable being housing.
We don’t really tax wealth in this country, we just expect the plebs to pick up the bill.
So it all comes back to a land value tax?
Why not be bold and put up a 5% value surcharge on non-primary residential property? That would raise a lot of money and fix the housing market. Also put up CGT on property investment to 45% with a non-transferable reduction to 28% for new builds. We could also make landlords liable for triple council tax for any property which has been empty for longer than 6 months and commercial landlords liable for quadruple rates for commercial premises that have been empty for longer than 6 months.
These are all revenue raising and would tilt both residential and commercial property back from asset owners to the people who actually use them.
How would anyone enforce a tripling of council tax for empty properties? Do we know exactly which properties are empty and which are not?
All good ideas though.
When the tenant leaves it reverts back to the owner, they then declare it empty so they don't have to pay. This gives them a 6 month countdown.
That seems complicated. How's this as a solution:
The owner of all properties become liable for their Council Tax. Everyone is permitted to name a single home as their own primary residence which is taxed normally, every other home they own (and all homes for companies that own properties) has the Council Tax doubled.
People and companies owning other people's home is a negative externality, it should be taxed accordingly.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
Labour aren't in power. They may well do as you wish when they are. But they certainly aren't going to announce such policies in advance of an election campaign, and maybe not even then. But the direction of travel will be taxing wealth/assets/property more, and income (of the low/average paid) less. Looking forward to your vote in 2023/24.
They don’t need concrete policies. They need to signal two essential things.
1. That the pandemic costs were temporary and that’s what the national debt is for (and interest rates have never been cheaper).
2. That to the extent more income is needed, Labour will look to “wealth, before income”.
They should actually signal they believe in a TAX CUT for ordinary workers. Imagine!
If its all meaningless the richest few thousand in the country surely wont mind paying a 0.5% of that meaningless stuff each year?
I can't speak for them, but it's a massive economic fallacy, one worthy of Richard Murphy, to assume that notional wealth can simply be taxed (i.e. converted into real cash and grabbed by the government) without clobbering its value or triggering behaviour to take it out of reach. This of course is especially true of illiquid assets.
That's not to say that there's no scope for intelligently-designed taxes to raise more from the wealthy, but the idea that there are trillions lying around which the tax authorities in multiple countries have perversely failed to help themselves to is very naive.
Ten, fifteen years ago the landscape was very different. The richest 1% had fewer assets. It was more likely to be earnt than windfall gains from QE. And importantly on the other side of the equation most people who worked full time had a clear path where they could improve their lot. Financial controls and transparency are tighter now than they were then.
It is you being naive if you think it is sustainable for the richest 1% to see their wealth grow at double the rate of the rest of us, be exempt from targeted asset taxes and democracy to last. At least one of them will have to give.
Absolutely.
And I quite like democracy. So if it’s a choice between that and a wealth tax, I’m gonna plump for the latter.
And please don’t tell me wealth is hard to tax. It transmutes into physical assets, the most notable being housing.
We don’t really tax wealth in this country, we just expect the plebs to pick up the bill.
So it all comes back to a land value tax?
Why not be bold and put up a 5% value surcharge on non-primary residential property? That would raise a lot of money and fix the housing market. Also put up CGT on property investment to 45% with a non-transferable reduction to 28% for new builds. We could also make landlords liable for triple council tax for any property which has been empty for longer than 6 months and commercial landlords liable for quadruple rates for commercial premises that have been empty for longer than 6 months.
These are all revenue raising and would tilt both residential and commercial property back from asset owners to the people who actually use them.
How would anyone enforce a tripling of council tax for empty properties? Do we know exactly which properties are empty and which are not?
All good ideas though.
When the tenant leaves it reverts back to the owner, they then declare it empty so they don't have to pay. This gives them a 6 month countdown.
That seems complicated. How's this as a solution:
The owner of all properties become liable for their Council Tax. Everyone is permitted to name a single home as their own primary residence which is taxed normally, every other home they own (and all homes for companies that own properties) has the Council Tax doubled.
People and companies owning other people's home is a negative externality, it should be taxed accordingly.
Too simple. There must be a way to devise a more convoluted scheme that is harder for people to understand.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
To be fair to Labour, the last election with an actual socialist in charge didn't go very well. Which way were they supposed to go after 2019?
An actual socialist who had stupid ideas and also didn't actually address any of these issues but instead said he would raise £100bn from people earning £80k+. We have the government, the Tory party, saying that they're putting up taxes but are going to feather the beds of their client vote. Where is Labour with their tax plan to say "everyone pays" or "those with the most property/assets will pay the most" it's not even very difficult and will get IMO, a lot of support if it's done right.
It will not get the support that matters.
The 50+ property owning plurality are spread well enough around the country that with FPTP you need to be wining a good percentage of them for a majority government of English/Welsh MPs.
People overlook that the oldies in red wall seats swung the North towards Boris. The working younglings voted Corbyn.
Which group is more winnable for Labour? Retired, brexiteers from the North and Midlands who don't like woke Londoners or younger centre right workers across the country who are being hit by new taxes?
Because there will be no wealth tax with a Conservative government. For Labour to win a majority they need a good wedge of the Boomer vote and the v-unfavourable demographics won't be changing for twenty plus years.
FWIW I think Labours only hope is an appeal to fairness, its one of our most base emotions and could cut through CCHQ's Topham Guerin Boomer memes.
Just had confirmation that my iPhone 13 Pro Max 1TB is going to be delivered tomorrow.
Oh happy days.
I'll give you £100 for your iPhone 12 Pro Max. Final offer.
A 1TB phone memory just makes me blink in quiet incredulity. I clearly remember early PCs with 32K of memory.
Technically, you are comparing storage as that is what this iPhone has 1TB of. The iPhone 13 has 6GB of memory. Many early computers had 0 quick-access storage. Every time you turned them on they were completely reset. You would have to load programs (slowly) off tape, or if you were lucky, floppy disk.
Having said that, I have no idea how people can use 1TB of storage on a phone. A tablet I can understand if you use it to create/edit content. My phone has 64GB which is more than enough for my needs. Particularly as pretty much all content is streamed these days with little need to store it permanently on the device.
If its all meaningless the richest few thousand in the country surely wont mind paying a 0.5% of that meaningless stuff each year?
I can't speak for them, but it's a massive economic fallacy, one worthy of Richard Murphy, to assume that notional wealth can simply be taxed (i.e. converted into real cash and grabbed by the government) without clobbering its value or triggering behaviour to take it out of reach. This of course is especially true of illiquid assets.
That's not to say that there's no scope for intelligently-designed taxes to raise more from the wealthy, but the idea that there are trillions lying around which the tax authorities in multiple countries have perversely failed to help themselves to is very naive.
Ten, fifteen years ago the landscape was very different. The richest 1% had fewer assets. It was more likely to be earnt than windfall gains from QE. And importantly on the other side of the equation most people who worked full time had a clear path where they could improve their lot. Financial controls and transparency are tighter now than they were then.
It is you being naive if you think it is sustainable for the richest 1% to see their wealth grow at double the rate of the rest of us, be exempt from targeted asset taxes and democracy to last. At least one of them will have to give.
Absolutely.
And I quite like democracy. So if it’s a choice between that and a wealth tax, I’m gonna plump for the latter.
And please don’t tell me wealth is hard to tax. It transmutes into physical assets, the most notable being housing.
We don’t really tax wealth in this country, we just expect the plebs to pick up the bill.
So it all comes back to a land value tax?
Why not be bold and put up a 5% value surcharge on non-primary residential property? That would raise a lot of money and fix the housing market. Also put up CGT on property investment to 45% with a non-transferable reduction to 28% for new builds. We could also make landlords liable for triple council tax for any property which has been empty for longer than 6 months and commercial landlords liable for quadruple rates for commercial premises that have been empty for longer than 6 months.
These are all revenue raising and would tilt both residential and commercial property back from asset owners to the people who actually use them.
How would anyone enforce a tripling of council tax for empty properties? Do we know exactly which properties are empty and which are not?
All good ideas though.
When the tenant leaves it reverts back to the owner, they then declare it empty so they don't have to pay. This gives them a 6 month countdown.
That seems complicated. How's this as a solution:
The owner of all properties become liable for their Council Tax. Everyone is permitted to name a single home as their own primary residence which is taxed normally, every other home they own (and all homes for companies that own properties) has the Council Tax doubled.
People and companies owning other people's home is a negative externality, it should be taxed accordingly.
So wouldn't second home owning couples have one of the couple resident in each property?
Just have a tax of 1% on the value of each property per year, and get rid of banding.
If its all meaningless the richest few thousand in the country surely wont mind paying a 0.5% of that meaningless stuff each year?
I can't speak for them, but it's a massive economic fallacy, one worthy of Richard Murphy, to assume that notional wealth can simply be taxed (i.e. converted into real cash and grabbed by the government) without clobbering its value or triggering behaviour to take it out of reach. This of course is especially true of illiquid assets.
That's not to say that there's no scope for intelligently-designed taxes to raise more from the wealthy, but the idea that there are trillions lying around which the tax authorities in multiple countries have perversely failed to help themselves to is very naive.
Ten, fifteen years ago the landscape was very different. The richest 1% had fewer assets. It was more likely to be earnt than windfall gains from QE. And importantly on the other side of the equation most people who worked full time had a clear path where they could improve their lot. Financial controls and transparency are tighter now than they were then.
It is you being naive if you think it is sustainable for the richest 1% to see their wealth grow at double the rate of the rest of us, be exempt from targeted asset taxes and democracy to last. At least one of them will have to give.
Absolutely.
And I quite like democracy. So if it’s a choice between that and a wealth tax, I’m gonna plump for the latter.
And please don’t tell me wealth is hard to tax. It transmutes into physical assets, the most notable being housing.
We don’t really tax wealth in this country, we just expect the plebs to pick up the bill.
So it all comes back to a land value tax?
Why not be bold and put up a 5% value surcharge on non-primary residential property? That would raise a lot of money and fix the housing market. Also put up CGT on property investment to 45% with a non-transferable reduction to 28% for new builds. We could also make landlords liable for triple council tax for any property which has been empty for longer than 6 months and commercial landlords liable for quadruple rates for commercial premises that have been empty for longer than 6 months.
These are all revenue raising and would tilt both residential and commercial property back from asset owners to the people who actually use them.
How would anyone enforce a tripling of council tax for empty properties? Do we know exactly which properties are empty and which are not?
All good ideas though.
When the tenant leaves it reverts back to the owner, they then declare it empty so they don't have to pay. This gives them a 6 month countdown.
That seems complicated. How's this as a solution:
The owner of all properties become liable for their Council Tax. Everyone is permitted to name a single home as their own primary residence which is taxed normally, every other home they own (and all homes for companies that own properties) has the Council Tax doubled.
People and companies owning other people's home is a negative externality, it should be taxed accordingly.
That has the added benefit of being a massive boon to renters. If the landlord goes bankrupt, someone else will buy it.
Just had confirmation that my iPhone 13 Pro Max 1TB is going to be delivered tomorrow.
Oh happy days.
I'll give you £100 for your iPhone 12 Pro Max. Final offer.
A 1TB phone memory just makes me blink in quiet incredulity. I clearly remember early PCs with 32K of memory.
Technically, you are comparing storage as that is what this iPhone has 1TB of. The iPhone 13 has 6GB of memory. Many early computers had 0 quick-access storage. Every time you turned them on they were completely reset. You would have to load programs (slowly) off tape, or if you were lucky, floppy disk.
Having said that, I have no idea how people can use 1TB of storage on a phone. A tablet I can understand if you use it to create/edit content. My phone has 64GB which is more than enough for my needs. Particularly as pretty much all content is streamed these days with little need to store it permanently on the device.
The iPhones come with a camera that can record video in 4K at 60fps.
If its all meaningless the richest few thousand in the country surely wont mind paying a 0.5% of that meaningless stuff each year?
I can't speak for them, but it's a massive economic fallacy, one worthy of Richard Murphy, to assume that notional wealth can simply be taxed (i.e. converted into real cash and grabbed by the government) without clobbering its value or triggering behaviour to take it out of reach. This of course is especially true of illiquid assets.
That's not to say that there's no scope for intelligently-designed taxes to raise more from the wealthy, but the idea that there are trillions lying around which the tax authorities in multiple countries have perversely failed to help themselves to is very naive.
Ten, fifteen years ago the landscape was very different. The richest 1% had fewer assets. It was more likely to be earnt than windfall gains from QE. And importantly on the other side of the equation most people who worked full time had a clear path where they could improve their lot. Financial controls and transparency are tighter now than they were then.
It is you being naive if you think it is sustainable for the richest 1% to see their wealth grow at double the rate of the rest of us, be exempt from targeted asset taxes and democracy to last. At least one of them will have to give.
Absolutely.
And I quite like democracy. So if it’s a choice between that and a wealth tax, I’m gonna plump for the latter.
And please don’t tell me wealth is hard to tax. It transmutes into physical assets, the most notable being housing.
We don’t really tax wealth in this country, we just expect the plebs to pick up the bill.
So it all comes back to a land value tax?
Why not be bold and put up a 5% value surcharge on non-primary residential property? That would raise a lot of money and fix the housing market. Also put up CGT on property investment to 45% with a non-transferable reduction to 28% for new builds. We could also make landlords liable for triple council tax for any property which has been empty for longer than 6 months and commercial landlords liable for quadruple rates for commercial premises that have been empty for longer than 6 months.
These are all revenue raising and would tilt both residential and commercial property back from asset owners to the people who actually use them.
How would anyone enforce a tripling of council tax for empty properties? Do we know exactly which properties are empty and which are not?
All good ideas though.
When the tenant leaves it reverts back to the owner, they then declare it empty so they don't have to pay. This gives them a 6 month countdown.
That seems complicated. How's this as a solution:
The owner of all properties become liable for their Council Tax. Everyone is permitted to name a single home as their own primary residence which is taxed normally, every other home they own (and all homes for companies that own properties) has the Council Tax doubled.
People and companies owning other people's home is a negative externality, it should be taxed accordingly.
It is not a negative externality. That's an expression you have picked up from people trying to explain the realities of planning laws to you, and you haven't understood but thought you would give it a outing. Externalities are physical effects.
If its all meaningless the richest few thousand in the country surely wont mind paying a 0.5% of that meaningless stuff each year?
I can't speak for them, but it's a massive economic fallacy, one worthy of Richard Murphy, to assume that notional wealth can simply be taxed (i.e. converted into real cash and grabbed by the government) without clobbering its value or triggering behaviour to take it out of reach. This of course is especially true of illiquid assets.
That's not to say that there's no scope for intelligently-designed taxes to raise more from the wealthy, but the idea that there are trillions lying around which the tax authorities in multiple countries have perversely failed to help themselves to is very naive.
Ten, fifteen years ago the landscape was very different. The richest 1% had fewer assets. It was more likely to be earnt than windfall gains from QE. And importantly on the other side of the equation most people who worked full time had a clear path where they could improve their lot. Financial controls and transparency are tighter now than they were then.
It is you being naive if you think it is sustainable for the richest 1% to see their wealth grow at double the rate of the rest of us, be exempt from targeted asset taxes and democracy to last. At least one of them will have to give.
Absolutely.
And I quite like democracy. So if it’s a choice between that and a wealth tax, I’m gonna plump for the latter.
And please don’t tell me wealth is hard to tax. It transmutes into physical assets, the most notable being housing.
We don’t really tax wealth in this country, we just expect the plebs to pick up the bill.
So it all comes back to a land value tax?
Why not be bold and put up a 5% value surcharge on non-primary residential property? That would raise a lot of money and fix the housing market. Also put up CGT on property investment to 45% with a non-transferable reduction to 28% for new builds. We could also make landlords liable for triple council tax for any property which has been empty for longer than 6 months and commercial landlords liable for quadruple rates for commercial premises that have been empty for longer than 6 months.
These are all revenue raising and would tilt both residential and commercial property back from asset owners to the people who actually use them.
How would anyone enforce a tripling of council tax for empty properties? Do we know exactly which properties are empty and which are not?
All good ideas though.
When the tenant leaves it reverts back to the owner, they then declare it empty so they don't have to pay. This gives them a 6 month countdown.
That seems complicated. How's this as a solution:
The owner of all properties become liable for their Council Tax. Everyone is permitted to name a single home as their own primary residence which is taxed normally, every other home they own (and all homes for companies that own properties) has the Council Tax doubled.
People and companies owning other people's home is a negative externality, it should be taxed accordingly.
Umm, I think you need to revise the meaning of externality.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
Labour aren't in power. They may well do as you wish when they are. But they certainly aren't going to announce such policies in advance of an election campaign, and maybe not even then. But the direction of travel will be taxing wealth/assets/property more, and income (of the low/average paid) less. Looking forward to your vote in 2023/24.
I wouldnt be entirely surprised if the Tories nab the wealth tax first. Not announcing a popular policy can be a mistake.
Yes. it's hard to know what's best.
But some of us have been around long enough to know exactly what happens when Labour announces that it is going to tax wealth. The Tories and their friends in the media will instantly tell us about a 'brain drain', we'll lose our best talent, nobody will want to invest in UK PLC any more, the stock market will collapse if Labour wins, the housing market will collapse, and so on and so on. None of this is true, but people believe it, and it's damaged Labour so much in the past that there's an understandable tendency to be cautious.
Exit poll projects number of incumbents losing their seats, and record number of women elected, including incumbent Claire Christian in Douglas South constituency
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
Labour aren't in power. They may well do as you wish when they are. But they certainly aren't going to announce such policies in advance of an election campaign, and maybe not even then. But the direction of travel will be taxing wealth/assets/property more, and income (of the low/average paid) less. Looking forward to your vote in 2023/24.
I wouldnt be entirely surprised if the Tories nab the wealth tax first. Not announcing a popular policy can be a mistake.
Yes. it's hard to know what's best.
But some of us have been around long enough to know exactly what happens when Labour announces that it is going to tax wealth. The Tories and their friends in the media will instantly tell us about a 'brain drain', we'll lose our best talent, nobody will want to invest in UK PLC any more, the stock market will collapse if Labour wins, the housing market will collapse, and so on and so on. None of this is true, but people believe it, and it's damaged Labour so much in the past that there's an understandable tendency to be cautious.
Max and me are leaving the country. RCS has gone. Leon is never in it anyway, if he can help it.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
Labour aren't in power. They may well do as you wish when they are. But they certainly aren't going to announce such policies in advance of an election campaign, and maybe not even then. But the direction of travel will be taxing wealth/assets/property more, and income (of the low/average paid) less. Looking forward to your vote in 2023/24.
I wouldnt be entirely surprised if the Tories nab the wealth tax first. Not announcing a popular policy can be a mistake.
Yes. it's hard to know what's best.
But some of us have been around long enough to know exactly what happens when Labour announces that it is going to tax wealth. The Tories and their friends in the media will instantly tell us about a 'brain drain', we'll lose our best talent, nobody will want to invest in UK PLC any more, the stock market will collapse if Labour wins, the housing market will collapse, and so on and so on. None of this is true, but people believe it, and it's damaged Labour so much in the past that there's an understandable tendency to be cautious.
Afaik Labour have never proposed a wealth tax of the kind I am suggesting, something similar to the Warren wealth tax in the US. Taxing income on the richest 10-20% is completely different electorally and economically to taxing the wealth of the richest 1% or less.
Just had confirmation that my iPhone 13 Pro Max 1TB is going to be delivered tomorrow.
Oh happy days.
I'll give you £100 for your iPhone 12 Pro Max. Final offer.
A 1TB phone memory just makes me blink in quiet incredulity. I clearly remember early PCs with 32K of memory.
Technically, you are comparing storage as that is what this iPhone has 1TB of. The iPhone 13 has 6GB of memory. Many early computers had 0 quick-access storage. Every time you turned them on they were completely reset. You would have to load programs (slowly) off tape, or if you were lucky, floppy disk.
Having said that, I have no idea how people can use 1TB of storage on a phone. A tablet I can understand if you use it to create/edit content. My phone has 64GB which is more than enough for my needs. Particularly as pretty much all content is streamed these days with little need to store it permanently on the device.
The iPhones come with a camera that can record video in 4K at 60fps.
That can take up a lot of memory.
Surely the content which needs that is likely to be sports related and a GoPro would be a better choice? Especially given their extra resilience. I struggle to see the need most people have to record 4K 60fps of their cat or kids at the park.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
The smart thing for Labour to do (to outflank the Tories) would be to do that *and* decrease the tax burden on working people at the same time. Say, a cut back of the NI rate down to 10% again, a reduction in student loans, and an increase in tax thresholds with a far smoother withdrawal rate of benefits for very low earners. It would talk to all parts of its base and potentially capture soft Tories.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
The smart thing for Labour to do (to outflank the Tories) would be to do that *and* decrease the tax burden on working people at the same time. Say, a cut back of the NI rate down to 10% again, a reduction in student loans, and an increase in tax thresholds with a far smoother withdrawal rate of benefits for very low earners. It would talk to all parts of its base and potentially capture soft Tories.
Blair would do it.
I said that already.
Working people already face:
Taxes that are too high House prices that are unaffordable Childcare costs that are punitive
No wonder economic performance has been so poor compared to other decades.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
Labour aren't in power. They may well do as you wish when they are. But they certainly aren't going to announce such policies in advance of an election campaign, and maybe not even then. But the direction of travel will be taxing wealth/assets/property more, and income (of the low/average paid) less. Looking forward to your vote in 2023/24.
I wouldnt be entirely surprised if the Tories nab the wealth tax first. Not announcing a popular policy can be a mistake.
Yes. it's hard to know what's best.
But some of us have been around long enough to know exactly what happens when Labour announces that it is going to tax wealth. The Tories and their friends in the media will instantly tell us about a 'brain drain', we'll lose our best talent, nobody will want to invest in UK PLC any more, the stock market will collapse if Labour wins, the housing market will collapse, and so on and so on. None of this is true, but people believe it, and it's damaged Labour so much in the past that there's an understandable tendency to be cautious.
Max and me are leaving the country. RCS has gone. Leon is never in it anyway, if he can help it.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
Labour aren't in power. They may well do as you wish when they are. But they certainly aren't going to announce such policies in advance of an election campaign, and maybe not even then. But the direction of travel will be taxing wealth/assets/property more, and income (of the low/average paid) less. Looking forward to your vote in 2023/24.
I wouldnt be entirely surprised if the Tories nab the wealth tax first. Not announcing a popular policy can be a mistake.
Yes. it's hard to know what's best.
But some of us have been around long enough to know exactly what happens when Labour announces that it is going to tax wealth. The Tories and their friends in the media will instantly tell us about a 'brain drain', we'll lose our best talent, nobody will want to invest in UK PLC any more, the stock market will collapse if Labour wins, the housing market will collapse, and so on and so on. None of this is true, but people believe it, and it's damaged Labour so much in the past that there's an understandable tendency to be cautious.
Max and me are leaving the country. RCS has gone. Leon is never in it anyway, if he can help it.
Brain drain already happened.
Tbf, we're moving to my wife's home country and that's related to our decision to start a family. We both feel that Switzerland is a better place for that and we've got the option to do it.
If its all meaningless the richest few thousand in the country surely wont mind paying a 0.5% of that meaningless stuff each year?
I can't speak for them, but it's a massive economic fallacy, one worthy of Richard Murphy, to assume that notional wealth can simply be taxed (i.e. converted into real cash and grabbed by the government) without clobbering its value or triggering behaviour to take it out of reach. This of course is especially true of illiquid assets.
That's not to say that there's no scope for intelligently-designed taxes to raise more from the wealthy, but the idea that there are trillions lying around which the tax authorities in multiple countries have perversely failed to help themselves to is very naive.
Ten, fifteen years ago the landscape was very different. The richest 1% had fewer assets. It was more likely to be earnt than windfall gains from QE. And importantly on the other side of the equation most people who worked full time had a clear path where they could improve their lot. Financial controls and transparency are tighter now than they were then.
It is you being naive if you think it is sustainable for the richest 1% to see their wealth grow at double the rate of the rest of us, be exempt from targeted asset taxes and democracy to last. At least one of them will have to give.
Absolutely.
And I quite like democracy. So if it’s a choice between that and a wealth tax, I’m gonna plump for the latter.
And please don’t tell me wealth is hard to tax. It transmutes into physical assets, the most notable being housing.
We don’t really tax wealth in this country, we just expect the plebs to pick up the bill.
So it all comes back to a land value tax?
Why not be bold and put up a 5% value surcharge on non-primary residential property? That would raise a lot of money and fix the housing market. Also put up CGT on property investment to 45% with a non-transferable reduction to 28% for new builds. We could also make landlords liable for triple council tax for any property which has been empty for longer than 6 months and commercial landlords liable for quadruple rates for commercial premises that have been empty for longer than 6 months.
These are all revenue raising and would tilt both residential and commercial property back from asset owners to the people who actually use them.
How would anyone enforce a tripling of council tax for empty properties? Do we know exactly which properties are empty and which are not?
All good ideas though.
When the tenant leaves it reverts back to the owner, they then declare it empty so they don't have to pay. This gives them a 6 month countdown.
That seems complicated. How's this as a solution:
The owner of all properties become liable for their Council Tax. Everyone is permitted to name a single home as their own primary residence which is taxed normally, every other home they own (and all homes for companies that own properties) has the Council Tax doubled.
People and companies owning other people's home is a negative externality, it should be taxed accordingly.
It is not a negative externality. That's an expression you have picked up from people trying to explain the realities of planning laws to you, and you haven't understood but thought you would give it a outing. Externalities are physical effects.
No its a concept I picked up from understanding Economics.
Like pollution, there's a negative societal effect from a landlord owning somebody else's home - it means that the actual occupier of the home can not own it themselves which has a multitude of effects on society. Low rates of home ownership correspond to increased crime rates and much more besides.
I never mentioned planning but since you brought it up yes if we had a liberal free-for-all planning system it wouldn't matter so much if people owned other people's homes since the occupiers would be free to get a house built on some vacant land nearby instead. But that's not possible under our current laws.
Since you claim you're interested in preserving nature and not exploiting land as an asset, then you should support this measure as its an alternative to having more construction. It means people can own their own homes more instead of having more homes built thus preserving nature. So what's your issue?
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
To be fair to Labour, the last election with an actual socialist in charge didn't go very well. Which way were they supposed to go after 2019?
An actual socialist who had stupid ideas and also didn't actually address any of these issues but instead said he would raise £100bn from people earning £80k+. We have the government, the Tory party, saying that they're putting up taxes but are going to feather the beds of their client vote. Where is Labour with their tax plan to say "everyone pays" or "those with the most property/assets will pay the most" it's not even very difficult and will get IMO, a lot of support if it's done right.
It will not get the support that matters.
The 50+ property owning plurality are spread well enough around the country that with FPTP you need to be wining a good percentage of them for a majority government of English/Welsh MPs.
People overlook that the oldies in red wall seats swung the North towards Boris. The working younglings voted Corbyn.
Which group is more winnable for Labour? Retired, brexiteers from the North and Midlands who don't like woke Londoners or younger centre right workers across the country who are being hit by new taxes?
Because there will be no wealth tax with a Conservative government. For Labour to win a majority they need a good wedge of the Boomer vote and the v-unfavourable demographics won't be changing for twenty plus years.
FWIW I think Labours only hope is an appeal to fairness, its one of our most base emotions and could cut through CCHQ's Topham Guerin Boomer memes.
Strictly speaking, we already have one. You can't escape council tax, and it is based on the value of your property (if ludicrously backdated to 1991) and you must pay thousands every year.
It has exemptions for students, disabled people and those on very low incomes, and I suspect similar ones would apply to an asset tax.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
The smart thing for Labour to do (to outflank the Tories) would be to do that *and* decrease the tax burden on working people at the same time. Say, a cut back of the NI rate down to 10% again, a reduction in student loans, and an increase in tax thresholds with a far smoother withdrawal rate of benefits for very low earners. It would talk to all parts of its base and potentially capture soft Tories.
Blair would do it.
Yup, completely befuddle the Tories on their idiotic high tax platform. Cut taxes for working people, pay for it by putting up taxes on unearned income and have big revenue raising taxes on non-primary residential property assets.
That swooshing sound is all the cash needed for people to actually eat and house themselves swirling it’s way to San Francisco so that Zuckerberg can continue to fuck the public sphere.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
The smart thing for Labour to do (to outflank the Tories) would be to do that *and* decrease the tax burden on working people at the same time. Say, a cut back of the NI rate down to 10% again, a reduction in student loans, and an increase in tax thresholds with a far smoother withdrawal rate of benefits for very low earners. It would talk to all parts of its base and potentially capture soft Tories.
Blair would do it.
And I would vote for that. Even if it was Starmer proposing it.
It would bring Labour back to its roots of supporting working people too.
But I expect Starmer is just going to leave the open goal and not do anything like that instead.
How much would it help with the campaign to stop climate change if people stopped buying smartphones whenever a new one was released?
Apple are internally carbon neutral and will be totally by 2030.
Yeah, that doesn't really mean much considering where their kit is manufactured, and manufacturing's where most of the damage is done ...
(This doesn't just apply to Apple; it's true for all manufacturers. As an example, chip design is massively energy-intensive - TSMC have announced they'll be zero carbon by 2050...)
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
To be fair to Labour, the last election with an actual socialist in charge didn't go very well. Which way were they supposed to go after 2019?
An actual socialist who had stupid ideas and also didn't actually address any of these issues but instead said he would raise £100bn from people earning £80k+. We have the government, the Tory party, saying that they're putting up taxes but are going to feather the beds of their client vote. Where is Labour with their tax plan to say "everyone pays" or "those with the most property/assets will pay the most" it's not even very difficult and will get IMO, a lot of support if it's done right.
It will not get the support that matters.
The 50+ property owning plurality are spread well enough around the country that with FPTP you need to be wining a good percentage of them for a majority government of English/Welsh MPs.
People overlook that the oldies in red wall seats swung the North towards Boris. The working younglings voted Corbyn.
Which group is more winnable for Labour? Retired, brexiteers from the North and Midlands who don't like woke Londoners or younger centre right workers across the country who are being hit by new taxes?
Because there will be no wealth tax with a Conservative government. For Labour to win a majority they need a good wedge of the Boomer vote and the v-unfavourable demographics won't be changing for twenty plus years.
FWIW I think Labours only hope is an appeal to fairness, its one of our most base emotions and could cut through CCHQ's Topham Guerin Boomer memes.
Strictly speaking, we already have one. You can't escape council tax, and it is based on the value of your property (if ludicrously backdated to 1991) and you must pay thousands every year.
It has exemptions for students, disabled people and those on very low incomes, and I suspect similar ones would apply to an asset tax.
Except for renters. They pay without having the asset.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
The smart thing for Labour to do (to outflank the Tories) would be to do that *and* decrease the tax burden on working people at the same time. Say, a cut back of the NI rate down to 10% again, a reduction in student loans, and an increase in tax thresholds with a far smoother withdrawal rate of benefits for very low earners. It would talk to all parts of its base and potentially capture soft Tories.
Blair would do it.
And I would vote for that. Even if it was Starmer proposing it.
It would bring Labour back to its roots of supporting working people too.
But I expect Starmer is just going to leave the open goal and not do anything like that instead.
How much would it help with the campaign to stop climate change if people stopped buying smartphones whenever a new one was released?
Apple are internally carbon neutral and will be totally by 2030.
Yeah, that doesn't really mean much considering where their kit is manufactured, and manufacturing's where most of the damage is done ...
(This doesn't just apply to Apple; it's true for all manufacturers. As an example, chip design is massively energy-intensive - TSMC have announced they'll be zero carbon by 2050...)
The entire manufacturing process will be carbon neutral by 2030.
More police More hospital beds More teachers New IT systems Spend spend spend
The question is how the hell do you pay for it all? We have had 2 big crises in the GFC and COVID. We also have the future challenges of social care and climate change.
Our debt to GDP ratio is now around 100%. Taxes are going up to record levels.
Not a lot on how Lab overcome their weaknesses on the economy and public spending
Starmer needs to come out with a big plan on taxing wealth, making it clear that the 99% won't be affected. It's not that hard really.
It has its problems but a 95% tax on all celebrities including footballers would be a good start
Bless! How do define 'celebrity'?
Those multi millionaire, billionaire film stars, pop stars and footballers taking home £400,000 a week to begin with, but of course they will no doubt receive a pass as they are usually of the left
I dont think that was Mr Pointer's, er, point. You've already just excluded plenty of less wealthy celebrities, its just not possible to target 'celebrities' precisely. John Curtice has celebrity in politics but most wouldn't think of him.
I am aware that it is not practical but their wealth needs heavily taxing
I don’t really care how much footballers earn.
I DO care that US billionaires have seen their wealth rise by ONE THIRD during the pandemic, which amounts to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
I assume the very wealthy in the U.K. have seen similar gains.
Why are we all letting the 0.01% fuck us over?
That ‘wealth’, is in stock price valuations, rather than cash in the bank. Yours and my pension funds have also gone up considerably during the pandemic, thanks to investments in those very same companies.
No one ever seems to point out that those same billionaires had 'lost' shedloads of money when share prices collapsed at the start of the pandemic. It's all pretty meaningless stuff.
No. Wake up.
For years we were assured that the very wealthy were there on merit, that wealth was a return on “hard work” and “talent”, and that wealth would trickle down.
If it was true-ish once, it’s a bizarre lie now.
Globalisation, financialisation, and regressive tax regimes have sustained and nourished an elite who get richer and richer and richer.
Meanwhile, those on universal credit are about to face a double whammy of income cuts and energy price hikes.
It’s indefensible.
Yes, indeed. Piketty regards himself, ultimately, as a defender of capitalism, for instance, and his work on the increasing concentration and feudalisation of quite a sizeable proportion of wealth is basically indisputable.
I'm about as far from a socialist as it's possible to get, and even I am infuriated by how the super-rich benefit from QE, asset inflation and yet get away with paying bugger all.
It's about fairness for me. That's it. If the tax base changes then so must the tax.
We've introduced plenty of new taxes in the past, including income tax, NI and VAT, let's work out how to tap it mechanistically first and we can then politically debate the rate.
The essential truth of this is uncontrovertible.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
You see, on here tonight we've got myself, yourself and Casino all saying taxes should probably go up and asset based taxes should also be examined seriously. Where the fuck are Labour on this?! Why aren't they out there sticking 5% annual surcharges on landlords, why aren't they putting up the landlord stamp duty charge to 10% instead of the pitiful 3%?
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
The smart thing for Labour to do (to outflank the Tories) would be to do that *and* decrease the tax burden on working people at the same time. Say, a cut back of the NI rate down to 10% again, a reduction in student loans, and an increase in tax thresholds with a far smoother withdrawal rate of benefits for very low earners. It would talk to all parts of its base and potentially capture soft Tories.
Blair would do it.
To be honest I'm not entirely that Blair would do that, because of his 1990's conditioning, which is part of my concern with Mandelson being so prominent again. Part of the issue is that he still seems to think it's 1995, and reassuring precisely these groups is somehow the absolute political priority. I hope to be proven wrong.
Just had confirmation that my iPhone 13 Pro Max 1TB is going to be delivered tomorrow.
Oh happy days.
I'll give you £100 for your iPhone 12 Pro Max. Final offer.
A 1TB phone memory just makes me blink in quiet incredulity. I clearly remember early PCs with 32K of memory.
Technically, you are comparing storage as that is what this iPhone has 1TB of. The iPhone 13 has 6GB of memory. Many early computers had 0 quick-access storage. Every time you turned them on they were completely reset. You would have to load programs (slowly) off tape, or if you were lucky, floppy disk.
Having said that, I have no idea how people can use 1TB of storage on a phone. A tablet I can understand if you use it to create/edit content. My phone has 64GB which is more than enough for my needs. Particularly as pretty much all content is streamed these days with little need to store it permanently on the device.
The iPhones come with a camera that can record video in 4K at 60fps.
That can take up a lot of memory.
Surely the content which needs that is likely to be sports related and a GoPro would be a better choice? Especially given their extra resilience. I struggle to see the need most people have to record 4K 60fps of their cat or kids at the park.
Nah, it means one device you need as more and more people end up with UHD/HDR devices it just looks brilliant on said TV.
If its all meaningless the richest few thousand in the country surely wont mind paying a 0.5% of that meaningless stuff each year?
I can't speak for them, but it's a massive economic fallacy, one worthy of Richard Murphy, to assume that notional wealth can simply be taxed (i.e. converted into real cash and grabbed by the government) without clobbering its value or triggering behaviour to take it out of reach. This of course is especially true of illiquid assets.
That's not to say that there's no scope for intelligently-designed taxes to raise more from the wealthy, but the idea that there are trillions lying around which the tax authorities in multiple countries have perversely failed to help themselves to is very naive.
Ten, fifteen years ago the landscape was very different. The richest 1% had fewer assets. It was more likely to be earnt than windfall gains from QE. And importantly on the other side of the equation most people who worked full time had a clear path where they could improve their lot. Financial controls and transparency are tighter now than they were then.
It is you being naive if you think it is sustainable for the richest 1% to see their wealth grow at double the rate of the rest of us, be exempt from targeted asset taxes and democracy to last. At least one of them will have to give.
Absolutely.
And I quite like democracy. So if it’s a choice between that and a wealth tax, I’m gonna plump for the latter.
And please don’t tell me wealth is hard to tax. It transmutes into physical assets, the most notable being housing.
We don’t really tax wealth in this country, we just expect the plebs to pick up the bill.
So it all comes back to a land value tax?
Why not be bold and put up a 5% value surcharge on non-primary residential property? That would raise a lot of money and fix the housing market. Also put up CGT on property investment to 45% with a non-transferable reduction to 28% for new builds. We could also make landlords liable for triple council tax for any property which has been empty for longer than 6 months and commercial landlords liable for quadruple rates for commercial premises that have been empty for longer than 6 months.
These are all revenue raising and would tilt both residential and commercial property back from asset owners to the people who actually use them.
How would anyone enforce a tripling of council tax for empty properties? Do we know exactly which properties are empty and which are not?
All good ideas though.
When the tenant leaves it reverts back to the owner, they then declare it empty so they don't have to pay. This gives them a 6 month countdown.
That seems complicated. How's this as a solution:
The owner of all properties become liable for their Council Tax. Everyone is permitted to name a single home as their own primary residence which is taxed normally, every other home they own (and all homes for companies that own properties) has the Council Tax doubled.
People and companies owning other people's home is a negative externality, it should be taxed accordingly.
So you want those who can't buy a home, but have to rent, to pay a load more rent? A bit odd, surely?
If its all meaningless the richest few thousand in the country surely wont mind paying a 0.5% of that meaningless stuff each year?
I can't speak for them, but it's a massive economic fallacy, one worthy of Richard Murphy, to assume that notional wealth can simply be taxed (i.e. converted into real cash and grabbed by the government) without clobbering its value or triggering behaviour to take it out of reach. This of course is especially true of illiquid assets.
That's not to say that there's no scope for intelligently-designed taxes to raise more from the wealthy, but the idea that there are trillions lying around which the tax authorities in multiple countries have perversely failed to help themselves to is very naive.
Ten, fifteen years ago the landscape was very different. The richest 1% had fewer assets. It was more likely to be earnt than windfall gains from QE. And importantly on the other side of the equation most people who worked full time had a clear path where they could improve their lot. Financial controls and transparency are tighter now than they were then.
It is you being naive if you think it is sustainable for the richest 1% to see their wealth grow at double the rate of the rest of us, be exempt from targeted asset taxes and democracy to last. At least one of them will have to give.
Absolutely.
And I quite like democracy. So if it’s a choice between that and a wealth tax, I’m gonna plump for the latter.
And please don’t tell me wealth is hard to tax. It transmutes into physical assets, the most notable being housing.
We don’t really tax wealth in this country, we just expect the plebs to pick up the bill.
So it all comes back to a land value tax?
Why not be bold and put up a 5% value surcharge on non-primary residential property? That would raise a lot of money and fix the housing market. Also put up CGT on property investment to 45% with a non-transferable reduction to 28% for new builds. We could also make landlords liable for triple council tax for any property which has been empty for longer than 6 months and commercial landlords liable for quadruple rates for commercial premises that have been empty for longer than 6 months.
These are all revenue raising and would tilt both residential and commercial property back from asset owners to the people who actually use them.
How would anyone enforce a tripling of council tax for empty properties? Do we know exactly which properties are empty and which are not?
All good ideas though.
When the tenant leaves it reverts back to the owner, they then declare it empty so they don't have to pay. This gives them a 6 month countdown.
That seems complicated. How's this as a solution:
The owner of all properties become liable for their Council Tax. Everyone is permitted to name a single home as their own primary residence which is taxed normally, every other home they own (and all homes for companies that own properties) has the Council Tax doubled.
People and companies owning other people's home is a negative externality, it should be taxed accordingly.
So you want those who can't buy a home, but have to rent, to pay a load more rent? A bit odd, surely?
The owner would pay the surcharge not the tenant. If the owner doesn't want to do so, they can always put the property on the market allowing the tenants to buy it.
Just had confirmation that my iPhone 13 Pro Max 1TB is going to be delivered tomorrow.
Oh happy days.
I'll give you £100 for your iPhone 12 Pro Max. Final offer.
A 1TB phone memory just makes me blink in quiet incredulity. I clearly remember early PCs with 32K of memory.
Technically, you are comparing storage as that is what this iPhone has 1TB of. The iPhone 13 has 6GB of memory. Many early computers had 0 quick-access storage. Every time you turned them on they were completely reset. You would have to load programs (slowly) off tape, or if you were lucky, floppy disk.
Having said that, I have no idea how people can use 1TB of storage on a phone. A tablet I can understand if you use it to create/edit content. My phone has 64GB which is more than enough for my needs. Particularly as pretty much all content is streamed these days with little need to store it permanently on the device.
The iPhones come with a camera that can record video in 4K at 60fps.
That can take up a lot of memory.
Surely the content which needs that is likely to be sports related and a GoPro would be a better choice? Especially given their extra resilience. I struggle to see the need most people have to record 4K 60fps of their cat or kids at the park.
Nah, it means one device you need as more and more people end up with UHD/HDR devices it just looks brilliant on said TV.
IME the higher the resolution/fps, the more skill you require to actually film anything good. Otherwise you might as well be at SD.
If its all meaningless the richest few thousand in the country surely wont mind paying a 0.5% of that meaningless stuff each year?
I can't speak for them, but it's a massive economic fallacy, one worthy of Richard Murphy, to assume that notional wealth can simply be taxed (i.e. converted into real cash and grabbed by the government) without clobbering its value or triggering behaviour to take it out of reach. This of course is especially true of illiquid assets.
That's not to say that there's no scope for intelligently-designed taxes to raise more from the wealthy, but the idea that there are trillions lying around which the tax authorities in multiple countries have perversely failed to help themselves to is very naive.
Ten, fifteen years ago the landscape was very different. The richest 1% had fewer assets. It was more likely to be earnt than windfall gains from QE. And importantly on the other side of the equation most people who worked full time had a clear path where they could improve their lot. Financial controls and transparency are tighter now than they were then.
It is you being naive if you think it is sustainable for the richest 1% to see their wealth grow at double the rate of the rest of us, be exempt from targeted asset taxes and democracy to last. At least one of them will have to give.
Absolutely.
And I quite like democracy. So if it’s a choice between that and a wealth tax, I’m gonna plump for the latter.
And please don’t tell me wealth is hard to tax. It transmutes into physical assets, the most notable being housing.
We don’t really tax wealth in this country, we just expect the plebs to pick up the bill.
So it all comes back to a land value tax?
Why not be bold and put up a 5% value surcharge on non-primary residential property? That would raise a lot of money and fix the housing market. Also put up CGT on property investment to 45% with a non-transferable reduction to 28% for new builds. We could also make landlords liable for triple council tax for any property which has been empty for longer than 6 months and commercial landlords liable for quadruple rates for commercial premises that have been empty for longer than 6 months.
These are all revenue raising and would tilt both residential and commercial property back from asset owners to the people who actually use them.
How would anyone enforce a tripling of council tax for empty properties? Do we know exactly which properties are empty and which are not?
All good ideas though.
When the tenant leaves it reverts back to the owner, they then declare it empty so they don't have to pay. This gives them a 6 month countdown.
That seems complicated. How's this as a solution:
The owner of all properties become liable for their Council Tax. Everyone is permitted to name a single home as their own primary residence which is taxed normally, every other home they own (and all homes for companies that own properties) has the Council Tax doubled.
People and companies owning other people's home is a negative externality, it should be taxed accordingly.
So wouldn't second home owning couples have one of the couple resident in each property?
Just have a tax of 1% on the value of each property per year, and get rid of banding.
That's much more sensible. We used to call it the 'rates'. The initial valuation exercise would be a bit of an issue, though.
That swooshing sound is all the cash needed for people to actually eat and house themselves swirling it’s way to San Francisco so that Zuckerberg can continue to fuck the public sphere.
Still completely baffled how HMG managed to develop a new online tax and make Amazon exempt!
If its all meaningless the richest few thousand in the country surely wont mind paying a 0.5% of that meaningless stuff each year?
I can't speak for them, but it's a massive economic fallacy, one worthy of Richard Murphy, to assume that notional wealth can simply be taxed (i.e. converted into real cash and grabbed by the government) without clobbering its value or triggering behaviour to take it out of reach. This of course is especially true of illiquid assets.
That's not to say that there's no scope for intelligently-designed taxes to raise more from the wealthy, but the idea that there are trillions lying around which the tax authorities in multiple countries have perversely failed to help themselves to is very naive.
Ten, fifteen years ago the landscape was very different. The richest 1% had fewer assets. It was more likely to be earnt than windfall gains from QE. And importantly on the other side of the equation most people who worked full time had a clear path where they could improve their lot. Financial controls and transparency are tighter now than they were then.
It is you being naive if you think it is sustainable for the richest 1% to see their wealth grow at double the rate of the rest of us, be exempt from targeted asset taxes and democracy to last. At least one of them will have to give.
Absolutely.
And I quite like democracy. So if it’s a choice between that and a wealth tax, I’m gonna plump for the latter.
And please don’t tell me wealth is hard to tax. It transmutes into physical assets, the most notable being housing.
We don’t really tax wealth in this country, we just expect the plebs to pick up the bill.
So it all comes back to a land value tax?
Why not be bold and put up a 5% value surcharge on non-primary residential property? That would raise a lot of money and fix the housing market. Also put up CGT on property investment to 45% with a non-transferable reduction to 28% for new builds. We could also make landlords liable for triple council tax for any property which has been empty for longer than 6 months and commercial landlords liable for quadruple rates for commercial premises that have been empty for longer than 6 months.
These are all revenue raising and would tilt both residential and commercial property back from asset owners to the people who actually use them.
How would anyone enforce a tripling of council tax for empty properties? Do we know exactly which properties are empty and which are not?
All good ideas though.
When the tenant leaves it reverts back to the owner, they then declare it empty so they don't have to pay. This gives them a 6 month countdown.
That seems complicated. How's this as a solution:
The owner of all properties become liable for their Council Tax. Everyone is permitted to name a single home as their own primary residence which is taxed normally, every other home they own (and all homes for companies that own properties) has the Council Tax doubled.
People and companies owning other people's home is a negative externality, it should be taxed accordingly.
So wouldn't second home owning couples have one of the couple resident in each property?
Just have a tax of 1% on the value of each property per year, and get rid of banding.
That's much more sensible. We used to call it the 'rates'. The initial valuation exercise would be a bit of an issue, though.
Somehow we manage it in NZ
My Dad’s property is “re-rated” every year and if he doesn’t agree he can appeal.
One presumes in the age of Zoopla it is easier than ever.
That swooshing sound is all the cash needed for people to actually eat and house themselves swirling it’s way to San Francisco so that Zuckerberg can continue to fuck the public sphere.
If its all meaningless the richest few thousand in the country surely wont mind paying a 0.5% of that meaningless stuff each year?
I can't speak for them, but it's a massive economic fallacy, one worthy of Richard Murphy, to assume that notional wealth can simply be taxed (i.e. converted into real cash and grabbed by the government) without clobbering its value or triggering behaviour to take it out of reach. This of course is especially true of illiquid assets.
That's not to say that there's no scope for intelligently-designed taxes to raise more from the wealthy, but the idea that there are trillions lying around which the tax authorities in multiple countries have perversely failed to help themselves to is very naive.
Ten, fifteen years ago the landscape was very different. The richest 1% had fewer assets. It was more likely to be earnt than windfall gains from QE. And importantly on the other side of the equation most people who worked full time had a clear path where they could improve their lot. Financial controls and transparency are tighter now than they were then.
It is you being naive if you think it is sustainable for the richest 1% to see their wealth grow at double the rate of the rest of us, be exempt from targeted asset taxes and democracy to last. At least one of them will have to give.
Absolutely.
And I quite like democracy. So if it’s a choice between that and a wealth tax, I’m gonna plump for the latter.
And please don’t tell me wealth is hard to tax. It transmutes into physical assets, the most notable being housing.
We don’t really tax wealth in this country, we just expect the plebs to pick up the bill.
So it all comes back to a land value tax?
Why not be bold and put up a 5% value surcharge on non-primary residential property? That would raise a lot of money and fix the housing market. Also put up CGT on property investment to 45% with a non-transferable reduction to 28% for new builds. We could also make landlords liable for triple council tax for any property which has been empty for longer than 6 months and commercial landlords liable for quadruple rates for commercial premises that have been empty for longer than 6 months.
These are all revenue raising and would tilt both residential and commercial property back from asset owners to the people who actually use them.
How would anyone enforce a tripling of council tax for empty properties? Do we know exactly which properties are empty and which are not?
All good ideas though.
When the tenant leaves it reverts back to the owner, they then declare it empty so they don't have to pay. This gives them a 6 month countdown.
That seems complicated. How's this as a solution:
The owner of all properties become liable for their Council Tax. Everyone is permitted to name a single home as their own primary residence which is taxed normally, every other home they own (and all homes for companies that own properties) has the Council Tax doubled.
People and companies owning other people's home is a negative externality, it should be taxed accordingly.
So wouldn't second home owning couples have one of the couple resident in each property?
Just have a tax of 1% on the value of each property per year, and get rid of banding.
That's much more sensible. We used to call it the 'rates'. The initial valuation exercise would be a bit of an issue, though.
Nah.
Just do what the French do, and have self declaration. And then every year, the government buys a few thousand homes with the required uplift from people who took the piss.
That swooshing sound is all the cash needed for people to actually eat and house themselves swirling it’s way to San Francisco so that Zuckerberg can continue to fuck the public sphere.
Read that as while you were streaming, which seem unfair given the last listed there.
If its all meaningless the richest few thousand in the country surely wont mind paying a 0.5% of that meaningless stuff each year?
I can't speak for them, but it's a massive economic fallacy, one worthy of Richard Murphy, to assume that notional wealth can simply be taxed (i.e. converted into real cash and grabbed by the government) without clobbering its value or triggering behaviour to take it out of reach. This of course is especially true of illiquid assets.
That's not to say that there's no scope for intelligently-designed taxes to raise more from the wealthy, but the idea that there are trillions lying around which the tax authorities in multiple countries have perversely failed to help themselves to is very naive.
Ten, fifteen years ago the landscape was very different. The richest 1% had fewer assets. It was more likely to be earnt than windfall gains from QE. And importantly on the other side of the equation most people who worked full time had a clear path where they could improve their lot. Financial controls and transparency are tighter now than they were then.
It is you being naive if you think it is sustainable for the richest 1% to see their wealth grow at double the rate of the rest of us, be exempt from targeted asset taxes and democracy to last. At least one of them will have to give.
Absolutely.
And I quite like democracy. So if it’s a choice between that and a wealth tax, I’m gonna plump for the latter.
And please don’t tell me wealth is hard to tax. It transmutes into physical assets, the most notable being housing.
We don’t really tax wealth in this country, we just expect the plebs to pick up the bill.
So it all comes back to a land value tax?
Why not be bold and put up a 5% value surcharge on non-primary residential property? That would raise a lot of money and fix the housing market. Also put up CGT on property investment to 45% with a non-transferable reduction to 28% for new builds. We could also make landlords liable for triple council tax for any property which has been empty for longer than 6 months and commercial landlords liable for quadruple rates for commercial premises that have been empty for longer than 6 months.
These are all revenue raising and would tilt both residential and commercial property back from asset owners to the people who actually use them.
How would anyone enforce a tripling of council tax for empty properties? Do we know exactly which properties are empty and which are not?
All good ideas though.
When the tenant leaves it reverts back to the owner, they then declare it empty so they don't have to pay. This gives them a 6 month countdown.
That seems complicated. How's this as a solution:
The owner of all properties become liable for their Council Tax. Everyone is permitted to name a single home as their own primary residence which is taxed normally, every other home they own (and all homes for companies that own properties) has the Council Tax doubled.
People and companies owning other people's home is a negative externality, it should be taxed accordingly.
So wouldn't second home owning couples have one of the couple resident in each property?
Just have a tax of 1% on the value of each property per year, and get rid of banding.
That's much more sensible. We used to call it the 'rates'. The initial valuation exercise would be a bit of an issue, though.
Somehow we manage it in NZ
My Dad’s property is “re-rated” every year and if he doesn’t agree he can appeal.
One presumes in the age of Zoopla it is easier than ever.
Yes, it's possible to do, of course. But in the UK we start from no existing records. I blame Maggie.
Just had confirmation that my iPhone 13 Pro Max 1TB is going to be delivered tomorrow.
Oh happy days.
I'll give you £100 for your iPhone 12 Pro Max. Final offer.
A 1TB phone memory just makes me blink in quiet incredulity. I clearly remember early PCs with 32K of memory.
Technically, you are comparing storage as that is what this iPhone has 1TB of. The iPhone 13 has 6GB of memory. Many early computers had 0 quick-access storage. Every time you turned them on they were completely reset. You would have to load programs (slowly) off tape, or if you were lucky, floppy disk.
Having said that, I have no idea how people can use 1TB of storage on a phone. A tablet I can understand if you use it to create/edit content. My phone has 64GB which is more than enough for my needs. Particularly as pretty much all content is streamed these days with little need to store it permanently on the device.
Are you kidding? @SeanT's phone porn stash is almost 2TB, and that's ignoring all the stuff on his laptop and tablet.
Comments
PPS - really? Must be pretty distant by now for the 30 or so people.
Are the Labour Party preparing the ideological ground for this?
My arse they are.
The run comes before the wicket and once the target is reached the match ends rending the stumping void.
If we're going to put up taxes then I'd suggest that any LVT should be net of any secured borrowing against the land/property.
*innocent face*
Re: ancestry, note that Pitcairn Islands Council includes two members with surname Christian, while the House of Keys has one Christian (in this sense) who is running for re-election.
I've been waiting for 18 months for Starmer to say anything about who is going to pay for COVID. The government has decided it will be the workers, which has lost my vote, Labour have an opportunity to win it by taxing the rentier asset owning classes but just seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
He wants security in jobs, yet was one of the biggest cheerleadersfor the policy that undermined traditional Labour voters jobs - Freedom of Movement. When they voted for it to stop, he spent three years trying to ignore or overturn the vote, which drove them to the Tories
He wants working class kids to have the same opportunities he had - Do they get a shot at going to a Grammar School as he did? Or to a Private School, possibly paid for by the state if it wasn't his parents, as he did?
He may be one for the future, though. Bright as a button, quite charismatic, gay. Maybe in 10 years' time, but not now.
I am not suggesting taxing the elite because I dont like people being rich. I am suggesting taxing the elite because they have made trillions of windfall gains directly because of government policies at the same time as working people on median incomes and below have really struggled.
It is not about wanting socialism but wanting fairness. This policy will attract many across the political spectrum who have no time for socialist policies in general.
(Yes, selfish, I know...)
The 50+ property owning plurality are spread well enough around the country that with FPTP you need to be wining a good percentage of them for a majority government of English/Welsh MPs.
People overlook that the oldies in red wall seats swung the North towards Johnson. The working younglings voted Corbyn.
And all the crap in that Terabyte will be backed up to external servers...
So, more Terminator than Dredd...
The owner of all properties become liable for their Council Tax. Everyone is permitted to name a single home as their own primary residence which is taxed normally, every other home they own (and all homes for companies that own properties) has the Council Tax doubled.
People and companies owning other people's home is a negative externality, it should be taxed accordingly.
1. That the pandemic costs were temporary and that’s what the national debt is for (and interest rates have never been cheaper).
2. That to the extent more income is needed, Labour will look to “wealth, before income”.
They should actually signal they believe in a TAX CUT for ordinary workers. Imagine!
If Lab does go after those who are asset rich it will include a lot of Starmer's own constituents
Once the run happens the match is over.
The stumping happens after the match has ended.
If the target is 210 then it makes no difference if you get 210/5, 210/9 or 210 all out you've hit the target either way.
FWIW I think Labours only hope is an appeal to fairness, its one of our most base emotions and could cut through CCHQ's Topham Guerin Boomer memes.
*Or whatever balances. The idea is to *start* down this line, not a massive course correction overnight.
Tax is paid by any property owner, including companies.
If old biddies can’t afford it, they can borrow against the value of their property from a government owned bank set up expressly for this purpose.
Having said that, I have no idea how people can use 1TB of storage on a phone. A tablet I can understand if you use it to create/edit content. My phone has 64GB which is more than enough for my needs. Particularly as pretty much all content is streamed these days with little need to store it permanently on the device.
Just have a tax of 1% on the value of each property per year, and get rid of banding.
That can take up a lot of memory.
And then at the Budget the Chancellor can say he's increasing the tax by 0.5% which is really 0.5% on both tax and surcharge tax.
(Yes I'm still bitter about the NI tax rise)
But some of us have been around long enough to know exactly what happens when Labour announces that it is going to tax wealth. The Tories and their friends in the media will instantly tell us about a 'brain drain', we'll lose our best talent, nobody will want to invest in UK PLC any more, the stock market will collapse if Labour wins, the housing market will collapse, and so on and so on. None of this is true, but people believe it, and it's damaged Labour so much in the past that there's an understandable tendency to be cautious.
I get people want to punish empty homes*, but he assured a simple flat 0.5% will do that.
*UK has very low “empty home” rates IIUC.
Exit poll projects number of incumbents losing their seats, and record number of women elected, including incumbent Claire Christian in Douglas South constituency
Although in my scheme the money would go to local government which is grotesquely underfunded anyway.
Sabina Nessa killing: Man held on suspicion of murder
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-58671588
RCS has gone.
Leon is never in it anyway, if he can help it.
Brain drain already happened.
Blair would do it.
Working people already face:
Taxes that are too high
House prices that are unaffordable
Childcare costs that are punitive
No wonder economic performance has been so poor compared to other decades.
Like pollution, there's a negative societal effect from a landlord owning somebody else's home - it means that the actual occupier of the home can not own it themselves which has a multitude of effects on society. Low rates of home ownership correspond to increased crime rates and much more besides.
I never mentioned planning but since you brought it up yes if we had a liberal free-for-all planning system it wouldn't matter so much if people owned other people's homes since the occupiers would be free to get a house built on some vacant land nearby instead. But that's not possible under our current laws.
Since you claim you're interested in preserving nature and not exploiting land as an asset, then you should support this measure as its an alternative to having more construction. It means people can own their own homes more instead of having more homes built thus preserving nature. So what's your issue?
It has exemptions for students, disabled people and those on very low incomes, and I suspect similar ones would apply to an asset tax.
You want to hear the accent? Listen to Mark Cavendish. They talk exactly the same.
You know who did very well out of the pandemic?
AMAZON, GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, NETFLIX.
That swooshing sound is all the cash needed for people to actually eat and house themselves swirling it’s way to San Francisco so that Zuckerberg can continue to fuck the public sphere.
It would bring Labour back to its roots of supporting working people too.
But I expect Starmer is just going to leave the open goal and not do anything like that instead.
(This doesn't just apply to Apple; it's true for all manufacturers. As an example, chip design is massively energy-intensive - TSMC have announced they'll be zero carbon by 2050...)
NEW – Westminster Voting Intention:
CON 40% (-)
LAB 35% (-1)
LD 8% (-1)
GRN 4% (-1)
SNP 4% (-)
OTH 8% (+3)
NEW – Favourability Ratings:
Boris Johnson / Keir Starmer
Net Rating: -5% (+1) / -12% (-3)
Conservative / Labour
Net Rating: -10% (-3) / -7% (-3)
NEW – Best Prime Minister:
Boris Johnson 43% (-)
Keir Starmer 30% (-2)
Don't know 27% (+2)
My Dad’s property is “re-rated” every year and if he doesn’t agree he can appeal.
One presumes in the age of Zoopla it is easier than ever.
Just do what the French do, and have self declaration. And then every year, the government buys a few thousand homes with the required uplift from people who took the piss.