politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Cyclefree suggests that Smith and Corbyn go back to Labour’

I think the axiom about Budgets should apply here, if it affects negatively people making less than 35k pounds a year, do not do it.

Whether it's immigration, taxes, spending, or social policy.

FPT

@Indigo

"The government argued that Iraq was armed to the teeth with WMD, had they not been lying, and frankly at the time who are we to gainsay people in receipt of supposed accurate national intelligence estimates, would that have constituted a threat to vital national interests ?"

In my view, no. A credible threat has to consist of the means to carry it out and the will/intention to do so. Saddam was definitely a very nasty piece of work but in 2002 what evidence was there that he wanted to harm the UK's vital national interests? Even if he had been stuffed up to the gills with WMD, there was not, as far as I am aware, any evidence that he was an actual, credible threat to the UK's vital national interests.

PB would *love* Labour to slaughter its sacred cows while the Tories protect their own.

If Labour tells every single one of its support bases to take one for the team, striving for voters who have a perfectly sensible alternative in the shape of the Conservative Party, it will be annihilated.

Condensed read:

"Do Labour really want to be all lefty, or should they be more Tory, nudge nudge wink wink?"

That aside, CF is right in saying that the issue is not merely presentational or even about selecting a popular coherent policy platform.

For me, I think Labour should be about supporting people to overcome their own challenges and addressing barriers that stop people having fulfilling lives, whether that means stopping overly powerful corporations from exploiting people and the environment, increasing employability of the long term unemployed, tackling the housing shortage, etc.

rcs1000 said:

Speedy said:

I think the axiom about Budgets should apply here, if it affects negatively people making less than 35k pounds a year, do not do it.

Whether it's immigration, taxes, spending, or social policy.

Well: moving to a contribution based system of benefits would be short term bad for people earning less than 35k per year, but would probably be long-term good. What do you think?

Why would it? It could be based on number of years worked rather than the value couldn't it?

EPG said:

Anyway, didn't Nick Clegg try all this with the Lib Dems?

So what do u think? What is Labour for? What's its purpose?

This is exquisite

https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/1177

After Zoe Williams, one by one the radical lefties who were cheering Corbyn before have realised that he is not only destroying the Labour Party (which they don't care about) but he is so spectacularly crap he is in danger of destroying their vision of the radical left too.

Heart of Stone...

A most interesting article Cyclefree, thank you.
To paraphrase very crudely, Labour needs to work out what it's for.
I think the Labour party collectively haven't got answers, and this is not a recent but long-running problem.

They lost the ability to be intelligently self-critical a long time ago. - If 2 social goods are not obviously compatible for instance, how do you choose between them - what mechanisms do you use?

Tony Blair defined Labour as "A party for the British people as a whole".
That was arrant nonsense, both meaningless, and actually destructive - A leader who thinks that, or purports to think that, is going to mess up from not understanding his party, and not actually understanding what politics is for.
Noone in the Labour party called him out on it. That was nigh on 2 decades ago.
The party doesn't have the capacity to think about the questions raised above, and doesn't show any sign of developing that capacity.
The party is stuffed.

Another one! 125/5 now

Good afternoon, everyone.

Another good piece from Miss Cyclefree. Others here have also asked the simple question "What is Labour for?"

The working class don't look at Corbyn and nod approvingly. They certainly don't look that way at Colonel Thornberry or Mao.

Freggles said:

Condensed read:

"Do Labour really want to be all lefty, or should they be more Tory, nudge nudge wink wink?"

That aside, CF is right in saying that the issue is not merely presentational or even about selecting a popular coherent policy platform.

For me, I think Labour should be about supporting people to overcome their own challenges and addressing barriers that stop people having fulfilling lives, whether that means stopping overly powerful corporations from exploiting people and the environment, increasing employability of the long term unemployed, tackling the housing shortage, etc.

And free owls for all.

Lets us just take one of those, Mr. Freggles, "Increasing employability of the long term unemployed". How? I have some experience in this field and have worked on some schemes and have significant knowledge of the people we are talking about. So how are you going to do it?

It is an easy soundbite to put out but let us see some policies that will turn it into reality.

HurstLlama said:

rcs1000 said:

Speedy said:

I think the axiom about Budgets should apply here, if it affects negatively people making less than 35k pounds a year, do not do it.

Whether it's immigration, taxes, spending, or social policy.

Well: moving to a contribution based system of benefits would be short term bad for people earning less than 35k per year, but would probably be long-term good. What do you think?

I confess I would like us to move back to a more contribution based system. However, I'd do it in two parts.

Dump NI contributions as we now have them. Instead have a two separate contribution streams. A Health contribution, i.e. a hypothecated tax, on everyone (employed, self employed, unemployed whatever) to pay for the NHS. Secondly, a Community Chest levy on every working person to pay the welfare bill. Both to raised on percentage of gross income, with fearsome penalties for anyone caught trying to evade/avoid. Other taxes (income, capital gains etc) to be adjusted accordingly to make it overall neutral in the first year or two.

For companies I would bin Corporation Tax entirely. It is too complicated, too difficult to collect and too easy to avoid. A straight forward sales tax, with the payments split into three streams, x% for the general exchequer, y% for the Community Chest, z% for the NHS. hat the overall percentage would be and how it would be split would be down the the Chancellor the day. Again fearsome penalties for any company director, partner or sole trader who tried to avoid/evade the sums due.

On such a scheme I reckon I could re-write the entire tax code in less than a 1000 pages, increase collection and shut down 90% of the loopholes which enable the wealthy to avoid tax.

The problem with a sales tax is that it deals poorly with businesses that intrinsically low margin.

Take pharmaceutical distributors. Their job is to buy drugs from drug companies and be able to deliver pretty much anything in under a day to any pharmacy in the UK. It's a low margin business: you might buy a packet of pills for $1,000, and you might get just $1,005 from the pharmacy for it. (Holding inventory, per se, is not a very high margin business.) But if you sales taxes the pharmaceutical wholesale business it would simply not exist. Pharmacies would instead have to buy direct from drug companies. And the drug companies aren't set up to deal with ten thousand plus pharmacies: they're set up to deal with a dozen pharmacy distribution businesses.

(In case you're wondering: pharmaceutical distributors exist all around the world: there's McKesson in the US, and Celesio in Germany, etc.)

weejonnie said:

Pakistan doing an England.

Ha. I was going to say it's surely England's to lose from here, but thought that might be tempting fate.

Our friend @FrancisUrquhart should be having an enjoyable day out at the ground.

I see the cricket has suddenly become very exciting!

@HurstLlama

Another example of an intrinsically low margin business: staffing companies. On large contracts, Adecco will take 12 pounds an hour from a client, and pay the temp 11. It's hard to see how temporary agencies could exist in a world with a blanket sales tax.

125/7!

And Aslam's gone for 70.

Seven down now, Sami finally out. England can't lose from here, surely?

Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.

What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.

Its actually annoyingly simple.

Jonathan said:

Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.

What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.

Its actually annoyingly simple.

That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.

Jonathan said:

Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.

What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.

Its actually annoyingly simple.

Another excellent piece from the estimable Ms @Cyclefree.

In terms of practicalities, Labour need to accept that the Tories may be wrong, but they are not evil, nor do Labour hold any kind of moral high ground. Their current civil war has, I hope, shocked many of them with the sheer malignity of the vitriol on display.

People will not vote for a party that apparently considers them to be scum. In order to win a majority, Labour need to win both Nuneaton and a couple of dozen or so rural seats. They also, as Cyclefree states, need to slaughter the odd sacred cow. The NHS is a medical service, not a religion.

How they accomplish this, is almost impossible to say. History abounds with scenarios where the way forward was clear yet the protagonists were unable to countenance them and suffered accordingly.

Tea. Pak 148/7
England well on top now, a great session of bowling from Cook's men.

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

PB would *love* Labour to slaughter its sacred cows while the Tories protect their own.

If Labour tells every single one of its support bases to take one for the team, striving for voters who have a perfectly sensible alternative in the shape of the Conservative Party, it will be annihilated.

Every party to win normally has to slaughter a sacred cow or two, even Cameron accepted gay marriage for instance

I suppose it wasn't a sacred cow for Cameron, but that's how these things tend to work.

tlg86 said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

PB would *love* Labour to slaughter its sacred cows while the Tories protect their own.

If Labour tells every single one of its support bases to take one for the team, striving for voters who have a perfectly sensible alternative in the shape of the Conservative Party, it will be annihilated.

Every party to win normally has to slaughter a sacred cow or two, even Cameron accepted gay marriage for instance

I suppose it wasn't a sacred cow for Cameron, but that's how these things tend to work.

Neither was repealing Clause 4 for Blair, for the activists in both cases it was

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Jonathan said:

Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.

What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.

Its actually annoyingly simple.

That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.

Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate

The top (as in over £150k) rate moving from 45% to 50% will raise almost nothing, it's pure bash-the-rich symbolism. To actually raise serious money it's the 40% rate that needs to rise.
Agree about IHT, it's the most hated tax of the lot, and falls disproportionately on the middle class who had a home go up in value, rather than the seriously wealthy who can afford trusts and accountants.

runnymede said:

SouthamObserver said:

justin124 said:

Much of the present USA is the product of 19th century aggression or 'terrorism' as the border was pushed further to the West and South. Bit surprised that Putin has never cited such precedents.America's hands are well soiled in mud if a longterm historical perspective is adopted.

Exactly the same as Russia really.

And practically every other country as well. But the general idea is that we are supposed to have moved on from that.

Alas that idea is just a liberal conceit given traction by nuclear technology.

Great powers or lesser powers with cast iron great power backing have always taken land by right of conquest and still do (China-Tibet, Russia-Crimea, Israel-West Bank).

Lesser and sometimes great powers that go to far get taken to the cleaners (Germany, Iraq).

Whether it is too far is a fine judgment whose threshold has been lowered by modern technology, the downside of that is that things become fossilized, and pressure within builds up more.

I doubt anyone would raise a hand to stop Russia reconquering the whole USSR , other than the Baltic States (they only seem interested in ethnic Russian areas though).

If the crisis comes it will be once Belarus have been reabsorbed into Russia and a narrow Polish/Lithuanian corridor separates Russia from East Prussia where their Baltic Fleet is based.

Hopefully Poland and Lithuania wont repeat their behaviour on the original Polish corridor where the fascist Polish Junta, convinced that they could see off the German army, made Germans lives a misery when they tried to cross it, harrying them and holding them up for hours and making life very difficult in trade matters with Germany for the citizens of Danzig, then an entirely German populated city which versailles absurdly decided should self governing ciity within Poland.

The polish junta also invaded and annexed part of Czechoslovakia when Germany occupied it in 1938.

The guarantee of Poland from the UK made the junta even more arrogant and they refused to even discuss German proposals for an autobahn corridor to East Prussia through Poland (part of Poland which was German until 1918 and ethnic German populated) which german vehicles could cross without being held up for hours at each end

Hitler would never have got into power had there not been genuine injustices to exploit.

In government, your citizens tend to reap what you sow and that applied to both the Polish and German governments in the 30s/40s. Both brought disaster upon their people.

Freggles said:

Condensed read:

"Do Labour really want to be all lefty, or should they be more Tory, nudge nudge wink wink?"

...

For me, I think Labour should be about supporting people to overcome their own challenges and addressing barriers that stop people having fulfilling lives, whether that means stopping overly powerful corporations from exploiting people and the environment, increasing employability of the long term unemployed, tackling the housing shortage, etc.

Funny thing is that is *exactly* what the Tories should be about. They forget it under Cameron, but may just rediscover it under the new leadership.

Governments should be about facilitation and equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Jonathan said:

Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.

What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.

Its actually annoyingly simple.

That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.

Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate

Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate would have been more acceptable had Brown done this 3 years earlier rather than 3 weeks before being ejected at the fag end of his calamitous government.

It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's

A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced.
I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Jonathan said:

Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.

What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.

Its actually annoyingly simple.

That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.

Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate

The top (as in over £150k) rate moving from 45% to 50% will raise almost nothing, it's pure bash-the-rich symbolism. To actually raise serious money it's the 40% rate that needs to rise.
Agree about IHT, it's the most hated tax of the lot, and falls disproportionately on the middle class who had a home go up in value, rather than the seriously wealthy who can afford trusts and accountants.

Agree on your second paragraph. On your first the 50% top tax rate makes little economic sense but a majority polled backed it when it was introduced. Most voters are happy for the rich to pay more tax just as long as they don't have to!

felix said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Jonathan said:

Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.

What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.

Its actually annoyingly simple.

That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.

Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate

However, that wouldn't raise nearly enough money to execute their plans.

They could also cut welfare spending except for those genuinely unable to work which would make some savings for their plans and be popular too.

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Jonathan said:

Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.

What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.

Its actually annoyingly simple.

That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.

Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate

The top (as in over £150k) rate moving from 45% to 50% will raise almost nothing, it's pure bash-the-rich symbolism. To actually raise serious money it's the 40% rate that needs to rise.
Agree about IHT, it's the most hated tax of the lot, and falls disproportionately on the middle class who had a home go up in value, rather than the seriously wealthy who can afford trusts and accountants.

Agree on your second paragraph. On your first the 50% top tax rate makes little economic sense but a majority polled backed it when it was introduced

Of course a majority agree with the idea of the top 1% paying more tax, the point is that it doesn't raise much if anything, and sends a bad sign as to how we treat the successful in the country.

If Labour want to be seen as a party of tax and spend I'm fine with that, it's a rational argument to have. What's not rational or reasonable is extra spending paid for by more borrowing, or the idea that only 1% of the people need to pay more tax for the other 99% to enjoy the fruits of the extra spending.

They need to have the balls to put up eg the 40% income tax rate, and say it will raise £20bn for the NHS. That's at least honest politics.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

HYUFD said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Jonathan said:

Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.

What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.

Its actually annoyingly simple.

That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.

Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate

Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate would have been more acceptable had Brown done this 3 years earlier rather than 3 weeks before being ejected at the fag end of his calamitous government.

It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's

A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced.
I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits

I think the income tax rates are pretty well geared to maximum income.

They need to focus on property taxes, in particular:

Split band H into eight new bands enabling a massive incease in council tax for these properties.

Levy council tax on rented properties on the owner not the tenant and double it.

Tax all land at 1% of its value.

Increase council tax by 25% for every bedroom a property has in excess of the number of occupants (if more than three non bedroom rooms the excess also deemed to be Bedrooms.

Sounds possible and Miliband proposed a mansion tax of course

felix said:

HurstLlama said:

Freggles said:

Condensed read:

"Do Labour really want to be all lefty, or should they be more Tory, nudge nudge wink wink?"

That aside, CF is right in saying that the issue is not merely presentational or even about selecting a popular coherent policy platform.

For me, I think Labour should be about supporting people to overcome their own challenges and addressing barriers that stop people having fulfilling lives, whether that means stopping overly powerful corporations from exploiting people and the environment, increasing employability of the long term unemployed, tackling the housing shortage, etc.

And free owls for all.

Lets us just take one of those, Mr. Freggles, "Increasing employability of the long term unemployed". How? I have some experience in this field and have worked on some schemes and have significant knowledge of the people we are talking about. So how are you going to do it?

It is an easy soundbite to put out but let us see some policies that will turn it into reality.

Spot on - there is a huge difference between saying the nice things you want to do and have a clear plan including the costings for how to achieve them. Politicians and generally good at the former and dishonest about the latter. Result - disillusioned voters, although tbf the public generally want the bill for the goodies to be paid by everyone else.

I don't think many of the long term unemployed are employable other than in dumbass unthinking menial jobs that are difficult to screw up with heavy coercion.

The problem is that even if you are prepared to use unpleasant coercion technogology has seen to it that the dumbass jobs no longer exist.

rcs1000 said:

The problem with a sales tax is that it deals poorly with businesses that intrinsically low margin.

Take pharmaceutical distributors. Their job is to buy drugs from drug companies and be able to deliver pretty much anything in under a day to any pharmacy in the UK. It's a low margin business: you might buy a packet of pills for $1,000, and you might get just $1,005 from the pharmacy for it. (Holding inventory, per se, is not a very high margin business.) But if you sales taxes the pharmaceutical wholesale business it would simply not exist. Pharmacies would instead have to buy direct from drug companies. And the drug companies aren't set up to deal with ten thousand plus pharmacies: they're set up to deal with a dozen pharmacy distribution businesses.

(In case you're wondering: pharmaceutical distributors exist all around the world: there's McKesson in the US, and Celesio in Germany, etc.)

Gross margins in the pharmaceutical distribution business are closer to 7-8% [i.e. $1,000 --> $1,070 not $1,005]. And Celesio is part of McKesson...

But apart from that, great post!

(Just teasing...your point is very fair. It's also a business where, if you do it right, you can make a lot of money. Stefano is now a billionaire many times over having started with a loss-making pharmaceutical business in Naples with revenues of $1m. One of the most impressive business careers that there is - and a pretty decent guy (although as sharp as tacks and takes no prisoners... I think it took Stefano 3 months to replace the chief executive of Walgreens after he sold Alliance Boots to him)

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

HYUFD said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Jonathan said:

Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.

What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.

Its actually annoyingly simple.

That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.

Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate

Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate would have been more acceptable had Brown done this 3 years earlier rather than 3 weeks before being ejected at the fag end of his calamitous government.

It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's

A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced.
I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits

I think the income tax rates are pretty well geared to maximum income.

They need to focus on property taxes, in particular:

Split band H into eight new bands enabling a massive incease in council tax for these properties.

Levy council tax on rented properties on the owner not the tenant and double it.

Tax all land at 1% of its value.

Increase council tax by 25% for every bedroom a property has in excess of the number of occupants (if more than three non bedroom rooms the excess also deemed to be Bedrooms.

Are you trying to lose the next election?

Properties are already very expensive because of hoarding by investment companies, increasing taxes will only push their prices up.

Instead I would install a levy on empty properties to force investors to put them on market for rent or sale.

HYUFD said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

HYUFD said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Jonathan said:

Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.

What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.

Its actually annoyingly simple.

That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.

Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate

Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate would have been more acceptable had Brown done this 3 years earlier rather than 3 weeks before being ejected at the fag end of his calamitous government.

It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's

A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced.
I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits

I think the income tax rates are pretty well geared to maximum income.

They need to focus on property taxes, in particular:

Split band H into eight new bands enabling a massive incease in council tax for these properties.

Levy council tax on rented properties on the owner not the tenant and double it.

Tax all land at 1% of its value.

Increase council tax by 25% for every bedroom a property has in excess of the number of occupants (if more than three non bedroom rooms the excess also deemed to be Bedrooms.

Sounds possible and Miliband proposed a mansion tax of course

I would also make tax on unearned wealth such as share dividends and interest double the rate of tax on earnings not 1/3 of the rate as it is now and apply NI to pension income.

It is absurd that earned income is hammered while unearned income gets a virtually free ride.

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Jonathan said:

Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.

What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.

Its actually annoyingly simple.

That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.

Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate

The top (as in over £150k) rate moving from 45% to 50% will raise almost nothing, it's pure bash-the-rich symbolism. To actually raise serious money it's the 40% rate that needs to rise.
Agree about IHT, it's the most hated tax of the lot, and falls disproportionately on the middle class who had a home go up in value, rather than the seriously wealthy who can afford trusts and accountants.

Agree on your second paragraph. On your first the 50% top tax rate makes little economic sense but a majority polled backed it when it was introduced

Of course a majority agree with the idea of the top 1% paying more tax, the point is that it doesn't raise much if anything, and sends a bad sign as to how we treat the successful in the country.

If Labour want to be seen as a party of tax and spend I'm fine with that, it's a rational argument to have. What's not rational or reasonable is extra spending paid for by more borrowing, or the idea that only 1% of the people need to pay more tax for the other 99% to enjoy the fruits of the extra spending.

They need to have the balls to put up eg the 40% income tax rate, and say it will raise £20bn for the NHS. That's at least honest politics.

I am talking about what Labour needs to do to win a majority not necessarily how economically sensible it would be in government

What they have to do to win a majority is to show the people that they can be trusted on:
1. Defence of the Realm.
2. Management of the public finances.

When they can do that, they'll get elected eventually. That's a long way from where they are now.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

HYUFD said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Jonathan said:

Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.

What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.

Its actually annoyingly simple.

That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.

Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate

Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate would have been more acceptable had Brown done this 3 years earlier rather than 3 weeks before being ejected at the fag end of his calamitous government.

It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's

A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced.
I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits

Levy council tax on rented properties on the owner not the tenant and double it.

Hint, rents go up.

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

The problem with a sales tax is that it deals poorly with businesses that intrinsically low margin.

Take pharmaceutical distributors. Their job is to buy drugs from drug companies and be able to deliver pretty much anything in under a day to any pharmacy in the UK. It's a low margin business: you might buy a packet of pills for $1,000, and you might get just $1,005 from the pharmacy for it. (Holding inventory, per se, is not a very high margin business.) But if you sales taxes the pharmaceutical wholesale business it would simply not exist. Pharmacies would instead have to buy direct from drug companies. And the drug companies aren't set up to deal with ten thousand plus pharmacies: they're set up to deal with a dozen pharmacy distribution businesses.

(In case you're wondering: pharmaceutical distributors exist all around the world: there's McKesson in the US, and Celesio in Germany, etc.)

Gross margins in the pharmaceutical distribution business are closer to 7-8% [i.e. $1,000 --> $1,070 not $1,005]. And Celesio is part of McKesson...

But apart from that, great post!

(Just teasing...your point is very fair. It's also a business where, if you do it right, you can make a lot of money. Stefano is now a billionaire many times over having started with a loss-making pharmaceutical business in Naples with revenues of $1m. One of the most impressive business careers that there is - and a pretty decent guy (although as sharp as tacks and takes no prisoners... I think it took Stefano 3 months to replace the chief executive of Walgreens after he sold Alliance Boots to him)

Yes, my knowledge is a few years out of date

Actually replacing Corporation tax and VAT with Income&Sales tax on Corporations might get rid of the tricks most corporations do to reduce their profits on paper.

Also it is a just move, if income tax is good for people then it's just as good for corporations.

ThreeQuidder said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Levy council tax on rented properties on the owner not the tenant and double it.

You just increased the rent tenants will have to pay...

That old canard again lol.

Lots of landlords think that and then find themselves either without tenants or crap tenants who trash the place.

Rents are related to what the market will bear not what the landlord needs to charge to make a profit.

MTimT said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

I would also make tax on unearned wealth such as share dividends and interest double the rate of tax on earnings not 1/3 of the rate as it is now and apply NI to pension income.

It is absurd that earned income is hammered while unearned income gets a virtually free ride.

It does not get a free ride. Taxing dividends is double taxation, as corporate tax has already been paid on it. If there are problems with collecting corporate tax at proper levels, that has to be addressed.

By double taxing investments in corporations (at corporate and dividend levels) you distort how investment money is allocated. This can have very adverse effects on an economy.

Like incentivise corporations to reinvest profits in expanding the company or upgrading the company infrastructure rather than handing it to shareholders living off shares they inherited and not doing a days work while being taxed at a third of the rate of those who have to earn a living?

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

HYUFD said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

HYUFD said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Jonathan said:

Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.

What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.

Its actually annoyingly simple.

That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.

Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate

Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate would have been more acceptable had Brown done this 3 years earlier rather than 3 weeks before being ejected at the fag end of his calamitous government.

It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's

A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced.
I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits

I think the income tax rates are pretty well geared to maximum income.

They need to focus on property taxes, in particular:

Split band H into eight new bands enabling a massive incease in council tax for these properties.

Levy council tax on rented properties on the owner not the tenant and double it.

Tax all land at 1% of its value.

Increase council tax by 25% for every bedroom a property has in excess of the number of occupants (if more than three non bedroom rooms the excess also deemed to be Bedrooms.

Sounds possible and Miliband proposed a mansion tax of course

I would also make tax on unearned wealth such as share dividends and interest double the rate of tax on earnings not 1/3 of the rate as it is now and apply NI to pension income.

It is absurd that earned income is hammered while unearned income gets a virtually free ride.

Discouraging saving and investment isn't really beneficial to long term economic growth

HYUFD said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Jonathan said:

Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.

What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.

Its actually annoyingly simple.

That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.

Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate

Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate would have been more acceptable had Brown done this 3 years earlier rather than 3 weeks before being ejected at the fag end of his calamitous government.

It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's

A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced.
I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits

I agree they probably don't. A tax policy should have a beneficial outcome and quite simply this outcome had no benefit to the Uk treasury yet did

1) appease Labour grass roots and make it harder for incoming government
2) gave Labour years of ammunition from 2010 onwards to prevent that damage being undone by stating any reduction would mean Tories are for the rich. **

** this after Labour and Brown retained it at the lower rate for 12 years and 11 months of a Labour government.

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

HYUFD said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Jonathan said:

Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.

What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.

Its actually annoyingly simple.

That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.

Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate

Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate would have been more acceptable had Brown done this 3 years earlier rather than 3 weeks before being ejected at the fag end of his calamitous government.

It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's

A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced.
I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits

Levy council tax on rented properties on the owner not the tenant and double it.

Hint, rents go up.

Increase the levies so much that it makes being a landlord unprofitable. Leeches on society deserved to be treated like parasites.

I guess you'll be selling up when you move to Switzerland then?

Probably. I'll be taking most of my stuff with me, everything else I'll give away or give to my parents.

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Jonathan said:

Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.

What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.

Its actually annoyingly simple.

That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.

Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate

The top (as in over £150k) rate moving from 45% to 50% will raise almost nothing, it's pure bash-the-rich symbolism. To actually raise serious money it's the 40% rate that needs to rise.
Agree about IHT, it's the most hated tax of the lot, and falls disproportionately on the middle class who had a home go up in value, rather than the seriously wealthy who can afford trusts and accountants.

Agree on your second paragraph. On your first the 50% top tax rate makes little economic sense but a majority polled backed it when it was introduced

Of course a majority agree with the idea of the top 1% paying more tax, the point is that it doesn't raise much if anything, and sends a bad sign as to how we treat the successful in the country.

If Labour want to be seen as a party of tax and spend I'm fine with that, it's a rational argument to have. What's not rational or reasonable is extra spending paid for by more borrowing, or the idea that only 1% of the people need to pay more tax for the other 99% to enjoy the fruits of the extra spending.

They need to have the balls to put up eg the 40% income tax rate, and say it will raise £20bn for the NHS. That's at least honest politics.

I am talking about what Labour needs to do to win a majority not necessarily how economically sensible it would be in government

What they have to do to win a majority is to show the people that they can be trusted on:
1. Defence of the Realm.
2. Management of the public finances.

When they can do that, they'll get elected eventually. That's a long way from where they are now.

Largely correct on both points, they certainly won't be under Corbyn

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

ThreeQuidder said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

HYUFD said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Jonathan said:

Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.

What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.

Its actually annoyingly simple.

That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.

Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate

Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate would have been more acceptable had Brown done this 3 years earlier rather than 3 weeks before being ejected at the fag end of his calamitous government.

It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's

A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced.
I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits

Levy council tax on rented properties on the owner not the tenant and double it.

Hint, rents go up.

Increase the levies so much that it makes being a landlord unprofitable. Leeches on society deserved to be treated like parasites.

Where do all the renters live?

Build more public housing and fund housing associations. Private rental is a scam and needs to be stamped out.

I and an increasing percentage of the population live in private rental

Wouldn't you prefer to live in your own home or in a public rental where the landlord won't bother you or decide to evict you for spurious reasons or jack up the rent so they can leech more money from you?