Rachel Reeves per sfidare i parlamentari dei parlamentari per una tassa sulla ricchezza
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/rachel-reeves-wealth-tax-kl6zj9kvz
di CaseyEffingRyback
Rachel Reeves per sfidare i parlamentari dei parlamentari per una tassa sulla ricchezza
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/rachel-reeves-wealth-tax-kl6zj9kvz
di CaseyEffingRyback
42 commenti
Lol. Not surprised that a centre right party is not too keen to go after the wealthy….
Remember folks, “Difficult decisions” only apply to cutting public services and squeezing more tax out of the middle. The wealthy must not be inconvenienced in any way.
so instead she will increase everyone else tax then act shocked when they spend less and growth gets even worse. she’s stuck in a doom loop without the ability or imagination to get out of it.
>Reeves is preparing to raise taxes in the autumn budget after the government was forced by Labour MPs to abandon welfare cuts and reinstate winter fuel payments for millions of people. The backpedalling on both policies will cost more than £6 billion combined.
She can either tax work or wealth. If wealth tax is ruled out then tax on work it is!
I guess it doesn’t matter what they do now. Who knew we would live to see the big two disappear!
Labour have to get radical. They can’t just keep squeezing PAYE earners, leaving un earned income alone and providing masses of benefits. Something has to give
“We’re all in this together”. especially you scumbags pauper (ordinary) folk.
Inflation inflation inflation is all I’m hearing. We’ll be taking money from inflated assets caused by QE and putting it into the goods and services market
In this case, Reeves is more or less right. A blanket wealth tax similar to what was implemented in Norway doesn’t work. It makes the ultra wealthy leave and Norway ended up causing a loss in their taxes coming in.
What I’d like to see happen is the 50p tax for high earners come back, and ensuring that massive corporations pay their fair share of tax, unlike Amazon who pays about 3.5%.
Is defy the right word here, rather than decline? Labour MPs’ calls are just that; Reeves is not defying a court order or even a Labour Party rule. Not that one would normally accuse the right wing press of clickbait.
The government (I don’t think it matters which political party is in power, we always get the same government) have been pushing everyone onto PAYE for a reason.
Fiscal drag and tax rises for mid-high earners coming your way.
After ww2 social security and the NHS were created, debt dropped and we had significant economic growth. Remind me what the tax rate was again?
I would rather see a wealth tax wait until whoever wins the election after next. This is because if the next government is one that tries to emulate what the USA is doing then they are likely to plunder what gets taken as a wealth tax change under this government.
Wait until after the next lot actually drive the car off the cliff, then it also can’t get criticised.
“I do think that people who get their income through wealth should have to pay more”
(Rachel Reeves, not but four years ago)
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-opposition-hints-wealth-taxes-shareholders-landlords-2021-09-26/
It sounds easy, just tax the rich more.
What it really should be is get the rich to pay more tax. If we collected what is fair and right from the rich based on systems we already have in place then we wouldn’t have to “tax the rich” more. Block the loop holes.
She is trying her best to make 6 digits pay in London can live a miserable life.
To my mind tax policy has to have 2 pillars, firstly insofar as it is at all possible it has to be equitable, but also at the end of the day what’s most important is that revenue to the exchequer is maximised.
There is absolutely no point raising rates in any area if that ultimately results in lower revenue because that just hurts everyone as everyone else then has to contribute more to fill that gap. I know people scoff at this, but the reality is that in particular for the wealthy we live in a global highly connected world nowadays where relocating is easier than ever before. If you create enough of a disincentive to being here some will go. Not to say that rules any ideas out, it may make sense but It would be far better if decisions were made pragmatically rather than pursuant to ideology alone.
They don’t want to do a wealth tax as that’s their retirement package money.
Best they will do is hurt Henry’s while letting the truly huge asset owners off the hook.
Cut spend:
* Double lock pensions.
* Deportations of illegal migrants & detainment centres to stop the absurd practice of putting them up in private accommodation, giving them perdeums
* Tighten PIP/Motability. No more cars and PIP for “Tennis Elbow”, “Constipation” etc.
They don’t tax the ultra wealthy because they’ll find another way to avoid it, and if they cant they’ll simply leave the country.
The whole capitalist system is farcical, when everyone is out for themselves regardless of how much they hoard it can only ever turn out worse each year, somethings snapping soon.
So we can’t cut WFA for the richest pensioners, we can’t cut £5bn from welfare, we can’t look at PIP, when inheritance was looked at farmers clogged the streets cos God forbid they pay tax over £3m, and we can’t tax the richest with not even a one-off wealth tax, and the triple-lock on pensions will bankrupt us in a few decades and we can’t look at that.
What exactly are we going to do? Because it seems nothing and then get Farage elected and then have an economic catastrophe.
And this is why they’re losing. Seriously, how is she this out of touch?
Of course she is. Can’t possibly tax them because they’ll all run away or some shit so better stick it to everyone else instead.
The most serious expert-backed proposal came from the Wealth Tax Commission (2020). They recommended a one-off wealth tax targeting individuals with over £500,000 in net assets.
Their main proposal was:
1% per year for 5 years (so a total of 5% over that period)
Only on wealth above £500k per person (i.e., £1 million for a couple)
It would raise about £260 billion total, or £52 billion a year
That’s way more than what a permanent wealth tax would raise. A smaller annual tax (like 1% on wealth over £10m) would bring in maybe £10–15 billion a year, but it’s easier to avoid. The one-off version was seen as harder to dodge and fairer in a post-COVID recovery.
🔗 Source (full report with executive summary):
https://www.ukwealth.tax/
There’s also a great summary in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/09/one-off-wealth-tax-uk-could-raise-260bn-says-report
It surely cannot be beyond the government and their advisors and all our finest minds, to come up with a model of taxation and redistribution that actually works, based on what we think is needed for our society. Every problem has a logical/best answer.
My best friend has a joinery business. He recently went to a job where the customer wanted some fitted wardrobes, wall to wall in a big room. Large house in Sheffield in a posh part of it. Didn’t particularly want the job, quoted £50,000. Guy instantly said yes no questions asked. You can’t tell me a wealth tax wouldn’t be a good thing.
The only argument I’ve ever agreed with against a wealth tax is that it never closes the loopholes that the people it’s aimed at can’t afford to go through to avoid it anyway.
This doesn’t seem like Reeves’ reasoning. Plus I’d ignore the doom and gloom about how ineffective these taxes are from the right wing press owned by literal private island billionaires.
I love how the media has strawmanned “tax the rich” and “tax wealth” into “wealth tax”, which is a specific tax policy, and then gone “we can’t tax the rich because a specific tax policy won’t work”. Wealth taxes can take many forms, not all of them smart, but still:
* Property taxes
* Land Value Taxes
* CGT
* Stamp duty on stock market transaction, e.g. LSE transactions
* Inheritance taxes
* Taxes on unrealised gains (e.g. when someone borrows against assets they have)
The fact is that inequality is causing our economy to work to the benefit of wealth rather than workers. If 50 families own more wealth than 50% of the country, markets are much more likely to cater to *their* needs, rather than the needs of common people.
She’s not defying anyone. She is a puppet like the rest of them doing as she’s told
This is not real labour. She certainly is at the core of it to.
She is right. Wealth tax will gut the economy. Starmer and Reeves should call a general election rather then give power to the far left, they will precipitate an economic crisis.
For people against this, I’m curious where they think the money will come from without increasing tax on working people or people who aren’t millionaires.
Also want to know how they’d stop inequality rising and the wealthy buying up assets which is the current trend.
We don’t need just another new tax, we need complete tax and benefits reform, which might include a wealth/land tax.
We complain about low growth while maintaining a tax system that incentivises some of our most productive people to either work less or leave.
Oh, they will implement a tax on the wealthy. Wealthy meaning anyone earning more than £50270 a year.
Glad she isnt for the 99% who would benefit from this.
Wealth taxs are hard because you dont want to drive away the uber rich. But at the same time, listern to the people before they eat the rich and your looking like a side course to the main dish
Ah, the two options this country is allowed to vote for, neoliberal managed decline, or accelerated neoliberal managed decline.
Or perhaps three? Neoliberal managed decline seasoned with fascism?
Nah mate, let’s just tax working people more instead. According to every UK sub, it’s the doctor who went to uni/med school for like a decade and is now on £100k that’s the real enemy. Let’s tax them more. Those poor billionaires hoarding unproductive wealth have done nothing wrong.
What if we let the mega wealthy hold the assets that generate income, I am talking utilities, land, housing stock, factories / offices (the land they are on), contracts with Local Authorities or Central government, and then when they have all of this, what if we asked for nothing back publically?
We could, conceivably, strip services, funnel tax payer and private individual wealth upwards (and out of the country), then if anything goes wrong simply step in with a government bail out where we borrow some of this wealth to give it back to them with the promise of the taxpayer paying for it.
Why would we do this? Well, as things money is funnelled up and out of the country, it makes the average standard of living and productivity go down, so why do it? Simply, productivity is now measured in rental value and my meagre holdings are increasing in value along with the massive holdings of these mega wealthy.
The alternative is, frankly, awful. Imagine if we were to say funnelling all this money out of the country is not great, so we want, say 25% of it back. Or if we said that these foreign investors couldn’t ‘invest’ in the first place.
We would end up with a situation where these rental assets would collapse. Overnight, no one would be an investor in the UK. Why does that matter? Because my meagre assets would suddenly collapse in value, and I have likely remortagaged them based on future asset appreciation. I would be in trouble, and on paper the UK would be destroyed.
The fact that suddenly the average person would not be paying 50% salary in rent, and that a vast sum of money would not leave the UK every day doesn’t matter. People who are in debt would be in for a shock, the UK investor market would have to change from rental asset purchase to development asset purchase (for example buy machining equipment for car factories, rather than relying on pre-metric machines and instead buying the Freehold the site is on). This is a much riskier investment – you pay for top notch equipment and get a competitive advantage over China, but you need to produce more of a market share to get it back, compared to 8.5% return yearly plus 10% increase in land value over the period.
Truth is, we are led by people who think like above, and they can see we are all in a debt trap but don’t want to stop it because it will be very hard. However, it needs to stop, we need the mega wealthy and investors to flee, because they are actually rental asset investors, not development investors.
Why would a development investor invest here over South East Asia you ask? it is a risk, but the vast educated in top tier universities, strong work ethic, ‘play fair’ attitude, and frankly ingenuity of our population means we would really do well I think in the long term, but it is a gamble, we are on like an alcoholic on debt not alcohol, and withdrawal will be very very hard. Any party could just flip back on the asset investor switch and things would appear great for 4 years of parliament right away.
Honestly think this is sensible.
I’m up for taxing the rich as much as the next person but the evidence for wealth taxes is exceedingly weak.
She’s ucking useless. The west is fucked so let’s keep doing the same thing via neoliberal consensus and hope the wealth trickles down.
It’s all just bullshit.
Refusing to cancel the triple lock, raising the retirement age, raising taxes, and not implementing any kind of wealth tax, is going to go down like a bucket of cold sick with regular working people.
This thread is another example of it never getting better in the UK.
I wish I could live somewhere else but sadly I can’t.