Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2024 18:55:55 GMT
Fair taxation? I have already said that there is too high a tax burden on incomes whilst wealth is undertaxed.
Were I chancellor, what would my tax agenda be? I guarantee it would be pragmatically left wing but it will not be far left.
First of all with incomes I would merge NI with income tax and it would all just be called Income Tax. I would have just three simple rates, a 30% rate, a 40% rate and a 50% rate. I would aim as and when it was affordable to raise the basic threshold to £18k and the 40p rate threshold to £60k, with the 50p rate coming into effect at £100k. I would close as many loopholes as possible and make it mandatory that all 40p or 50p rate payers must pay at least 30% on all their UK income regardless of tax loopholes. I would follow through with Labour's planned abolition of charitable status for private schools and the scrapping of non dom status.
Local taxation needs serious reform. It is ludicrous to base it upon property values from decades ago, regardless of whether you actually own the property or not. I would move to a system which taxes individuals rather than properties, based upon which authority your main address is in. I think local taxation should in some way be linked to incomes, levied on all incomes between £18k and £100k. It would not be levied on incomes above this level since such earners will already be hitting the 50p bracket by then. For households with more than one earner, the £18k threshold would only apply to the highest earner in the household. All other earners in the household would start paying local taxation at the lower threshold of £6k. The maximum levy any authority should be allowed to impose would be 5%, though they could levy less if they chose.
I would cut taxes on private landlord's rental incomes in conjunction with capping rents, and recoup revenue losses from housing benefits savings and higher capitals gains levies on resale of such properties. For capitals gains taxes more widely, I would adopt a policy first suggested to me many years ago on another forum by a Tory party member. I would tax capital gains at the same level as taxes on incomes for shorter term investments, but tax such gains at a progressively lower rate for longer term investments. The aim would be to encourage long term over short term investments, and tax the latter more severely in order to disincentivise asset stripping in favour of long term investments for the future.
I would introduce an excess ownership tax on all second homes or any property left vacant for more than 6 months in any year. The proceeds would be ringfenced for social housing construction. I would impose land hoarding taxes on all land held and approved for housing development but upon which no construction is taking place to discourage land banking. This would be in conjunction with a reform of planning laws to reduce the power of Nimby's to stymie construction. I would also introduce big tax incentives for the construction of family homes that cost less than five times the average local salary. In regions with a high density of second homes like Devon and Cornwall, I would mandate that all new builds be available only to locals who do not already own a home unless they are selling the latter.
I would introduce a land value tax and use some of the proceeds for social housing construction.
For those companies making massive profits due to market forces rather than their own efforts, I would impose windfall taxes and use the proceeds to issue rebates to their UK based customers.
I would make universal credit more generous by reducing the clawback rate to 40% rather than the current 55%, reducing this clawback rate to only 10% of their pre-tax income once they hit the 30p tax threshold, so that no one loses more than 40p for every £1 earned, unless they are a higher rate taxpayer. Thereby guaranteeing that work pays for all.
This last might have to be done very gradually as and when it is affordable.
All unearned income - eg share dividends, etc - will be taxed at the same rate as earned income.
I would introduce a mansion tax on all properties worth in excess of £1 million.
Am sure I can think of more but will stop there for now.
I do think the general gist of that is left wing but it is hardly far left territory. Dictatorship of the proletariat it isn't, lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 28, 2024 22:20:34 GMT
Obviously to be expected - any left-wing government is bound to increase taxation.
The only thing I would question is that there is nothing there to increase growth - in fact the higher investment taxes actually mitigate against growth. And as the economy has now stagnated for over 15 years I dont see any future in simply carrying on more of the same policies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2024 2:19:29 GMT
Obviously to be expected - any left-wing government is bound to increase taxation. The only thing I would question is that there is nothing there to increase growth - in fact the higher investment taxes actually mitigate against growth. And as the economy has now stagnated for over 15 years I dont see any future in simply carrying on more of the same policies. Well my proposals included lower rates of capital gains tax for long term investments. These could be lower than existing rates. Encouraging long term investment whilst discouraging short term profiteering and asset stripping should help to boost growth in the long run. Likewise lower taxes on income with a shift away towards taxing wealth instead. Under my proposals no one would pay any taxes on their incomes at all until they earned 18k instead of the 12.5k presently. The only exception perhaps being a maximum 5% local tax on incomes above 6k for those who are not the main earner in any household. Above 18k taxes would be paid at 30% which is similar to the combined income tax, and NI currently, but again with people keeping much more before they start paying it. They might also be liable to a maximum 5% levy on the incomes for local taxes but this would be instead of paying Council Tax which would be abolished. In practice most current council tax payers would be paying less by such a change. The 40p rate would kick in at 60k instead of 50k presently, and would be substantially less than the combined NI and Income tax rate of about 43% currently. Only those earning over 100k would start paying just a little more, but above 150k would be paying only a tiny fraction more than the combined NI and Income tax currently. And for earnings between 100k and 150k, I would simplify the system further by no longer clawing back the starting threshold so in practice this group will on balance not be paying all that much more if anything more. And my proposed universal credit reform, making it more generous and less punitive for working people would boost productivity by making hard work more financially worthwhile. Likewise tax cuts for landlords but also mandated lower rents for tenants as a quid pro quo, putting more money in people's pockets. Also using tax incentives and tax impositions in combination with less restrictive planning laws to encourage maximum housing construction of the most socially beneficial kinds would surely boost growth. Land hoarding taxes after all would never be levied if the land was being developed, but tax breaks would encourage the most socially useful building. I think there are real growth measures in the above, designed to make work the route to prosperity rather than ownership, and rewarding those who get off their arses and go out and work. Because this is the route to increased prosperity and enhanced growth. For this reason too, whilst closing loopholes I would not advocate greatly increased taxes on the earned incomes of the wealthy. But would equalise taxes on unearned income with those of earned income. It would all be about making hard work the route to prosperity for all and thereby boosting growth by a reinvigoration of the work ethic. Let work be the primary route to prosperity rather than merely the ownership of assets that can be used to suck wealth out of the pockets of productive workers So yes, left leaning but hardly far left. If to the left wants to cite any of the above as examples of my far left extremism, he can try but in doing so he will only signpost the fact that he doesnt have a clue what far left actually means. Always good for a laugh though. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Jan 29, 2024 2:27:38 GMT
Has for right wing Gammons blaming immigrants aren't you the one who said that EU immigrants was lowing your wages isn't that following right wing propergander? We left the EU and my salary literally increased by £20k when a good chunk of the EU nationals went home. The same happened for 100,000s of truckers, warehouse staff, retail staff. Freedom of Movement flooded the UK with SIX MILLION EU workers... please explain how that doesn't reduce salaries? Did supply and demand theory magically stop applying? lol. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Jan 29, 2024 3:14:46 GMT
Obviously to be expected - any left-wing government is bound to increase taxation. The only thing I would question is that there is nothing there to increase growth - in fact the higher investment taxes actually mitigate against growth. And as the economy has now stagnated for over 15 years I dont see any future in simply carrying on more of the same policies. Well my proposals included lower rates of capital gains tax for long term investments. These could be lower than existing rates. Encouraging long term investment whilst discouraging short term profiteering and asset stripping should help to boost growth in the long run. Likewise lower taxes on income with a shift away towards taxing wealth instead. Under my proposals no one would pay any taxes on their incomes at all until they earned 18k instead of the 12.5k presently. The only exception perhaps being a maximum 5% local tax on incomes above 6k for those who are not the main earner in any household. Above 18k taxes would be paid at 30% which is similar to the combined income tax, and NI currently, but again with people keeping much more before they start paying it. They might also be liable to a maximum 5% levy on the incomes for local taxes but this would be instead of paying Council Tax which would be abolished. In practice most current council tax payers would be paying less by such a change. The 40p rate would kick in at 60k instead of 50k presently, and would be substantially less than the combined NI and Income tax rate of about 43% currently. Only those earning over 100k would start paying just a little more, but above 150k would be paying only a tiny fraction more than the combined NI and Income tax currently. And for earnings between 100k and 150k, I would simplify the system further by no longer clawing back the starting threshold so in practice this group will on balance not be paying all that much more if anything more. And my proposed universal credit reform, making it more generous and less punitive for working people would boost productivity by making hard work more financially worthwhile. Likewise tax cuts for landlords but also mandated lower rents for tenants as a quid pro quo, putting more money in people's pockets. Also using tax incentives and tax impositions in combination with less restrictive planning laws to encourage maximum housing construction of the most socially beneficial kinds would surely boost growth. Land hoarding taxes after all would never be levied if the land was being developed, but tax breaks would encourage the most socially useful building. I think there are real growth measures in the above, designed to make work the route to prosperity rather than ownership, and rewarding those who get off their arses and go out and work. Because this is the route to increased prosperity and enhanced growth. For this reason too, whilst closing loopholes I would not advocate greatly increased taxes on the earned incomes of the wealthy. But would equalise taxes on unearned income with those of earned income. It would all be about making hard work the route to prosperity for all and thereby boosting growth by a reinvigoration of the work ethic. Let work be the primary route to prosperity rather than merely the ownership of assets that can be used to suck wealth out of the pockets of productive workers So yes, left leaning but hardly far left. If to the left wants to cite any of the above as examples of my far left extremism, he can try but in doing so he will only signpost the fact that he doesnt have a clue what far left actually means. Always good for a laugh though. Wealth is a paper figure, it does not exist. You pay tax when some of that paper figure is realised and turned into income. If the taxation of wealth becomes the norm then it won't be long before they come after the average persons wealth. Capitalism has brought 90% of the world out of extreme poverty, you should think about that. Also when you try to push the narrative of the worker owning the means of production you should remember how that has worked out when tried. Personally, I think a society should be measured by the opportunities that it provides. Everybody in the UK is free to make the most of their free education. They are free to start a company, they are free to invest in property / shares / other assets. It is not like "the rich" are playing a game that "the poor" are not invited to. "Suck wealth out of the pockets of productive workers" what a complete load of bollocks. You are paid the market rate according to your skills, it has nothing to do with profit. The "productive workers" are FREE TO USE THEIR OWN MONEY AND FORM THEIR OWN COMPANY... but 99% won't, because they are too afraid of losing it if the company fails. You have two choice under capitalism, you can play it safe and be an employee, or you can risk it all and be the employer. Think what you are suggesting, Elon Musk should spend 30 years risking everything to build up an empire and then an 18 year old fresh out of college should be entitled to a share of the profits, but take no financial hit should it make losses? lol. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2024 3:43:43 GMT
Well my proposals included lower rates of capital gains tax for long term investments. These could be lower than existing rates. Encouraging long term investment whilst discouraging short term profiteering and asset stripping should help to boost growth in the long run. Likewise lower taxes on income with a shift away towards taxing wealth instead. Under my proposals no one would pay any taxes on their incomes at all until they earned 18k instead of the 12.5k presently. The only exception perhaps being a maximum 5% local tax on incomes above 6k for those who are not the main earner in any household. Above 18k taxes would be paid at 30% which is similar to the combined income tax, and NI currently, but again with people keeping much more before they start paying it. They might also be liable to a maximum 5% levy on the incomes for local taxes but this would be instead of paying Council Tax which would be abolished. In practice most current council tax payers would be paying less by such a change. The 40p rate would kick in at 60k instead of 50k presently, and would be substantially less than the combined NI and Income tax rate of about 43% currently. Only those earning over 100k would start paying just a little more, but above 150k would be paying only a tiny fraction more than the combined NI and Income tax currently. And for earnings between 100k and 150k, I would simplify the system further by no longer clawing back the starting threshold so in practice this group will on balance not be paying all that much more if anything more. And my proposed universal credit reform, making it more generous and less punitive for working people would boost productivity by making hard work more financially worthwhile. Likewise tax cuts for landlords but also mandated lower rents for tenants as a quid pro quo, putting more money in people's pockets. Also using tax incentives and tax impositions in combination with less restrictive planning laws to encourage maximum housing construction of the most socially beneficial kinds would surely boost growth. Land hoarding taxes after all would never be levied if the land was being developed, but tax breaks would encourage the most socially useful building. I think there are real growth measures in the above, designed to make work the route to prosperity rather than ownership, and rewarding those who get off their arses and go out and work. Because this is the route to increased prosperity and enhanced growth. For this reason too, whilst closing loopholes I would not advocate greatly increased taxes on the earned incomes of the wealthy. But would equalise taxes on unearned income with those of earned income. It would all be about making hard work the route to prosperity for all and thereby boosting growth by a reinvigoration of the work ethic. Let work be the primary route to prosperity rather than merely the ownership of assets that can be used to suck wealth out of the pockets of productive workers So yes, left leaning but hardly far left. If to the left wants to cite any of the above as examples of my far left extremism, he can try but in doing so he will only signpost the fact that he doesnt have a clue what far left actually means. Always good for a laugh though. Wealth is a paper figure, it does not exist. You pay tax when some of that paper figure is realised and turned into income. If the taxation of wealth becomes the norm then it won't be long before they come after the average persons wealth. Capitalism has brought 90% of the world out of extreme poverty, you should think about that. Also when you try to push the narrative of the worker owning the means of production you should remember how that has worked out when tried. Personally, I think a society should be measured by the opportunities that it provides. Everybody in the UK is free to make the most of their free education. They are free to start a company, they are free to invest in property / shares / other assets. It is not like "the rich" are playing a game that "the poor" are not invited to. "Suck wealth out of the pockets of productive workers" what a complete load of bollocks. You are paid the market rate according to your skills, it has nothing to do with profit. The "productive workers" are FREE TO USE THEIR OWN MONEY AND FORM THEIR OWN COMPANY... but 99% won't, because they are too afraid of losing it if the company fails. You have two choice under capitalism, you can play it safe and be an employee, or you can risk it all and be the employer. Think what you are suggesting, Elon Musk should spend 30 years risking everything to build up an empire and then an 18 year old fresh out of college should be entitled to a share of the profits, but take no financial hit should it make losses? lol. I am not arguing for the abolition of capitalism. I am arguing for shifting the burden of taxation away from productive work towards asset wealth in order to boost growth by turbo charging the work ethic. And by boosting housing construction. And nowhere have I suggested anyone pay more taxes on ordinary levels of wealth. For example, the primary residence unless worth more than £1 million should be exempt. You are assuming something I am not arguing for. If lower levels of wealth ever accrue more tax liabilities it will explicitly be because the monies raised will be used to cut taxes on incomes. Most working people would pay less under such arrangements. Some types of asset wealth actually hinder growth by sucking excessive wealth out of the pockets of productive workers which not only disincentivises hard work but limits the ability of workers to gain the funding necessary for entrepreneurial endeavours whilst encouraging those with money to invest to unproductively shove it into bricks and mortar instead of investing in potentially productive enterprises. I actually propose cutting capital gains tax for long term investments whilst increasing it for short term profiteering, all to encourage growth which will enable higher tax receipts in order to spend more on public services or cut taxes on incomes further in the long run, or both. It is all about boosting growth by encouraging hard work, housing construction, and productive investment, whilst increasing taxes on unproductive or counterproductive investment. The aim being to encourage the most productive and growth enhancing forms of investment, at the expense of less productive forms of investment. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Jan 29, 2024 4:01:16 GMT
Wealth is a paper figure, it does not exist. You pay tax when some of that paper figure is realised and turned into income. If the taxation of wealth becomes the norm then it won't be long before they come after the average persons wealth. Capitalism has brought 90% of the world out of extreme poverty, you should think about that. Also when you try to push the narrative of the worker owning the means of production you should remember how that has worked out when tried. Personally, I think a society should be measured by the opportunities that it provides. Everybody in the UK is free to make the most of their free education. They are free to start a company, they are free to invest in property / shares / other assets. It is not like "the rich" are playing a game that "the poor" are not invited to. "Suck wealth out of the pockets of productive workers" what a complete load of bollocks. You are paid the market rate according to your skills, it has nothing to do with profit. The "productive workers" are FREE TO USE THEIR OWN MONEY AND FORM THEIR OWN COMPANY... but 99% won't, because they are too afraid of losing it if the company fails. You have two choice under capitalism, you can play it safe and be an employee, or you can risk it all and be the employer. Think what you are suggesting, Elon Musk should spend 30 years risking everything to build up an empire and then an 18 year old fresh out of college should be entitled to a share of the profits, but take no financial hit should it make losses? lol. I am not arguing for the abolition of capitalism. I am arguing for shifting the burden of taxation away from productive work towards asset wealth in order to boost growth by turbo charging the work ethic. And by boosting housing construction. And nowhere have I suggested anyone pay more taxes on ordinary levels of wealth. For example, the primary residence unless worth more than £1 million should be exempt. You are assuming something I am not arguing for. If lower levels of wealth ever accrue more tax liabilities it will explicitly be because the monies raised will be used to cut taxes on incomes. Most working people would pay less under such arrangements. Some types of asset wealth actually hinder growth by sucking excessive wealth out of the pockets of productive workers which not only disincentivises hard work but limits the ability of workers to gain the funding necessary for entrepreneurial endeavours whilst encouraging those with money to invest to unproductively shove it into bricks and mortar instead of investing in potentially productive enterprises. I actually propose cutting capital gains tax for long term investments whilst increasing it for short term profiteering, all to encourage growth which will enable higher tax receipts in order to spend more on public services or cut taxes on incomes further in the long run, or both. It is all about boosting growth by encouraging hard work, housing construction, and productive investment, whilst increasing taxes on unproductive or counterproductive investment. The aim being to encourage the most productive and growth enhancing forms of investment, at the expense of less productive forms of investment. You literally accused company owners / shareholders of taking money from the pockets of productive workers... which is literally a communist argument based on fairytale economics. The market dictates wages, not shareholders. If there was no shareholders the workers would not be magically paid more, the companies would just spend the money on something else... like loan interest... because they couldn't sell shares to raise money lol. If my house jumps in value, that is meaningless until I actually sell it. Are you going to give me money if it loses value? The UK has problems because all our politicians lie about the problems, and when you lie about the problem you will never get the right answer. The electorate is equally to blame because we refuse to listen to grown up arguments, and instead look to blame our problems on "somebody else". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2024 4:05:07 GMT
Has for right wing Gammons blaming immigrants aren't you the one who said that EU immigrants was lowing your wages isn't that following right wing propergander? We left the EU and my salary literally increased by £20k when a good chunk of the EU nationals went home. The same happened for 100,000s of truckers, warehouse staff, retail staff.Freedom of Movement flooded the UK with SIX MILLION EU workers... please explain how that doesn't reduce salaries? Did supply and demand theory magically stop applying? lol. As a retail worker myself I can tell you that what you have stated is mostly rubbish insofar as retail staff are concerned. By far the greatest cause of any significant pay rises for us has been the desire of the better paid parts of the retail sector to keep pay ahead of the minimum wage which the Tory government has been increasing by substantial amounts in recent years. This is probably because the government has realised that the most effective way to limit welfare payments to working people is to ensure the lowest paid ones get paid a lot more. In some sectors like trucking, labour shortages have certainly been a factor in higher pay, but not on the shopfloor for retail staff. Staff turnover has certainly increased because better jobs in other sectors of the economy are more readily available, but the biggest problem here is not the hourly rate but more the fact that no one below management level ever gets offered more than part time contracted hours anymore, leaving workers dependent on a supply of overtime which is not always forthcoming. Some staff for this reason will even take jobs elsewhere with lower hourly rates just because they guarantee full time hours. If supermarket chains want to reduce their staff turnover and retain the best workers they need to wake up and smell the coffee and start offering full time contracts to those who want and need them. One main reason why the supermarkets do not struggle too much in hiring new workers, mostly youngsters, is because they pay the same rate of pay to all staff doing the same jobs, even 16 year olds. So for example £11 an hour might well be nothing special to most adults, but it is one hell of a lot more than most 16 and 17 year olds can earn in most other places, and indeed this is true for most people under 25. Supermarkets also attract a lot of young student workers because they are prepared to be flexible and offer contracts that work around their study needs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2024 4:15:40 GMT
I am not arguing for the abolition of capitalism. I am arguing for shifting the burden of taxation away from productive work towards asset wealth in order to boost growth by turbo charging the work ethic. And by boosting housing construction. And nowhere have I suggested anyone pay more taxes on ordinary levels of wealth. For example, the primary residence unless worth more than £1 million should be exempt. You are assuming something I am not arguing for. If lower levels of wealth ever accrue more tax liabilities it will explicitly be because the monies raised will be used to cut taxes on incomes. Most working people would pay less under such arrangements. Some types of asset wealth actually hinder growth by sucking excessive wealth out of the pockets of productive workers which not only disincentivises hard work but limits the ability of workers to gain the funding necessary for entrepreneurial endeavours whilst encouraging those with money to invest to unproductively shove it into bricks and mortar instead of investing in potentially productive enterprises. I actually propose cutting capital gains tax for long term investments whilst increasing it for short term profiteering, all to encourage growth which will enable higher tax receipts in order to spend more on public services or cut taxes on incomes further in the long run, or both. It is all about boosting growth by encouraging hard work, housing construction, and productive investment, whilst increasing taxes on unproductive or counterproductive investment. The aim being to encourage the most productive and growth enhancing forms of investment, at the expense of less productive forms of investment. You literally accused company owners / shareholders of taking money from the pockets of productive workers... which is literally a communist argument based on fairytale economics. The market dictates wages, not shareholders. If there was no shareholders the workers would not be magically paid more, the companies would just spend the money on something else... like loan interest... because they couldn't sell shares to raise money lol. If my house jumps in value, that is meaningless until I actually sell it. Are you going to give me money if it loses value? The UK has problems because all our politicians lie about the problems, and when you lie about the problem you will never get the right answer. The electorate is equally to blame because we refuse to listen to grown up arguments, and instead look to blame our problems on "somebody else". Actually, I was talking more of landlords. But I see no logical reason why dividend incomes should be taxed at lower rates than earned income. When work is the ultimate source of all wealth. Societies which reward hard work the most whilst restricting the extent to which asset owners can grow fat off them would tend to be more productive societies with higher growth. And I am not calling for zero rents or zero dividends. I know these things are necessary. I am merely suggesting that such things should be taxed in the same way as earned income, with limits on rent levels. And do note that I suggested as a quid pro quo tax cuts for landlords in return for such limits. You do also realise that I proposed lower rates of capital gains taxes for long term investments dont you? Or is that fairytale economics too? And asking unearned income to be taxed at the same rate as earned income, taxes which I advocate should be lower than at present in any case, is hardly communism. Or are you another one that thinks such modest and reasonable suggestions make me the epitome of Lenin? Hahaha, well at least you and to the left might agree on something even if it is total bollocks |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 29, 2024 7:59:09 GMT
Obviously to be expected - any left-wing government is bound to increase taxation. The only thing I would question is that there is nothing there to increase growth - in fact the higher investment taxes actually mitigate against growth. And as the economy has now stagnated for over 15 years I dont see any future in simply carrying on more of the same policies. Well my proposals included lower rates of capital gains tax for long term investments. These could be lower than existing rates. Encouraging long term investment whilst discouraging short term profiteering and asset stripping should help to boost growth in the long run. Likewise lower taxes on income with a shift away towards taxing wealth instead. Under my proposals no one would pay any taxes on their incomes at all until they earned 18k instead of the 12.5k presently. The only exception perhaps being a maximum 5% local tax on incomes above 6k for those who are not the main earner in any household. Above 18k taxes would be paid at 30% which is similar to the combined income tax, and NI currently, but again with people keeping much more before they start paying it. They might also be liable to a maximum 5% levy on the incomes for local taxes but this would be instead of paying Council Tax which would be abolished. In practice most current council tax payers would be paying less by such a change. The 40p rate would kick in at 60k instead of 50k presently, and would be substantially less than the combined NI and Income tax rate of about 43% currently. Only those earning over 100k would start paying just a little more, but above 150k would be paying only a tiny fraction more than the combined NI and Income tax currently. And for earnings between 100k and 150k, I would simplify the system further by no longer clawing back the starting threshold so in practice this group will on balance not be paying all that much more if anything more. And my proposed universal credit reform, making it more generous and less punitive for working people would boost productivity by making hard work more financially worthwhile. Likewise tax cuts for landlords but also mandated lower rents for tenants as a quid pro quo, putting more money in people's pockets. Also using tax incentives and tax impositions in combination with less restrictive planning laws to encourage maximum housing construction of the most socially beneficial kinds would surely boost growth. Land hoarding taxes after all would never be levied if the land was being developed, but tax breaks would encourage the most socially useful building. I think there are real growth measures in the above, designed to make work the route to prosperity rather than ownership, and rewarding those who get off their arses and go out and work. Because this is the route to increased prosperity and enhanced growth. For this reason too, whilst closing loopholes I would not advocate greatly increased taxes on the earned incomes of the wealthy. But would equalise taxes on unearned income with those of earned income. It would all be about making hard work the route to prosperity for all and thereby boosting growth by a reinvigoration of the work ethic. Let work be the primary route to prosperity rather than merely the ownership of assets that can be used to suck wealth out of the pockets of productive workers So yes, left leaning but hardly far left. If to the left wants to cite any of the above as examples of my far left extremism, he can try but in doing so he will only signpost the fact that he doesnt have a clue what far left actually means. Always good for a laugh though. I think you are missing my point. You put forward several measures to put more money in the pockets of (mainly) the lower paid. But that is more likely to stoke a consumer boom as they start spending (mainly on imports) than any long term investment in UK industry. The most obvious example is your desire for higher taxes on investment income - I would have thought that the experience of the 1950's & 60's would have been enough to show that highly taxing investment income does not lead to more investment. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Jan 29, 2024 8:35:10 GMT
Has for right wing Gammons blaming immigrants aren't you the one who said that EU immigrants was lowing your wages isn't that following right wing propergander? We left the EU and my salary literally increased by £20k when a good chunk of the EU nationals went home. The same happened for 100,000s of truckers, warehouse staff, retail staff. Freedom of Movement flooded the UK with SIX MILLION EU workers... please explain how that doesn't reduce salaries? Did supply and demand theory magically stop applying? lol. Urm supply and demand lowers wages hasnt supply and demand increased with much higher immigration now after FOM Stoped and have wages decreased has you say it does ? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 29, 2024 8:58:57 GMT
You literally accused company owners / shareholders of taking money from the pockets of productive workers... which is literally a communist argument based on fairytale economics. The market dictates wages, not shareholders. If there was no shareholders the workers would not be magically paid more, the companies would just spend the money on something else... like loan interest... because they couldn't sell shares to raise money lol. If my house jumps in value, that is meaningless until I actually sell it. Are you going to give me money if it loses value? The UK has problems because all our politicians lie about the problems, and when you lie about the problem you will never get the right answer. The electorate is equally to blame because we refuse to listen to grown up arguments, and instead look to blame our problems on "somebody else". And asking unearned income to be taxed at the same rate as earned income, taxes which I advocate should be lower than at present in any case, is hardly communism. Or are you another one that thinks such modest and reasonable suggestions make me the epitome of Lenin? Hahaha, well at least you and to the left might agree on something even if it is total bollocks This is fine in principle and would work if applied. However, the tricky thing is distinguishing between unearned and earned. I would suggest that a good definition of earning something is that you intervene or shoulder a risk that was required else wealth no lost or not created |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 29, 2024 9:21:02 GMT
We left the EU and my salary literally increased by £20k when a good chunk of the EU nationals went home. The same happened for 100,000s of truckers, warehouse staff, retail staff.Freedom of Movement flooded the UK with SIX MILLION EU workers... please explain how that doesn't reduce salaries? Did supply and demand theory magically stop applying? lol. As a retail worker myself I can tell you that what you have stated is mostly rubbish insofar as retail staff are concerned. Have to say Steve im not sure I agree with you. Dave mentioned a range of workers in different sectors , and by mid 2022 , there was some evidence to back up what he is saying about wage increases being attributable to the ending of freedom of movement among the lower paid workers in various sectors. If I remember , your particular supermarket has a notorious reputation , for being a bad employer. So while your personal wage situation may or may not have improved due to the ending of FOM , I would need to read up further on wider figures in your particular sector. a cursory glance on the interwebby , you can see the usual mixed bag of information on the subject, where pro eu agencies say the ending of FOM had no impact on wages , and anti eu agencies say the opposite. Remember though Steve , old labour were adamantly against mass immigration of workers , and the EU/EEC in general ,for the very reason that it reduced wages and working conditions , prior to kinnocks late nineteen eighties reforms where labour changed over to being pro European. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Jan 29, 2024 14:22:44 GMT
We left the EU and my salary literally increased by £20k when a good chunk of the EU nationals went home. The same happened for 100,000s of truckers, warehouse staff, retail staff. Freedom of Movement flooded the UK with SIX MILLION EU workers... please explain how that doesn't reduce salaries? Did supply and demand theory magically stop applying? lol. Urm supply and demand lowers wages hasnt supply and demand increased with much higher immigration now after FOM Stoped and have wages decreased has you say it does ? The number of EU nationals travelling into the UK for work WAS NEVER COUNTED. We were lied to, and the true scale only immerged when 6 million people applied to stay. It was obvious to anybody that worked in certain sectors that we had been absolutely flooded with cheap labour from Eastern Europe... hence people voted in their millions for Brexit. Immigration is not higher now, it was in the millions under FOM. A big part of the current immigration figure is not actually workers, it is the disgusting flooding of our universities with foreign students to make a fast buck. Finally, my employer (and many others) re-started in house training because they could no longer look to cheap EU labour, and as a result 20 young people per year are now trained up and earning £50k. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2024 14:39:52 GMT
Well my proposals included lower rates of capital gains tax for long term investments. These could be lower than existing rates. Encouraging long term investment whilst discouraging short term profiteering and asset stripping should help to boost growth in the long run. Likewise lower taxes on income with a shift away towards taxing wealth instead. Under my proposals no one would pay any taxes on their incomes at all until they earned 18k instead of the 12.5k presently. The only exception perhaps being a maximum 5% local tax on incomes above 6k for those who are not the main earner in any household. Above 18k taxes would be paid at 30% which is similar to the combined income tax, and NI currently, but again with people keeping much more before they start paying it. They might also be liable to a maximum 5% levy on the incomes for local taxes but this would be instead of paying Council Tax which would be abolished. In practice most current council tax payers would be paying less by such a change. The 40p rate would kick in at 60k instead of 50k presently, and would be substantially less than the combined NI and Income tax rate of about 43% currently. Only those earning over 100k would start paying just a little more, but above 150k would be paying only a tiny fraction more than the combined NI and Income tax currently. And for earnings between 100k and 150k, I would simplify the system further by no longer clawing back the starting threshold so in practice this group will on balance not be paying all that much more if anything more. And my proposed universal credit reform, making it more generous and less punitive for working people would boost productivity by making hard work more financially worthwhile. Likewise tax cuts for landlords but also mandated lower rents for tenants as a quid pro quo, putting more money in people's pockets. Also using tax incentives and tax impositions in combination with less restrictive planning laws to encourage maximum housing construction of the most socially beneficial kinds would surely boost growth. Land hoarding taxes after all would never be levied if the land was being developed, but tax breaks would encourage the most socially useful building. I think there are real growth measures in the above, designed to make work the route to prosperity rather than ownership, and rewarding those who get off their arses and go out and work. Because this is the route to increased prosperity and enhanced growth. For this reason too, whilst closing loopholes I would not advocate greatly increased taxes on the earned incomes of the wealthy. But would equalise taxes on unearned income with those of earned income. It would all be about making hard work the route to prosperity for all and thereby boosting growth by a reinvigoration of the work ethic. Let work be the primary route to prosperity rather than merely the ownership of assets that can be used to suck wealth out of the pockets of productive workers So yes, left leaning but hardly far left. If to the left wants to cite any of the above as examples of my far left extremism, he can try but in doing so he will only signpost the fact that he doesnt have a clue what far left actually means. Always good for a laugh though. I think you are missing my point. You put forward several measures to put more money in the pockets of (mainly) the lower paid. But that is more likely to stoke a consumer boom as they start spending (mainly on imports) than any long term investment in UK industry.
The most obvious example is your desire for higher taxes on investment income - I would have thought that the experience of the 1950's & 60's would have been enough to show that highly taxing investment income does not lead to more investment. I actually proposed lower capital gains taxes for long term investments. But why should any other form of income be taxed more lightly than earned income? Why not a level playing field? And you seem to be assuming that only the relatively low paid will go on a spending splurge on imports with more money in their pockets, generating a consumer boom. The low paid are not the only ones spending money you know. And with more money in their pockets some of the more enterprising amongst them might well be able to accumulate the capital to start their own businesses. Why is more money in the pockets of the better off not inflationary whilst in the pockets of the worse off it is? Your argument is inconsistent. We need growth so incentivising hard work as well as beneficial investments whilst disincentivising short term money grabs and asset strips makes more sense. As does boosting economic activity to encourage growth. |
|
