Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[JAS]

First topic message reminder :

Anyone fancy taking a sweep on when Labour are going to say "we've looked at the books, and it's worse than we thought, so we have to raise taxes"

Well...if Starmer hasn't done it by Friday 6:00pm it'll have to wait until next week :-p

[JuliusHMarx]

To me, that's a no brainer and I'm disgusted that supposedly centre left politicians refuse to consider it. Ironically a 1-2% wealth tax on those with assets above £10m would raise guess how much?? Yep a whole frickin black holes worth...£22bn

It's probably not even that controversial - https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/nearly-three-quarters-millionaires-polled-g20-countries-support-higher-taxes-wealth#:~:text=66%20percent%20of%20people%20with,standards%20and%20hinders%20social%20mobility.

[Duty281]

Spoiler:

It would be very difficult to explain the need for net migration of three quarters of a million, however, simply because this isn't needed.

Taxation + the relation to public services should be better explained. Here's Neville Chamberlain as chancellor saying that the cost of improving defence was to be funded through an increase in income tax (which would raise 12 million) and an increase in the tax on tea (3.5 million) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85bzIQ8_IcU

Maybe people could rally behind tax more if they knew specifically where it was going. Though I imagine people are reticent to pay more tax because the tax burden is the highest in nearly 80 years and, in spite of that, there appears to be little return on this. And the cost of living issue makes more people want to hold on to what they've got.

We could argue about whether the current levels of immigration are required. It's a complex problem. Given that those coming on boats (which cause Reform/Tories to froth at the mouth) are such a small part of total immigration, one has to wonder what all the others are coming for. Presumably, the majority are completely legal economic migrants, which begs the question as to why they're 'needed'. How long have you got?

Chamberlain comes from a different era, when politicians were perhaps far more serious people than they are now.

People wouldn't rally behind tax if the 'knew' where it was going. They likely wouldn't believe it (see media issues and a reliable source of 'truth') if they were told and, in addition, too many are too self-centred. You might argue we have the highest tax burden in 80 years cf. historical UK perspectives, but cf. other Nations that we might compare ourselves with and that have public services etc that we all say we want, we simply aren't paying enough given our current population demographic and lack of resilience as a Country. Add to that a completely sh!t economic model based on coffee shops, nail bars and the 'service' industry. I know you disagree, but I think we can add in to the above a loss of empire and the fact we simply can't either rely on easy Commonwealth labour or their natural resources etc. Basically, we're a small island, with little by the way of desired natural resources and an assumption that we're still 'Great'.

Because many of them aren't needed. Some are on dodgy student visas, dependents, cheap labour exploited by business etc. etc.

I think the majority of us welcome high skilled immigration, and gladly give asylum to those in need, but we can also recognise when we're being taken for a ride.

Fair that people might not believe where their taxes are going. Difficult to trust politicians. Interesting comparison about tax burdens.

Empire is irrelevant. Hardly anyone left who has living memory of it, and almost nobody who has such a memory is still in a position of influence. As a country we can and do rely on cheap/easy labour from abroad, it's just not necessarily from the old Commonwealth.

[Duty281]

See, it doesn’t take long  to get to a sensible debate once we get past the “all our problems are caused by immigrants” nonsense. That is NOT to say we don’t have some sort of immigration related issues but people in general really need to get past the narrative that we’ll somehow be in the land of milk & honey if immigration stopped tomorrow, we won’t, as in really really won’t. But we can’t get past that argument because of people like Musk & cohorts (Murdoch etc) keep pushing that narrative. I’ll keep saying it ‘til I’m blue in the face, it’s tax evading billionaires that are the problem.

I don't think there is a narrative of stopping immigration, or a narrative of all our problems are caused by immigrants. Even Reform don't want to stop immigration.

And which billionaires? Which taxes have they evaded? How much would/could be raised? What's the solution?

[Duty281]

It ought to be (relatively) easy to publish demonstrably proven facts re. the need for immigrants (a current birth rate of ~1.56 in the UK ought to be an obvious factor), the cost for the sort of public services people say they need/want, and then justify the cost and discuss how things are to be funded. It ought to be serious enough that these issues are sorted out for the UK (and any other European nation, for example) as cross-party issues of national urgency. Instead of that, we get a "You suck!", "No! You suck!" kind of politics and useless media soundbites without any meaningful challenge from media.

I won't hold my breath that anything will change until too late. Super's right on one thing - the quality of so-called leaders we have is largely abysmal. I've said it before, but The Jam had it right in 'Going Underground' decades ago: "The public wants, what the public gets...."

It would be very difficult to explain the need for net migration of three quarters of a million, however, simply because this isn't needed.

Is that the right place to start? ...and is it correct? i.e. are the Government actually saying "We NEED a net migration level of 3/4 of a million annually"

Taxation + the relation to public services should be better explained. Here's Neville Chamberlain as chancellor saying that the cost of improving defence was to be funded through an increase in income tax (which would raise 12 million) and an increase in the tax on tea (3.5 million) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85bzIQ8_IcU

How basic would we need to go here, i.e. how many of the electorate actually understand that the "In Pie" consists mainly of various of taxation (income Tax, VAT, NI, CGT excise duty etc) and that has to fund an "Out Pie" consisting of Health, Education, Home Office (police etc) Defence, Transport, Welfare, LA etc and any discrepancy between In Pie and Out Pie get covered by borrowing, mainly from the markets.



Maybe people could rally behind tax more if they knew specifically where it was going. Though I imagine people are reticent to pay more tax because the tax burden is the highest in nearly 80 years and, in spite of that, there appears to be little return on this. And the cost of living issue makes more people want to hold on to what they've got.

Let's suppose people do understand the above In Pie/Out Pie scenario, how do you then explain to them that not spending enough over an extended period means that NHS waiting times rocket, kids end up getting taught in schools with leaking crumbling roofs, our forces could only sustain a land war for a VERY limited period, our roads are riddled with potholes etc and to fix all of that we need the "In Pie" to be bigger. What should we do  to make that Pie bigger so that we can properly finance the extra size of the "Out Pie"  We could do nothing and let all the above services continue to decline, we could borrow (nothing wrong with some borrowing to correct a systemic failure but it would have it's own set of undesirable consequences more so if it had to drag into the medium/longer term. OR we pick where in the "In Pie" we have to lean into. To me, that's a no brainer and I'm disgusted that supposedly centre left politicians refuse to consider it. Ironically a 1-2% wealth tax on those with assets above £10m would raise guess how much?? Yep a whole frickin black holes worth...£22bn

1- Need was what Navy originally said. It's the previous Tory government that sent immigration to unthinkably high, damaging and unsustainable levels. Under Labour it looks as though it might be a bit lower, and with Starmer's Labour being fractionally more to the right than the Tories, deportations have already been increased.

2 - I would hope most of the electorate understand that, but listing it that way is a very Thatcherite way of doing it.

3 - It's quite complicated, because people have seen their council tax go up year after year, while the roads remain in a dreadful state. Or the NHS, as another example. The Tories increased funding to the NHS by 35% over their 14 years (£131bn to £178bn), yet the NHS got worse. Then it comes to the question of are tax and spending increases enough, or are other reforms needed? And what are the knock on effects, economically, of these tax increases, as tax increase penalises economic activity.

£22bn is hardly anything. I imagine that's a one off wealth tax? The UK's total spend, annually, is £1.2trn, so £22bn would be an increase of just under 2% of the annual spend.

[Duty281]

To me, that's a no brainer and I'm disgusted that supposedly centre left politicians refuse to consider it. Ironically a 1-2% wealth tax on those with assets above £10m would raise guess how much?? Yep a whole frickin black holes worth...£22bn

It's probably not even that controversial - https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/nearly-three-quarters-millionaires-polled-g20-countries-support-higher-taxes-wealth#:~:text=66%20percent%20of%20people%20with,standards%20and%20hinders%20social%20mobility.

I wonder how many of these people in the UK have coughed up such tax voluntarily? A person is allowed to do that in the UK, yet seemingly very few do.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/voluntary-payments-donations-to-government

[JuliusHMarx]

To me, that's a no brainer and I'm disgusted that supposedly centre left politicians refuse to consider it. Ironically a 1-2% wealth tax on those with assets above £10m would raise guess how much?? Yep a whole frickin black holes worth...£22bn

It's probably not even that controversial - https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/nearly-three-quarters-millionaires-polled-g20-countries-support-higher-taxes-wealth#:~:text=66%20percent%20of%20people%20with,standards%20and%20hinders%20social%20mobility.

I wonder how many of these people in the UK have coughed up such tax voluntarily? A person is allowed to do that in the UK, yet seemingly very few do.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/voluntary-payments-donations-to-government

I would think they give to charity rather than give additional tax. However, that doesn't change the fact that they are advocating a change in the law to force them to pay more tax.

It is fairly broadly agreed that the super-rich pay less tax percentage-wise from their income/wealth than the average person, is it not? Even if this is via legal avoidance methods that are not readily available to those less well off, that does not seem like a fair system of taxation to me.

[Duty281]

To me, that's a no brainer and I'm disgusted that supposedly centre left politicians refuse to consider it. Ironically a 1-2% wealth tax on those with assets above £10m would raise guess how much?? Yep a whole frickin black holes worth...£22bn

It's probably not even that controversial - https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/nearly-three-quarters-millionaires-polled-g20-countries-support-higher-taxes-wealth#:~:text=66%20percent%20of%20people%20with,standards%20and%20hinders%20social%20mobility.

I wonder how many of these people in the UK have coughed up such tax voluntarily? A person is allowed to do that in the UK, yet seemingly very few do.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/voluntary-payments-donations-to-government

I would think they give to charity rather than give additional tax. However, that doesn't change the fact that they are advocating a change in the law to force them to pay more tax.

It is fairly broadly agreed that the super-rich pay less tax percentage-wise from their income/wealth than the average person, is it not? Even if this is via legal avoidance methods that are not readily available to those less well off, that does not seem like a fair system of taxation to me.  

I believe this to be the case. According to the Equality Trust, "The poorest 10% of households paid on average 48% of their income in tax in 2022/23" while "The richest 10% of households, however, paid on average just 39% of their income in tax".

However, it should also be remembered that the top 10% of earners pay just over 60% of all income tax collected, which is about enough to fund the NHS each year. The top 1% of earners pay almost 30% of all income tax by themselves. This all points to a more than progressive system.

The thing about legal avoidance measures is just that. They're legal. And the UK has no jurisdiction over it. If taxes are raised too highly on the wealthy then we risk some of them going overseas and then the UK loses out on that tax revenue, which would presumably lead to a counter effect of raising taxes elsewhere to make up the shortfall...which will hit the poorest.

[JuliusHMarx]

Is there really any evidence that the wealthy would move overseas to an extent that would make much difference? That argument is often used as a scare tactic, but I'm not sure it holds up to scrutiny, especially given that many of them advocate paying more tax.

The top 10% of earners may well pay just over 60% of all income tax collected, but if they earn 80% (which I don't know) of all income, then that would hardly be progressive. The system needs to change to be fairer. Why should I pay more of my income in tax, as a percentage, than someone who earns 100 times more than me?

[Duty281]

Flat tax advocate?

The top 10% of earners earn about 34% of all income (page 34; it doesn't include those who don't pay income tax, but that would be such a low amount). The trend over the last 25 years has been the bigger earners paying even more of the income tax receipts (earners outside the top 10% paid nearly 50% of all income tax in 2000; down to 40% now).

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8513/CBP-8513.pdf

And it would depend how much tax was raised by. We know tax penalises economic activity and striking the right balance is crucial. In Norway recently, wealth taxes were increased by just a percent and more than 30 of the super rich left, costing them *billions* in tax.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/10/super-rich-abandoning-norway-at-record-rate-as-wealth-tax-rises-slightly

Sweden's richest man left Sweden for 40 years because of the wealth tax, only returning after the wealth tax was abolished, as did other high worth individuals.

https://nomoretax.eu/ikeas-founder-paid-tax-for-the-first-time-in-42-years/

France had the ISF tax, which was a wealth tax. 42,000 millionaires left France between 2000 and 2014, and 12,000 left in 2016, before it was abolished in 2017.

https://www.france24.com/en/20150808-france-wealthy-flee-high-taxes-les-echos-figures
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/21/here-are-the-places-where-millionaires-are-moving.html

You can also add Hollande's famous 75% top tax bracket, which was an absolute failure and messed up the French economy.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax#:~:text=Fran%C3%A7ois%20Hollande's%20unpopular%20tax%20changes,the%20history%20books%20from%20Thursday.

Even in this country, Labour in the 70s wanted to implement a wealth tax, but the chancellor found it impossible to draft one worth the revenue that would be gained, versus the administrative cost and political upheaval that would result.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Starmer's Labour draft a wealth tax, as they get increasingly more desperate (on current trajectory they'll be third in the polls by the end of the year), but if it gets implemented it'll be the same results we always see - the super rich leaving the UK for Switzerland or the Bahamas, lost tax revenue, and further in the mire.

[JuliusHMarx]

Not a flat tax - I'd probably keep the rates as they are, although I wouldn't object to some tweaking. But we need to ensure that the loopholes are closed so that the super-rich pay tax at the same rate that I/we do, rather than at a lower rate.
It's not about the total amount they pay, it's about the rate that they pay. Extreme example - a person earns 10000 billion a year and pays 1000 billion in tax. That's as much as every other tax payer put together - but he's only paying 10% tax so it would still be a grossly unfair.

[JAS]

Flat tax advocate?

The top 10% of earners earn about 34% of all income (page 34; it doesn't include those who don't pay income tax, but that would be such a low amount). The trend over the last 25 years has been the bigger earners paying even more of the income tax receipts (earners outside the top 10% paid nearly 50% of all income tax in 2000; down to 40% now).

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8513/CBP-8513.pdf

And it would depend how much tax was raised by. We know tax penalises economic activity and striking the right balance is crucial. In Norway recently, wealth taxes were increased by just a percent and more than 30 of the super rich left, costing them *billions* in tax.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/10/super-rich-abandoning-norway-at-record-rate-as-wealth-tax-rises-slightly

Sweden's richest man left Sweden for 40 years because of the wealth tax, only returning after the wealth tax was abolished, as did other high worth individuals.

https://nomoretax.eu/ikeas-founder-paid-tax-for-the-first-time-in-42-years/

France had the ISF tax, which was a wealth tax. 42,000 millionaires left France between 2000 and 2014, and 12,000 left in 2016, before it was abolished in 2017.

https://www.france24.com/en/20150808-france-wealthy-flee-high-taxes-les-echos-figures
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/21/here-are-the-places-where-millionaires-are-moving.html

You can also add Hollande's famous 75% top tax bracket, which was an absolute failure and messed up the French economy.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax#:~:text=Fran%C3%A7ois%20Hollande's%20unpopular%20tax%20changes,the%20history%20books%20from%20Thursday.

Even in this country, Labour in the 70s wanted to implement a wealth tax, but the chancellor found it impossible to draft one worth the revenue that would be gained, versus the administrative cost and political upheaval that would result.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Starmer's Labour draft a wealth tax, as they get increasingly more desperate (on current trajectory they'll be third in the polls by the end of the year), but if it gets implemented it'll be the same results we always see - the super rich leaving the UK for Switzerland or the Bahamas, lost tax revenue, and further in the mire.

Good argument and well researched to be fair Duty but in a sense what you’ve highlighted is EXACTLY the crux of the problem. I.e. the super wealthy effectively saying “feck that, I reserve the right to be a selfish greedy I am a twonk of the highest order and if you ask me to play fair I’ll leave, anyway, look at all those immigrants, it’s their fault the country’s skint, go demonise them and leave me alone.” And bugger me, a significant proportion of the masses buy that argument…mental!!

However if we are to take the argument to its logical conclusion, sooner or later, when the significant proportion of the masses that currently believe immigration is the issue, finally realise (say after a one term Reform Government) that they’ve been duped and that actually, the Super rich hoarding assets and aggressively avoiding paying a progressively fair amount of tax is the REAL reason for permanent flatlining of the economy and living standards for the average Joe going backwards, the super rich will have to leave anyway…for their own safety!!

Of course we need some efficiencies in the way we operate public services to get the most out of the revenue that is collected and there needs to be a massive and imaginative effort put into finding such operational efficiencies (without making 10s of thousands of redundancies because that would be equally counterproductive).

The other thing is the state of the country and where it sits in the global economy. When we were an economic super power our manufacturing base had a fairly large footprint, now we barely have a toe. How do we build that back up efficiently without steelworks. Too many people thought Thatcherism was an economic miracle but it was a mirage mainly financed on selling off assets, they’re largely all gone now. So we as a nation are asset stripped thus hugely limiting our ability to economically recover and ALL administrations from Thatcher onwards have been less than honest about the true mess we’re in because it mainly because they don’t have the answers to make us “great again”. In some ways it’s amusing to watch Trump try (because he will fail too), The U.S. still has more of a manufacturing base but Trump is not in control, the Super rich are and the US, like every other western government is being slowly asset stripped by the super rich and any attempt to reign them (I.e. tax them more) is being vehemently resisted. Where/when is all of that going to come to a head because ultimately it will.

[navyblueshorts]

In terms of the super wealthy leaving, we surely just need an exit tax or similar. Fine, leave, but you get stung on the way out. Frankly, if the billionaires etc want out, happy to see them gone - just how much personal wealth do they want?

I'd be tempted to also advocate stripping them of their citizenship (I know; we're not allowed to leave anyone Stateless, but not sure I care very much about that for these) as they clearly don't really care very much about any nationality they might hold; just their own personal wealth. I know Murdoch isn't British, but he's a perfect exemplar (IMO) for this sort - couldn't buy a US TV station as an Aussie, so dumped his Australian citizenship and became an 'American' purely so he could purchase that media. T0sser.

Bottom line: it's currently not working (and was never going to) and more of the same/similar isn't acceptable anymore.


Re. end of Empire and origin of immigration, for 2023 (source; in descending order of magnitude):

India: 253,000
Nigeria: 141,000
China: 89,000
Pakistan: 55,000
Ukraine: 35,000<sup>*

*</sup> unique circumstances

Three of top five are Commonwealth i.e. ex-Empire.
In addition, it doesn't matter whether members of the public remember the Empire; the fact is we still act a lot like we are one and demand public services that were created (and funded) during it, and with easy/favourable access to its resources.

Duty: what do you suggest should be done to reduce net immigration to manageable levels? Over what period of time? What would be an acceptable level to you? How should we fund the needed improvements in public services etc now that are demonstrably falling apart all around us?

[Duty281]

Not a flat tax - I'd probably keep the rates as they are, although I wouldn't object to some tweaking. But we need to ensure that the loopholes are closed so that the super-rich pay tax at the same rate that I/we do, rather than at a lower rate.
It's not about the total amount they pay, it's about the rate that they pay. Extreme example - a person earns 10000 billion a year and pays 1000 billion in tax. That's as much as every other tax payer put together - but he's only paying 10% tax so it would still be a grossly unfair.

Loopholes being closed might get the rate paid closer to an equal footing between all groups, but the biggest loophole will always be moving abroad to lower tax environments.

Might be worth looking into council tax, which is one of the biggest cons going. "Council tax is a key source of disproportionate taxation, with the poorest 10% paying 7% while the richest 10% pay just 1.2%"

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/news/press-release/uk-still-taxes-the-poorest-more-than-the-richest/#:~:text=The%20richest%2010%25%20of%20households,richest%2010%25%20pay%20just%203%25

[Duty281]

Flat tax advocate?

The top 10% of earners earn about 34% of all income (page 34; it doesn't include those who don't pay income tax, but that would be such a low amount). The trend over the last 25 years has been the bigger earners paying even more of the income tax receipts (earners outside the top 10% paid nearly 50% of all income tax in 2000; down to 40% now).

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8513/CBP-8513.pdf

And it would depend how much tax was raised by. We know tax penalises economic activity and striking the right balance is crucial. In Norway recently, wealth taxes were increased by just a percent and more than 30 of the super rich left, costing them *billions* in tax.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/10/super-rich-abandoning-norway-at-record-rate-as-wealth-tax-rises-slightly

Sweden's richest man left Sweden for 40 years because of the wealth tax, only returning after the wealth tax was abolished, as did other high worth individuals.

https://nomoretax.eu/ikeas-founder-paid-tax-for-the-first-time-in-42-years/

France had the ISF tax, which was a wealth tax. 42,000 millionaires left France between 2000 and 2014, and 12,000 left in 2016, before it was abolished in 2017.

https://www.france24.com/en/20150808-france-wealthy-flee-high-taxes-les-echos-figures
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/21/here-are-the-places-where-millionaires-are-moving.html

You can also add Hollande's famous 75% top tax bracket, which was an absolute failure and messed up the French economy.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax#:~:text=Fran%C3%A7ois%20Hollande's%20unpopular%20tax%20changes,the%20history%20books%20from%20Thursday.

Even in this country, Labour in the 70s wanted to implement a wealth tax, but the chancellor found it impossible to draft one worth the revenue that would be gained, versus the administrative cost and political upheaval that would result.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Starmer's Labour draft a wealth tax, as they get increasingly more desperate (on current trajectory they'll be third in the polls by the end of the year), but if it gets implemented it'll be the same results we always see - the super rich leaving the UK for Switzerland or the Bahamas, lost tax revenue, and further in the mire.

Good argument and well researched to be fair Duty but in a sense what you’ve highlighted is EXACTLY the crux of the problem. I.e. the super wealthy effectively saying “feck that, I reserve the right to be a selfish greedy I am a twonk of the highest order and if you ask me to play fair I’ll leave, anyway, look at all those immigrants, it’s their fault the country’s skint, go demonise them and leave me alone.” And bugger me, a significant proportion of the masses buy that argument…mental!!

However if we are to take the argument to its logical conclusion, sooner or later, when the significant proportion of the masses that currently believe immigration is the issue, finally realise (say after a one term Reform Government) that they’ve been duped and that actually, the Super rich hoarding assets and aggressively avoiding paying a progressively fair amount of tax is the REAL reason for permanent flatlining of the economy and living standards for the average Joe going backwards, the super rich will have to leave anyway…for their own safety!!

Of course we need some efficiencies in the way we operate public services to get the most out of the revenue that is collected and there needs to be a massive and imaginative effort put into finding such operational efficiencies (without making 10s of thousands of redundancies because that would be equally counterproductive).

The other thing is the state of the country and where it sits in the global economy. When we were an economic super power our manufacturing base had a fairly large footprint, now we barely have a toe. How do we build that back up efficiently without steelworks. Too many people thought Thatcherism was an economic miracle but it was a mirage mainly financed on selling off assets, they’re largely all gone now. So we as a nation are asset stripped thus hugely limiting our ability to economically recover and ALL administrations from Thatcher onwards have been less than honest about the true mess we’re in because it mainly because they don’t have the answers to make us “great again”. In some ways it’s amusing to watch Trump try (because he will fail too), The U.S. still has more of a manufacturing base but Trump is not in control, the Super rich are and the US, like every other western government is being slowly asset stripped by the super rich and any attempt to reign them (I.e. tax them more) is being vehemently resisted. Where/when is all of that going to come to a head because ultimately it will.

I think people's main problem with immigration, and the rate of it, is cultural rather than economic.

I think the super wealthy have every right to move where they please. Many of those who aren't super wealthy would probably take advantage of the same legal avoidance measures if they ever came into wealth. Even now, many people who earn decent, but not earth shattering, amounts, say 50-100k a year, are known to put more into their pensions to avoid the higher tax thresholds. In general, I don't think those who are wealthy (top 10% of earners) are overly selfish, and it is their contributions that keep the country ticking financially.

Which assets are being hoarded? What rate of tax do you want to see contributed before you agree it's finally fair and progressive? And how would you implement such rises without the wealthiest leaving, as has happened in France and Norway, and then leaving a shortfall of billions in lost tax? How would a flatlining economy be avoided with higher tax, which is something that penalises economic activity?

Immigration is a separate issue. While there are certainly some economic concerns, such as cheap labour being used from overseas to depress wages, other concerns relate to lack of affordable housing, difficulty in seeing a GP, cultural changes, demographic changes etc. While some of these are dual issues, such as more housing needing to be built to accommodate a population increase, there are a lot of problems with immigration as things stand.  

We need huge efficiencies in the public sector. The Civil Service and the NHS needs to be torn up and rebuilt from ground level.

Thatcherism was an economic miracle because it actually saved our country from hyperinflation, which was just years away when Thatcher took the helm. The economic prosperity of the 90s and early 00s, a far cry from the misery of the 70s, was down to Thatcherism.

[Duty281]

In terms of the super wealthy leaving, we surely just need an exit tax or similar. Fine, leave, but you get stung on the way out. Frankly, if the billionaires etc want out, happy to see them gone - just how much personal wealth do they want?

I'd be tempted to also advocate stripping them of their citizenship (I know; we're not allowed to leave anyone Stateless, but not sure I care very much about that for these) as they clearly don't really care very much about any nationality they might hold; just their own personal wealth. I know Murdoch isn't British, but he's a perfect exemplar (IMO) for this sort - couldn't buy a US TV station as an Aussie, so dumped his Australian citizenship and became an 'American' purely so he could purchase that media. T0sser.

Bottom line: it's currently not working (and was never going to) and more of the same/similar isn't acceptable anymore.


Re. end of Empire and origin of immigration, for 2023 (source; in descending order of magnitude):

India: 253,000
Nigeria: 141,000
China: 89,000
Pakistan: 55,000
Ukraine: 35,000<sup>*

*</sup> unique circumstances

Three of top five are Commonwealth i.e. ex-Empire.
In addition, it doesn't matter whether members of the public remember the Empire; the fact is we still act a lot like we are one and demand public services that were created (and funded) during it, and with easy/favourable access to its resources.

Duty: what do you suggest should be done to reduce net immigration to manageable levels? Over what period of time? What would be an acceptable level to you? How should we fund the needed improvements in public services etc now that are demonstrably falling apart all around us?

An exit tax would be interesting. It would apparently have been very ineffective while we were subject to the EU free movement rules, but now we're out it would have more heft. It, of course, wouldn't make up for people leaving, but it might mitigate the worst effects.

Stripping citizenship might be a scorched earth approach.

We have immigration largely from former colonies because those countries have those links to the UK, plus probably speak the language. Similar to the French getting immigration from places such as Senegal.

How do we still act like an Empire? Last time the UK did was Suez. Oops.

Raise the minimum salary threshold. Tighter restrictions on dependents. Stop the scam student visas. Immigration should only be viewed as a means to attract high skilled and high salaried workers, genuine students, and to plug gaps in the economy where there is a native shortage. And if there is such a shortage then effort should be made to train up native people in these positions. to ensure the gap is short-term.

The aim should be to get net migration down to the tens of thousands, as it was between 1948-1998. Within five years? Ten years?

First step to needed improvements in public services is to stop importing a population that is the combined size of Liverpool and Brighton every year (as was the case in the year ending June 2024). Maybe lowering the demand for such services could be a good step, as they're stretched enough as it is. Then areas for efficiency and policy reform need to be identified. The NHS has had tons of money thrown at it just to get worse, so the endless cycle of money throwing maybe isn't the best way forward. And economic activity needs to be encouraged through reform of the tax bands, in an effort to get many people off the bloated welfare system.

[JuliusHMarx]

Not a flat tax - I'd probably keep the rates as they are, although I wouldn't object to some tweaking. But we need to ensure that the loopholes are closed so that the super-rich pay tax at the same rate that I/we do, rather than at a lower rate.
It's not about the total amount they pay, it's about the rate that they pay. Extreme example - a person earns 10000 billion a year and pays 1000 billion in tax. That's as much as every other tax payer put together - but he's only paying 10% tax so it would still be a grossly unfair.

Loopholes being closed might get the rate paid closer to an equal footing between all groups, but the biggest loophole will always be moving abroad to lower tax environments.

Might be worth looking into council tax, which is one of the biggest cons going. "Council tax is a key source of disproportionate taxation, with the poorest 10% paying 7% while the richest 10% pay just 1.2%"

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/news/press-release/uk-still-taxes-the-poorest-more-than-the-richest/#:~:text=The%20richest%2010%25%20of%20households,richest%2010%25%20pay%20just%203%25

I.e. as Jas put it "if you ask me to play fair I’ll leave". Well, f*ck people like that, let them leave. I'd rather not have people like that in the country regardless of whether it made us poorer. The top 10% of earners are obviously not all overly selfish, but some are and I'd happily get rid of those that are.

[JuliusHMarx]

The Civil Service and the NHS needs to be torn up and rebuilt from ground level.

Better raise taxes then, because that would cost an absolute fortune.

[Duty281]

The Civil Service and the NHS needs to be torn up and rebuilt from ground level.

Better raise taxes then, because that would cost an absolute fortune.

Short term pain for long term gain.

[Duty281]

Not a flat tax - I'd probably keep the rates as they are, although I wouldn't object to some tweaking. But we need to ensure that the loopholes are closed so that the super-rich pay tax at the same rate that I/we do, rather than at a lower rate.
It's not about the total amount they pay, it's about the rate that they pay. Extreme example - a person earns 10000 billion a year and pays 1000 billion in tax. That's as much as every other tax payer put together - but he's only paying 10% tax so it would still be a grossly unfair.

Loopholes being closed might get the rate paid closer to an equal footing between all groups, but the biggest loophole will always be moving abroad to lower tax environments.

Might be worth looking into council tax, which is one of the biggest cons going. "Council tax is a key source of disproportionate taxation, with the poorest 10% paying 7% while the richest 10% pay just 1.2%"

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/news/press-release/uk-still-taxes-the-poorest-more-than-the-richest/#:~:text=The%20richest%2010%25%20of%20households,richest%2010%25%20pay%20just%203%25

I.e. as Jas put it "if you ask me to play fair I’ll leave". Well, f*ck people like that, let them leave. I'd rather not have people like that in the country regardless of whether it made us poorer. The top 10% of earners are obviously not all overly selfish, but some are and I'd happily get rid of those that are.

Could cost a bit. But I like and approve this principled, Brexit-style argument.

[JuliusHMarx]

The Civil Service and the NHS needs to be torn up and rebuilt from ground level.

Better raise taxes then, because that would cost an absolute fortune.

Short term pain for long term gain.

I'd like to see any government propose that to the electorate and then get re-elected.

[JAS]

“Thatcherism was an economic miracle because it actually saved our country from hyperinflation, which was just years away when Thatcher took the helm. The economic prosperity of the 90s and early 00s, a far cry from the misery of the 70s, was down to Thatcherism.“

Can I hazard a guess that you weren’t brought up in an industrial or coalfield area? Because if you were I sympathise with you having to navigate through this world blind.

Like I said it was a bloody mirage, financed by selling off assets (public utilities), yes there was a service industry boom but our industrial base was systematically decimated for ideological reasons and we’re are crippled  by that to this day. The other main pillar of Thatcherism that also coloured the mirage was the explosion of  personal/household debt…in other words sowing the seeds for the 2008 crash.

As for hyperinflation in the 70s, any basic research will tell you that the OPEC oil price shenanigans in the early/mid 70s kicked off the inflationary spiral that a lot of countries fell victim to, yes there were exacerbating factors in the U.K. but to say Thatcher “saved” the country is almost Muskish from a disinformation perspective.

[navyblueshorts]

The Civil Service and the NHS needs to be torn up and rebuilt from ground level.

Better raise taxes then, because that would cost an absolute fortune.

Short term pain for long term gain.

I'd like to see any government propose that to the electorate and then get re-elected.

And therein lies a central issue - politicians only looking to get re-elected, or only pursuing focus group politics.

[JuliusHMarx]

The Civil Service and the NHS needs to be torn up and rebuilt from ground level.

Better raise taxes then, because that would cost an absolute fortune.

Short term pain for long term gain.

I'd like to see any government propose that to the electorate and then get re-elected.

And therein lies a central issue - politicians only looking to get re-elected, or only pursuing focus group politics.

Or maybe the central issue is that the electorate in general isn't willing to endure short term pain for long term gain.

[Duty281]

“Thatcherism was an economic miracle because it actually saved our country from hyperinflation, which was just years away when Thatcher took the helm. The economic prosperity of the 90s and early 00s, a far cry from the misery of the 70s, was down to Thatcherism.“

Can I hazard a guess that you weren’t brought up in an industrial or coalfield area? Because if you were I sympathise with you having to navigate through this world blind.

Like I said it was a bloody mirage, financed by selling off assets (public utilities), yes there was a service industry boom but our industrial base was systematically decimated for ideological reasons and we’re are crippled  by that to this day. The other main pillar of Thatcherism that also coloured the mirage was the explosion of  personal/household debt…in other words sowing the seeds for the 2008 crash.

As for hyperinflation in the 70s, any basic research will tell you that the OPEC oil price shenanigans in the early/mid 70s kicked off the inflationary spiral that a lot of countries fell victim to, yes there were exacerbating factors in the U.K. but to say Thatcher “saved” the country is almost Muskish from a disinformation perspective.

Industrialisation was already in decline before Thatcher, mainly because of the expansion of low cost stuff in Asia as well as technological advances. And don't forget Labour under Wilson closed more mines than Thatcher. This phenomenon of industrial decline has been felt all over the west, it wasn't unique to the UK.

There's no disinformation about saying that the UK in the late 70s was a country crippled by high inflation, the sick man of Europe, about to default on a heavy IMF loan, free enterprise was strangled by high taxation, rubbish was piling up in the streets and power cuts were common, plus strike action was rampant; versus the UK in the 90s where inflation was tamed, the UK was again a major player on the international stage, with one of the leading economies in Europe and a strengthened relationship with the USA, and GDP growth was strong and the national debt was greatly reduced. Rampant strikes and power cuts were a thing of the past.

Thatcherism wasn't perfect, but continuing as we were in the 1970s was untenable.

[navyblueshorts]

The Civil Service and the NHS needs to be torn up and rebuilt from ground level.

Better raise taxes then, because that would cost an absolute fortune.

Short term pain for long term gain.

I'd like to see any government propose that to the electorate and then get re-elected.

And therein lies a central issue - politicians only looking to get re-elected, or only pursuing focus group politics.

Or maybe the central issue is that the electorate in general isn't willing to endure short term pain for long term gain.  

Could easily be. Another bonus of the Thatcher 'no such thing as Society' approach. Superb.

[navyblueshorts]

“Thatcherism was an economic miracle because it actually saved our country from hyperinflation, which was just years away when Thatcher took the helm. The economic prosperity of the 90s and early 00s, a far cry from the misery of the 70s, was down to Thatcherism.“

Can I hazard a guess that you weren’t brought up in an industrial or coalfield area? Because if you were I sympathise with you having to navigate through this world blind.

Like I said it was a bloody mirage, financed by selling off assets (public utilities), yes there was a service industry boom but our industrial base was systematically decimated for ideological reasons and we’re are crippled  by that to this day. The other main pillar of Thatcherism that also coloured the mirage was the explosion of  personal/household debt…in other words sowing the seeds for the 2008 crash.

As for hyperinflation in the 70s, any basic research will tell you that the OPEC oil price shenanigans in the early/mid 70s kicked off the inflationary spiral that a lot of countries fell victim to, yes there were exacerbating factors in the U.K. but to say Thatcher “saved” the country is almost Muskish from a disinformation perspective.

Industrialisation was already in decline before Thatcher, mainly because of the expansion of low cost stuff in Asia as well as technological advances. And don't forget Labour under Wilson closed more mines than Thatcher. This phenomenon of industrial decline has been felt all over the west, it wasn't unique to the UK.  

There's no disinformation about saying that the UK in the late 70s was a country crippled by high inflation, the sick man of Europe, about to default on a heavy IMF loan, free enterprise was strangled by high taxation, rubbish was piling up in the streets and power cuts were common, plus strike action was rampant; versus the UK in the 90s where inflation was tamed, the UK was again a major player on the international stage, with one of the leading economies in Europe and a strengthened relationship with the USA, and GDP growth was strong and the national debt was greatly reduced. Rampant strikes and power cuts were a thing of the past.

Thatcherism wasn't perfect, but continuing as we were in the 1970s was untenable.

What you say is all fine, but I tend to agree with JAS (you didn't appear to take this suggestion on board in your reply) in that the so-called gains were a) a mirage, and b) at the expense of so many intangibles in our society. A short-term bump that looked good for a bit and fostered a sense that her approach was a panacea that's causing longer term issues now.

There needs to be root and branch changes, mainly to our politics because nothing's going to change with the same old people in charge. I'm with you 100% on wanting done with FPTP a.s.a.p., because without that change, the two main parties are going to continue with the same failed approaches. Nothing they do will address the issue re. cheap labour elsewhere in the World cf. the U.K., the international laws re. taxation that allow multinationals to profit from U.K. business while paying relative peanuts to the Exchequer or the structural problems within the U.K.
I wouldn't vote Reform, ever, as they currently are, but the advent of them as a force may well just shake things up. I think the left of Labour should quit and start a new left-wing party - I have no idea why they stay in Labour as its currently looking, and I'm sure a lot of the Unions would go with them. We need a decent number of viable Parties spanning the political spectrum and some form of PR to determine our Governments.

[Duty281]

“Thatcherism was an economic miracle because it actually saved our country from hyperinflation, which was just years away when Thatcher took the helm. The economic prosperity of the 90s and early 00s, a far cry from the misery of the 70s, was down to Thatcherism.“

Can I hazard a guess that you weren’t brought up in an industrial or coalfield area? Because if you were I sympathise with you having to navigate through this world blind.

Like I said it was a bloody mirage, financed by selling off assets (public utilities), yes there was a service industry boom but our industrial base was systematically decimated for ideological reasons and we’re are crippled  by that to this day. The other main pillar of Thatcherism that also coloured the mirage was the explosion of  personal/household debt…in other words sowing the seeds for the 2008 crash.

As for hyperinflation in the 70s, any basic research will tell you that the OPEC oil price shenanigans in the early/mid 70s kicked off the inflationary spiral that a lot of countries fell victim to, yes there were exacerbating factors in the U.K. but to say Thatcher “saved” the country is almost Muskish from a disinformation perspective.

Industrialisation was already in decline before Thatcher, mainly because of the expansion of low cost stuff in Asia as well as technological advances. And don't forget Labour under Wilson closed more mines than Thatcher. This phenomenon of industrial decline has been felt all over the west, it wasn't unique to the UK.  

There's no disinformation about saying that the UK in the late 70s was a country crippled by high inflation, the sick man of Europe, about to default on a heavy IMF loan, free enterprise was strangled by high taxation, rubbish was piling up in the streets and power cuts were common, plus strike action was rampant; versus the UK in the 90s where inflation was tamed, the UK was again a major player on the international stage, with one of the leading economies in Europe and a strengthened relationship with the USA, and GDP growth was strong and the national debt was greatly reduced. Rampant strikes and power cuts were a thing of the past.

Thatcherism wasn't perfect, but continuing as we were in the 1970s was untenable.

What you say is all fine, but I tend to agree with JAS (you didn't appear to take this suggestion on board in your reply) in that the so-called gains were a) a mirage, and b) at the expense of so many intangibles in our society. A short-term bump that looked good for a bit and fostered a sense that her approach was a panacea that's causing longer term issues now.

There needs to be root and branch changes, mainly to our politics because nothing's going to change with the same old people in charge. I'm with you 100% on wanting done with FPTP a.s.a.p., because without that change, the two main parties are going to continue with the same failed approaches. Nothing they do will address the issue re. cheap labour elsewhere in the World cf. the U.K., the international laws re. taxation that allow multinationals to profit from U.K. business while paying relative peanuts to the Exchequer or the structural problems within the U.K.
I wouldn't vote Reform, ever, as they currently are, but the advent of them as a force may well just shake things up. I think the left of Labour should quit and start a new left-wing party - I have no idea why they stay in Labour as its currently looking, and I'm sure a lot of the Unions would go with them. We need a decent number of viable Parties spanning the political spectrum and some form of PR to determine our Governments.

I noted it, but I don't agree that it was a mirage. It was a sustained success over many decades.

I agree with the rest. I think the implementation of PR would lead to a new socialist party, and I think that would be good for our democracy, as the Lib/Lab/Con parties are too close together. Personally, I don't think we've had a real change of government since John Major became PM, the only difference is the ties occasionally change colour.

[McLaren]

Has super grown a heart?

Expected to come in here and read a post where he was blaming those killed in the LA fires on their own stupidity.

[super_realist]

“Thatcherism was an economic miracle because it actually saved our country from hyperinflation, which was just years away when Thatcher took the helm. The economic prosperity of the 90s and early 00s, a far cry from the misery of the 70s, was down to Thatcherism.“

Can I hazard a guess that you weren’t brought up in an industrial or coalfield area? Because if you were I sympathise with you having to navigate through this world blind.

Like I said it was a bloody mirage, financed by selling off assets (public utilities), yes there was a service industry boom but our industrial base was systematically decimated for ideological reasons and we’re are crippled  by that to this day. The other main pillar of Thatcherism that also coloured the mirage was the explosion of  personal/household debt…in other words sowing the seeds for the 2008 crash.

As for hyperinflation in the 70s, any basic research will tell you that the OPEC oil price shenanigans in the early/mid 70s kicked off the inflationary spiral that a lot of countries fell victim to, yes there were exacerbating factors in the U.K. but to say Thatcher “saved” the country is almost Muskish from a disinformation perspective.

Labour shut down almost as many mines as the Tories and Wilson actually did shut down more mines than Thatcher.

Do you really think that people should still be going down mines? Have you ever even been in a coalmine? I have and I guarantee that you wouldn't want anyone you know to be doing that even as late as the 1980's.

[super_realist]

Has super grown a heart?

Expected to come in here and read a post where he was blaming those killed in the LA fires on their own stupidity.

There is a great deal of stupidity going on Mac in this region, it's plain to see.
The lack of reservoirs and maintenance thereof, the lack of forestry activity, the cutting of fire budget, the laughable reticence to use sea water for fire planes, the poor planning of neighbourhoods etc. These fires happen every year, but they are never prepared.

It is certainly true that whenever there is a natural disaster many of the casualties (Darwin Awards)  are down to utter stupidity. That's not even in question.

[super_realist]

Not a flat tax - I'd probably keep the rates as they are, although I wouldn't object to some tweaking. But we need to ensure that the loopholes are closed so that the super-rich pay tax at the same rate that I/we do, rather than at a lower rate.
It's not about the total amount they pay, it's about the rate that they pay. Extreme example - a person earns 10000 billion a year and pays 1000 billion in tax. That's as much as every other tax payer put together - but he's only paying 10% tax so it would still be a grossly unfair.

Loopholes being closed might get the rate paid closer to an equal footing between all groups, but the biggest loophole will always be moving abroad to lower tax environments.

Might be worth looking into council tax, which is one of the biggest cons going. "Council tax is a key source of disproportionate taxation, with the poorest 10% paying 7% while the richest 10% pay just 1.2%"

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/news/press-release/uk-still-taxes-the-poorest-more-than-the-richest/#:~:text=The%20richest%2010%25%20of%20households,richest%2010%25%20pay%20just%203%25

I.e. as Jas put it "if you ask me to play fair I’ll leave". Well, f*ck people like that, let them leave. I'd rather not have people like that in the country regardless of whether it made us poorer. The top 10% of earners are obviously not all overly selfish, but some are and I'd happily get rid of those that are.

At what point do they become "selfish"? Is every taxation level fair? Just because you view someone as "rich" does that mean they just pay more and more and more?
Isn't there a limit? What if Labour started charging the middle classes more "because you can afford it"? Where's your limit before you start looking elsewhere?

I pay 48% tax in Scotland, but why would I bother continuing to do so when we get nothing for it? Public services are terrible, roads are a mess, streetlights constantly out of action, a lamentable health system, high living costs,  declining education standards etc. Where's all my tax going? It's not on defence, it's not helping pensioners, it's not improving the NHS it's just paying for train drivers inflated salaries, immigrants, funding terrorist groups, net zero idiocy and foreign aid it would seem.

The only certain thing is that this Labour government are hysterically out of their depth and seem to be making gaffes at every single turn as well as having complete oafs like Robot Reeves (did you see her laughable Chinese deal?), Sir Keith Stalin, David Moribund, Tulip Suddiq, The Professional Northerner, Mastermind Lammy etc.
It's hard to think that they could be even worse than the Tories were, but they are, much worse.
I really can't see Starmer lasting 4 more years, he isn't bright enough and he really is on a par with Kamala Harris for being useless. Like her he can't answer a question if the answer isn't in front of him.
There's apparently a Westminster rumour about him which will come out sooner or later. The worry is which idiot replaces him.

[JuliusHMarx]

As I earn more money, I pay more tax, both in actual money and as a percentage of my income. If I were to become 'super-rich' I would pay more actual money but I could reduce the percentage down to, let's say 20% or so, using methods that are far more readily available to them that they are to me. So you've got me paying 40%, you paying 48% in Scotland, and the super-rich paying 20%.
I'd rather the super rich pay tax at the same percentage rate that I do. If they did then we would see more improvement in those areas you mention.
Additionally, if some people say that if those methods were no longer to be available they would leave the country in order to hoard their wealth elsewhere, I say good riddance, I'll accept the loss to tax revenue to get rid of such people.

As for how it is spent, that's a different issue - everyone will disagree with how some of it is spent. What if I wanted unilateral disarmament (I don't, just an example) - should I refuse to pay some my taxes? And much of it is spent inefficiently, and it's all very annoying, but what's the realistic alternative to taxation?

[Duty281]

As I earn more money, I pay more tax, both in actual money and as a percentage of my income. If I were to become 'super-rich' I would pay more actual money but I could reduce the percentage down to, let's say 20% or so, using methods that are far more readily available to them that they are to me. So you've got me paying 40%, you paying 48% in Scotland, and the super-rich paying 20%.
I'd rather the super rich pay tax at the same percentage rate that I do. If they did then we would see more improvement in those areas you mention.
Additionally, if some people say that if those methods were no longer to be available they would leave the country in order to hoard their wealth elsewhere, I say good riddance, I'll accept the loss to tax revenue to get rid of such people.

As for how it is spent, that's a different issue - everyone will disagree with how some of it is spent. What if I wanted unilateral disarmament (I don't, just an example) - should I refuse to pay some my taxes? And much of it is spent inefficiently, and it's all very annoying, but what's the realistic alternative to taxation?

When you say you'd 'accept the loss to tax revenue', do you mean you'd cut spending or raise taxes on those still here to make up for it?

[JuliusHMarx]

As I earn more money, I pay more tax, both in actual money and as a percentage of my income. If I were to become 'super-rich' I would pay more actual money but I could reduce the percentage down to, let's say 20% or so, using methods that are far more readily available to them that they are to me. So you've got me paying 40%, you paying 48% in Scotland, and the super-rich paying 20%.
I'd rather the super rich pay tax at the same percentage rate that I do. If they did then we would see more improvement in those areas you mention.
Additionally, if some people say that if those methods were no longer to be available they would leave the country in order to hoard their wealth elsewhere, I say good riddance, I'll accept the loss to tax revenue to get rid of such people.

As for how it is spent, that's a different issue - everyone will disagree with how some of it is spent. What if I wanted unilateral disarmament (I don't, just an example) - should I refuse to pay some my taxes? And much of it is spent inefficiently, and it's all very annoying, but what's the realistic alternative to taxation?

When you say you'd 'accept the loss to tax revenue', do you mean you'd cut spending or raise taxes on those still here to make up for it?

Is it either/or?

[Duty281]

As I earn more money, I pay more tax, both in actual money and as a percentage of my income. If I were to become 'super-rich' I would pay more actual money but I could reduce the percentage down to, let's say 20% or so, using methods that are far more readily available to them that they are to me. So you've got me paying 40%, you paying 48% in Scotland, and the super-rich paying 20%.
I'd rather the super rich pay tax at the same percentage rate that I do. If they did then we would see more improvement in those areas you mention.
Additionally, if some people say that if those methods were no longer to be available they would leave the country in order to hoard their wealth elsewhere, I say good riddance, I'll accept the loss to tax revenue to get rid of such people.

As for how it is spent, that's a different issue - everyone will disagree with how some of it is spent. What if I wanted unilateral disarmament (I don't, just an example) - should I refuse to pay some my taxes? And much of it is spent inefficiently, and it's all very annoying, but what's the realistic alternative to taxation?

When you say you'd 'accept the loss to tax revenue', do you mean you'd cut spending or raise taxes on those still here to make up for it?

Is it either/or?

Borrow? All 3?

[JuliusHMarx]

Preferably a mixture of the first 2.
I suspect that a) most of those who threaten to leave would not leave and b) closing the loopholes would mean that those who stay would end up paying enough tax to cover the losses from those few who leave.
Hence neither 1, 2 nor 3 would be required.

However, I could be wrong, and I'm sure many people would be much more prepared than I am to put up with billionaires paying less than 10% tax, if it means there are less potholes in the roads.

[navyblueshorts]

Spoiler:

I noted it, but I don't agree that it was a mirage. It was a sustained success over many decades....

Well, 2-3 decades. Perhaps. What do we have at the end of it for that 'success'? Not a lot. Capital flight, privatisation of national infrastructure and/or fire sales of same to other national corporations etc. Impressive, especially when one looks at the current state of the UK and realises that one can only sell/privatise national assets once.

[navyblueshorts]

On the subject of the wealthy so-called 'elite', thought this was an interesting read:

'Born to Rule: The Making and Remaking of the British Elite' by Aaron Reeves and Sam Friedman

Some of their suggestions towards the end re. how to fix issues arising from increasing polarisation of wealth in the UK are interesting.

[Pal Joey]

May I also suggest reading "Born to Run" and the "Only the Strong Survive" digital download by Bruce Springsteen.

https://brucespringsteen.store/products/born-to-run-paperback

Nothing at all to do with wealth distribution but it might interest some people doing it hard at present.

[super_realist]

Is there really any evidence that the wealthy would move overseas to an extent that would make much difference? That argument is often used as a scare tactic, but I'm not sure it holds up to scrutiny, especially given that many of them advocate paying more tax.

The top 10% of earners may well pay just over 60% of all income tax collected, but if they earn 80% (which I don't know) of all income, then that would hardly be progressive. The system needs to change to be fairer. Why should I pay more of my income in tax, as a percentage, than someone who earns 100 times more than me?

In 2024 the UK lost more millionaires overseas than any other country except China, and bearing in mind that in the UK the top 10% of earners pay 60% of the tax it is cause for concern.

This idiotic Labour government should have cut  corporation Tax. The Tattoo Munchers went from one of the poorest countries in Europe to one of the richest in terms of GDP per capita in 10 years by having low Corporation Tax. How on earth the sixth form politics of Labour expect to grow an economy with their fiscal policies is beyond belief.
It's hard to imagine how Reeves and Starmer aren't getting the same stick as Truss and Kwarteng as they are every bit as bad and the market confirms this.

I saw Richard III boasting about her 600m from China yesterday without adding that it was 60x less than Indonesia managed to get and 30x less than the economic powerhouse is that is Peru. A pathetic amount. Also funny that Starmer likes to boast about women in his government whilst simultaneously getting rid of three.

[JuliusHMarx]

I believe the UK was predicted to lose more millionaires overseas than any other country except China, but did that happen? In any case, that merely continues a trend that started because of Brexit. We voted to get rid of them. The trend continued under the politically unstable Tory government. And which government last raised corporation tax to 25%?
I sympathise with your desire for Labour to fix all the problems left by the Tories but they can't do that in 6 months.

[super_realist]

I believe the UK was predicted to lose more millionaires overseas than any other country except China, but did that happen? In any case, that merely continues a trend that started because of Brexit. We voted to get rid of them. The trend continued under the politically unstable Tory government. And which government last raised corporation tax to 25%?
I sympathise with your desire for Labour to fix all the problems left by the Tories but they can't do that in 6 months.

The trouble is they haven't done anything good in 6 months at all
When was it predicted that millionaires would leave due to Brexit? That never happened as far as I recall.
9500 liquid  millionaires left the UK in 2024, less than half that many left in 2023.
Reeves already had a budget so of course she could have cut Corporation Tax.

[JuliusHMarx]

I believe the UK was predicted to lose more millionaires overseas than any other country except China, but did that happen? In any case, that merely continues a trend that started because of Brexit. We voted to get rid of them. The trend continued under the politically unstable Tory government. And which government last raised corporation tax to 25%?
I sympathise with your desire for Labour to fix all the problems left by the Tories but they can't do that in 6 months.

The trouble is they haven't done anything good in 6 months at all
When was it predicted that millionaires would leave due to Brexit? That never happened as far as I recall.
9500 liquid  millionaires left the UK in 2024, less than half that many left in 2023.
Reeves already had a budget so of course she could have cut Corporation Tax.

This is from 2023 - https://www.wealthyexpat.com/blog/why-are-millionaires-leaving-the-uk
"The UK is now in the top 3 among countries that experience a high-net-worth individuals outflow."

https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/henley-private-wealth-migration-report-2024/londons-wealth-exodus
"this trend began to reverse around a decade ago as more millionaires began to leave the country and fewer came in. Notably, during the six-year period from 2017 to 2023 post Brexit the UK has lost 16,500 millionaires to migration. Provisional estimates for 2024 are even more concerning, with a massive net outflow of 9,500 millionaires projected for this year alone."

So yes it has increased last year, if the predictions came true, but it is an simply increasing trend. No wait, I'm wrong, it's all Labour's fault! Phew, what was I thinking?

[JAS]

As I earn more money, I pay more tax, both in actual money and as a percentage of my income. If I were to become 'super-rich' I would pay more actual money but I could reduce the percentage down to, let's say 20% or so, using methods that are far more readily available to them that they are to me. So you've got me paying 40%, you paying 48% in Scotland, and the super-rich paying 20%.
I'd rather the super rich pay tax at the same percentage rate that I do. If they did then we would see more improvement in those areas you mention.
Additionally, if some people say that if those methods were no longer to be available they would leave the country in order to hoard their wealth elsewhere, I say good riddance, I'll accept the loss to tax revenue to get rid of such people.

As for how it is spent, that's a different issue - everyone will disagree with how some of it is spent. What if I wanted unilateral disarmament (I don't, just an example) - should I refuse to pay some my taxes? And much of it is spent inefficiently, and it's all very annoying, but what's the realistic alternative to taxation?

When you say you'd 'accept the loss to tax revenue', do you mean you'd cut spending or raise taxes on those still here to make up for it?

How much loss are we actually talking here? Is it really “loss” if it’s something the exchequer isn’t currently getting anyway? Close all loopholes and if spivs leave they leave. I like Navy’s idea of an exit tax on them. Thing is for us minions tax rates are set and we HAVE to pay what is due, where the hell is the line that says “above this level of wealth you can pick and choose how much you’d like to pay” I’d say (and Reeves and Starmer should be saying) “Love sacks to that, we’re supposed to all be in this together as a Tory chancellor said a few years ago…well are we??”

[super_realist]

As I've already said, 60% of the tax take in the UK comes from just 10% of the highest earners in the UK.

These aren't people who are "avoiding" tax. These are people like me, like you and anyone else who earns over 72k so yes, it does matter if these people leave.
I get to keep 58% of my salary, meaning my actual actual overall tax rate is 42% of my gross, someone on 4x less than me gets to keep 86% of their salary. This group of tax payers matter. If I leave, or if I go and do my job from a foreign country then the Exchequer is losing a value equal to more than twice the annual UK salary. Someone on 4X less than me pays 13x less tax, so I already pay more than enough. How much more should I pay?
If 50,000 people do similarly there goes 3bn.

[JuliusHMarx]

As I've already said, 60% of the tax take in the UK comes from just 10% of the highest earners in the UK.

These aren't people who are "avoiding" tax. These are people like me, like you  and anyone else  who earns over 72k so yes, it does matter if these people leave.
I get to keep 58% of my salary, meaning my actual actual overall tax rate is 42% of my gross, someone on 4x less than me gets to keep 86% of their salary. This group of tax payers matter. If I leave, or if I go and do my job from a foreign country then the Exchequer is losing a value equal to more than twice the annual UK salary. Someone on 4X less than me pays 13x less tax, so I already pay more than enough. How much more should I pay?
If 50,000 people do similarly there goes 3bn.

Those on 100x more than you keep way more than 58% - they are nearer 86%. But if you're happy with that, that's up to you.

[JAS]

If I leave, or if I go and do my job from a foreign country then the Exchequer is losing a value equal to more than twice the annual UK salary.

I thought you already had? Are you back from Norway now?

[navyblueshorts]

One thing I find quite funny is how human nature, at a population level, always wins out. Communism in the U.S.S.R. found that out, and it's clear that capitalism is suffering from it. Too many people are too selfish and, IMO as a species, we're far too immature to work for each other. ****ed, basically.

In no sense am I anything approaching an economist, but something about the recent 'market wobbles' etc allegedly due to Reeves's budget seems laughable. Assuming Reeves's budget actually did have any effect and it's not just the usual right wing media baloney, let me get this straight:

- Reeves's budget asks employers to contribute more
- markets (driven by gamblers, hedge fund managers and others whose job is to maximise corporate profits) therefore don't like it
- politicians wring their hands

Forgive me, but seems to me more than time to buck the markets on this sort of thing. They're biased to a fair thee well and don't appear to be interested in anything that's trying to be politically altruistic or for the good of anything except the shareholders. Still, the markets etc are so embedded, and borrowing so linked to the current system, that we're ****ed.

We're so in hock to the idea that capitalism and unfettered so-called free markets (as if!) are great, no-one's interested in the problems. A French colleague of mine once jokingly suggested the British had a problem, which was that we were averse to 'chopping heads', as he phrased it, to keep the 'elite' honest. The more time passes, the more I think he had a point.

[JAS]

As I've already said, 60% of the tax take in the UK comes from just 10% of the highest earners in the UK.

These aren't people who are "avoiding" tax. These are people like me, like you  and anyone else  who earns over 72k so yes, it does matter if these people leave.
I get to keep 58% of my salary, meaning my actual actual overall tax rate is 42% of my gross, someone on 4x less than me gets to keep 86% of their salary. This group of tax payers matter. If I leave, or if I go and do my job from a foreign country then the Exchequer is losing a value equal to more than twice the annual UK salary. Someone on 4X less than me pays 13x less tax, so I already pay more than enough. How much more should I pay?
If 50,000 people do similarly there goes 3bn.

You’re clearly missing the point here, it is NOT the me’s & you’s on between the 90th & 98th/99th percentile who earn good money and enough to lead a decent comfortable life without worrying about the bills. It’s those on the 99th & above who take the effin piss. They would rather pay their accountants more than most of us actually earn to avoid tax rather than paying their proportionate fair share… and Thatcher used to call hard working miners the enemy within, there’s your traitorous enemies within right there aided and abetted by foreign domiciled billionaires than run our media.

[McLaren]

I do often wonder if the tax rates in the UK haven't taken account of how the cost of living has changed. Someone like Super on 72k is doing ok but you wouldn't say they were rich. It might be better if more of the middle classes income was spent back into the economy and more of the tax revenue was sought from those earning properly big incomes.

If you put 72k into one of those inflation calculators it shows that a 72k salary in 2024 is basically like earning in the high 30k range at the turn of the millennium. Which would not have put you in the high earners bracket back then.

It seem like middle class earners are now having to pay a tax burden they did not previously bear. The more slippery the rich get with paying taxes the more that responsibility falls to ordinary people.

[Sponsored content]