Do you want to discuss boring politics? (22 Viewers)

[Ccfcisparks]

What's the fucking point? The names will mean nothing to you unless you claim to know every councillor in the land.

He does. And?

 

---

[PVA]

He does. And?

Ah shit, game over. 1000 Internet points to grendel.

 

[Grendel]

Ah shit, game over. 1000 Internet points to grendel.

Well I just doubt you have. Unless it’s your mate from Bedworths dad over Sunday Lunch.

 

[PVA]

Well I just doubt you have.

Good for you. Just a really weird thing to try and catch me out on. Bizarre.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Good for you. Just a really weird thing to try and catch me out on. Bizarre.

Not that it particularly matters anyway.

 

[SBAndy]

I bet I’ve met more councillors than you have cows.

 

[PVA]

I bet I’ve met more councillors than you have cows.

Haha yes excellent shout

 

[shmmeee]

I once threw a councillor over a pub

 

[chiefdave]

PM set to announce welfare climbdown in deal with Labour rebels

Cuts to some disability benefits will only hit future claimants, not those already on it, it is understood.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[shmmeee]

PM set to announce welfare climbdown in deal with Labour rebels

Cuts to some disability benefits will only hit future claimants, not those already on it, it is understood.

www.bbc.co.uk

So now we’ve had two big fights over saving money and ended up back where we were. Maybe we’ll finally get the tax rises we should have had in the first place as we’re up for having big fights every few months.

 

[fernandopartridge]

So now we’ve had two big fights over saving money and ended up back where we were. Maybe we’ll finally get the tax rises we should have had in the first place as we’re up for having big fights every few months.

It's not back where we were?

 

[SkyBlueCV2]

First time I'm randomly checking out this thread and it already seems that people are getting heated with each other on the latest page. Most likely over nonsense as well. I see why political debates aren't for me. Enjoy, lads...

 

[shmmeee]

It's not back where we were?

Fiscally it is. They’re going to have to find savings or raise tax so the fight was for nothing.

 

[shmmeee]

I remain sceptical about the evidence for slightly higher taxes scaring off millionaires:

Not fleeing: New report shows more wealthy residents in Mass., 2 years into 'millionaire's tax'

Despite previous concerns, Massachusetts' "millionaire's tax" hasn't seemed to deter high-earners from continuing to live here, according to a new study from the Institute for Policy Studies.

www.wbur.org

 

[CCFCSteve]

I remain sceptical about the evidence for slightly higher taxes scaring off millionaires:

Not fleeing: New report shows more wealthy residents in Mass., 2 years into 'millionaire's tax'

Despite previous concerns, Massachusetts' "millionaire's tax" hasn't seemed to deter high-earners from continuing to live here, according to a new study from the Institute for Policy Studies.

www.wbur.org

The devils always in the detail. All depends on how it’s done, what people were paying before, what the additional cash is spent on and what the individuals alternatives/options are

USA highest income tax rate is 37% (over $600k). State tax there is 5%. 4% surcharge on amounts over a million so I’d imagine their total income tax bill is similar to here still even with the surcharge

They are also likely to see the direct benefit of the additional cash as its spent in their state. Here it would go into the usual national black hole

To see how not to try to squeeze the rich look at the governments attempts to charge non doms IHT on international assets (likely to be reversed although will be tricky with the crazy idealogues in the party) Record numbers of millionaires are now leaving the country. Norway also lost hundreds of millions by increasing wealth tax Norway's Tax Experiment: A Costly Exodus - IMGlobal Wealth
Hollande had to backtrack on 75% super rich rate in France due to threat of mass exodus

Im all for trying to find ways to ensure the rich, especially the super rich, pay their fair share but it needs to be done in a way that keeps them here !

 

[SBAndy]

The devils always in the detail. All depends on how it’s done, what people were paying before, what the additional cash is spent on and what the individuals alternatives/options are

USA highest income tax rate is 37% (over $600k). State tax there is 5%. 4% surcharge on amounts over a million so I’d imagine their total income tax bill is similar to here still even with the surcharge

They are also likely to see the direct benefit of the additional cash as its spent in their state. Here it would go into the usual national black hole

To see how not to try to squeeze the rich look at the governments attempts to charge non doms IHT on international assets (likely to be reversed although will be tricky with the crazy idealogues in the party) Record numbers of millionaires are now leaving the country. Norway also lost hundreds of millions by increasing wealth tax Norway's Tax Experiment: A Costly Exodus - IMGlobal Wealth
Hollande had to backtrack on 75% super rich rate in France due to threat of mass exodus

Im all for trying to find ways to ensure the rich, especially the super rich, pay their fair share but it needs to be done in a way that keeps them here !

I’ve said before but I do find the idea of a wealth tax, coupled maybe with a reduction to the additional rate of income tax, intriguing. Fully appreciate that mechanically it would be extremely challenging to implement and there’s obvious risk (as cited in the link you’ve put up) of capital flight.

 

[CCFCSteve]

It's not back where we were?

Looked like there needed to be some tweaks to the planned reforms but there’s got to be a recognition that we’ve got a massive issue with welfare.

PIP claims have increased from 2.1m in 2019 to 3.7m at the start of 2025. There has been a move from DLA to PIP though so googled combined claimants. DLA and PIP combined total claimants appears to be 5m* up from combined 3.9m in 2019 (Total claimants were less than 3m in 2010). I honestly can’t believe the jump in these figures even when considering Covid/hospital wait lists, I hope they’re not correct or I’ve misunderstood, so all ears if I have.

Nothing to see here though !

*I think this might exclude Scotland as well which could be another 400- 500k onto 2025 figure, (I believe Scotland was included in 2019 figure). so total of around 5.5m in UK - that’s more than one in ten adults

 

[CCFCSteve]

I’ve said before but I do find the idea of a wealth tax, coupled maybe with a reduction to the additional rate of income tax, intriguing. Fully appreciate that mechanically it would be extremely challenging to implement and there’s obvious risk (as cited in the link you’ve put up) of capital flight.

Theres got to be a way surely. In terms of what we’re currently doing if I was Reeves id be tempted to offer non doms with an alternative one off payment ie £100k - £200k instead of us claiming IHT on all global assets which appears to be the main driver for people leaving. This would hopefully reduce wanting to leave and give the treasury an immediate few billion boost. We would also still benefit from the wider non dom tax changes

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I’ve said before but I do find the idea of a wealth tax, coupled maybe with a reduction to the additional rate of income tax, intriguing. Fully appreciate that mechanically it would be extremely challenging to implement and there’s obvious risk (as cited in the link you’ve put up) of capital flight.

A memo to anyone flirting with the idea of a wealth tax:

Labour were elected to do this in 1970s and decided it was politically toxic to implement. It’s not even a new idea across Europe.

The big change that needs to be made to income tax is raising the tax-free threshold. It was a good policy from the Cameron years that’s been manipulated as a stealth tax by freezing the tax-free threshold at £12.5k p/a. If it’s completely ‘unaffordable’ to raise the threshold in line with inflation, then it might be a good idea for government to reinstate the 10p tax - which Labour planned to do in 2015. It was one of Brown’s biggest regrets as chancellor.

As a basic principle, work doesn’t pay for too many people. With the tax-thresholds being so low, there are too many people toward the bottom of the income levels who could earn as much in Universal Credit than a retail job.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

A memo to anyone flirting with the idea of a wealth tax:

Labour were elected to do this in 1970s and decided it was politically toxic to implement. It’s not even a new idea across Europe.

The big change that needs to be made to income tax is raising the tax-free threshold. It was a good policy from the Cameron years that’s been manipulated as a stealth tax by freezing the tax-free threshold at £12.5k p/a. If it’s completely ‘unaffordable’ to raise the threshold in line with inflation, then it might be a good idea for government to reinstate the 10p tax - which Labour planned to do in 2015. It was one of Brown’s biggest regrets as chancellor.

As a basic principle, work doesn’t pay for too many people. With the tax-thresholds being so low, there are too many people toward the bottom of the income levels who could earn as much in Universal Credit than a retail job.

Trouble is raising a tax free threshold ultimately is more benefiical to the wealthy as they benefit from not hitting the higher tax bands as quickly. as far as I'm concerned the tax free amount should be the amount it costs for basic housing, food and energy.

Basically we need to make work more beneficial than capital, hence the talk of wealth taxes. This is why we need to encourage things like co-ops to be far more tax efficient than standard companies, especially listed ones. Any company paying dividends should be made to pay a dividend tax, weighted depending on the total of the dividend but up to the same amount for those paying tens of millions, into the exchequer

Do away with the totally fictitious metric that is profit for deriving taxes and make it a small percentage of revenue (with a tax free amount of say £100k)

 

[shmmeee]

“Wealth tax” is a big vague. IHT is a wealth tax. CGT is a wealth tax. Labour have raised both. Beyond that I’m not sure there’s much evidence of it raising loads. Britains wealth is in pensions and property and good luck taxing them.

Income tax can be higher almost across the board though. Pretty much every country that spends more taxes more and so should we especially as we under tax due to the NHS.

Ultimately the idea of a global elite who up and move countries at the drop of a hat is a nonsense put out to scare treasuries with zero evidence behind it. People have lives and families and homes, the idea of humans as robotic rational economic actors who only care about finance is throughout classical economics and always its undoing.

 

[shmmeee]

Ultimately if you want things better than they are you’re gonna have to pay for them. There isn’t billions of pounds sitting in a tiny minorities bank waiting to be raided, it will be broad based tax rises because that’s what the tories cut before leaving office. The idea you can salami slice it or turn a few billionaires upside down is silly.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Trouble is raising a tax free threshold ultimately is more benefiical to the wealthy as they benefit from not hitting the higher tax bands as quickly. as far as I'm concerned the tax free amount should be the amount it costs for basic housing, food and energy.

Basically we need to make work more beneficial than capital, hence the talk of wealth taxes. This is why we need to encourage things like co-ops to be far more tax efficient than standard companies, especially listed ones. Any company paying dividends should be made to pay a dividend tax, weighted depending on the total of the dividend but up to the same amount for those paying tens of millions, into the exchequer

Do away with the totally fictitious metric that is profit for deriving taxes and make it a small percentage of revenue (with a tax free amount of say £100k)

Your first paragraph completely misreads the regulations.

Raising the personal allowance benefits everyone the same. The current rule is that you lose £2 off the tax-free allowance for every £1 you earn over £100,000 so you don’t have a tax free allowance if you earn anything above £125,140 per year.

The tax thresholds have been frozen for a while and what will continue to happen is that people will get dragged into higher tax brackets. In short, only 3.5% of people paid the top rate tax in 1991/92 (40%) and on current projections, that number will be 14% by 2027/28. Even things like student finance means a generation of workers have a marginal tax rate much higher than the headline tax rate.

 

[CCFCSteve]

Your first paragraph completely misreads the regulations.

Raising the personal allowance benefits everyone the same. The current rule is that you lose £2 off the tax-free allowance for every £1 you earn over £100,000 so you don’t have a tax free allowance if you earn anything above £125,140 per year.

The tax thresholds have been frozen for a while and what will continue to happen is that people will get dragged into higher tax brackets. In short, only 3.5% of people paid the top rate tax in 1991/92 (40%) and on current projections, that number will be 14% by 2027/28. Even things like student finance means a generation of workers have a marginal tax rate much higher than the headline tax rate.

14% always sounds quite low to me but it’s 7m people already and will be almost 8m by the end of parliament. Equivalent to around 28% of FT workers. Massive revenue generator

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

14% always sounds quite low to me but it’s 7m people already and will be almost 8m by the end of parliament. Equivalent to around 28% of FT workers. Massive revenue generator

This doesn’t include NI and student loan repayments btw.

14% is a hell of a lot of people for tax that was designed with the ‘Top 1%’ in mind. I’ve maxed out my own pension contributions to reduce my tax bill (for now).

In my view, it’s cutting off your nose to spite your face because people’s disposable income is declining and that will have secondary consequences like less consumer spending and VAT receipts. The tax burden is just too high and the prospect of more tax rises to fill Rachel Reeves’ bigger financial black hole is just not good.

 

[fatso]

Fiscally it is. They’re going to have to find savings or raise tax so the fight was for nothing.

Or they could stop the commitment to billions of pounds on defence spending (on American jets and munitions)

Our pensioners have lost their winter fuel payments, our disabled face losing their benefits and yet there's money for bombs and bullets????

 

[SBAndy]

This doesn’t include NI and student loan repayments btw.

14% is a hell of a lot of people for tax that was designed with the ‘Top 1%’ in mind. I’ve maxed out my own pension contributions to reduce my tax bill (for now).

In my view, it’s cutting off your nose to spite your face because people’s disposable income is declining and that will have secondary consequences like less consumer spending and VAT receipts. The tax burden is just too high and the prospect of more tax rises to fill Rachel Reeves’ bigger financial black hole is just not good.

And this is where my ‘wealth tax’ thinking comes from really. I don’t know how much additional tax revenue is raised by taking the personal allowances of additional rate taxpayers. Could that hole be plugged by a fairly minor ‘wealth tax’ in some capacity, whilst enabling the high-earners to have more disposable income? But the wealth tax in the background is almost acting as a hoarding deterrent and people may spend more. I don’t know, this is brain fart territory tbh!

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

And this is where my ‘wealth tax’ thinking comes from really. I don’t know how much additional tax revenue is raised by taking the personal allowances of additional rate taxpayers. Could that hole be plugged by a fairly minor ‘wealth tax’ in some capacity, whilst enabling the high-earners to have more disposable income? But the wealth tax in the background is almost acting as a hoarding deterrent and people may spend more. I don’t know, this is brain fart territory tbh!

How do you definite wealth? Someone like Elon Musk is a billionaire on paper, if Tesla’s share price went to zero, we’d all be richer than Elon Musk.

On physical assets, like homes for example, if they continued growing in value at the same rate as the last 20-30 years, we’d all be multimillionaires on paper.

Gary Stevenson assumes that a wealth tax would fix everything because the rich would sell their assets and that would in turn drop the prices for ‘the many’.

If that was true, why has Wales’ second home tax not had the intended affect of locals buying homes? Likewise, the prices in central London are beginning to decline significantly because of other factors.

In specific relation to housing (as this is where I see the majority of justifications for a wealth tax), the fundamental issue isn’t one of hoarding. It’s that the supply of housing isn’t enough to meet demand so the solution is build more houses and less people needing said houses.

In short, if your goal is to ‘redistribute’ assets, a wealth tax isn’t the best means to do that.

 

[Captain Dart]

How do you definite wealth? Someone like Elon Musk is a billionaire on paper, if Tesla’s share price went to zero, we’d all be richer than Elon Musk.

On physical assets, like homes for example, if they continued growing in value at the same rate as the last 20-30 years, we’d all be multimillionaires on paper.

Gary Stevenson assumes that a wealth tax would fix everything because the rich would sell their assets and that would in turn drop the prices for ‘the many’.

If that was true, why has Wales’ second home tax not had the intended affect of locals buying homes? Likewise, the prices in central London are beginning to decline significantly because of other factors.

In specific relation to housing (as this is where I see the majority of justifications for a wealth tax), the fundamental issue isn’t one of hoarding. It’s that the supply of housing isn’t enough to meet demand so the solution is build more houses and less people needing said houses.

In short, if your goal is to ‘redistribute’ assets, a wealth tax isn’t the best means to do that.

Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao Ze Dong had other methods of redistributing wealth.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

How do you definite wealth? Someone like Elon Musk is a billionaire on paper, if Tesla’s share price went to zero, we’d all be richer than Elon Musk.

On physical assets, like homes for example, if they continued growing in value at the same rate as the last 20-30 years, we’d all be multimillionaires on paper.

Gary Stevenson assumes that a wealth tax would fix everything because the rich would sell their assets and that would in turn drop the prices for ‘the many’.

If that was true, why has Wales’ second home tax not had the intended affect of locals buying homes? Likewise, the prices in central London are beginning to decline significantly because of other factors.

In specific relation to housing (as this is where I see the majority of justifications for a wealth tax), the fundamental issue isn’t one of hoarding. It’s that the supply of housing isn’t enough to meet demand so the solution is build more houses and less people needing said houses.

In short, if your goal is to ‘redistribute’ assets, a wealth tax isn’t the best means to do that.

Well currently there’s a big redistribution of wealth into a shrinking number of hands, but I don’t see much objection to that. Look at the naked grab of that in the US for the best example.

 

[fatso]

How do you definite wealth? Someone like Elon Musk is a billionaire on paper, if Tesla’s share price went to zero, we’d all be richer than Elon Musk.

On physical assets, like homes for example, if they continued growing in value at the same rate as the last 20-30 years, we’d all be multimillionaires on paper.

Gary Stevenson assumes that a wealth tax would fix everything because the rich would sell their assets and that would in turn drop the prices for ‘the many’.

If that was true, why has Wales’ second home tax not had the intended affect of locals buying homes? Likewise, the prices in central London are beginning to decline significantly because of other factors.

In specific relation to housing (as this is where I see the majority of justifications for a wealth tax), the fundamental issue isn’t one of hoarding. It’s that the supply of housing isn’t enough to meet demand so the solution is build more houses and less people needing said houses.

In short, if your goal is to ‘redistribute’ assets, a wealth tax isn’t the best means to do that.

Taxing wealth more is never the way to generate more income.

The wealthy just up sticks and move abroad ,
Hence why places like Monaco and Dubai are full of millionaires.
They take their money else where and the jobs that money creates goes with them.
We are currently experiencing a wealth exodus at the moment, and those people are being replaced by immigrants who are penniless (in a lot of cases) and will need financial support for years to come.

Also, if you increase the tax burden on the population, you stifle productivity, why should I work overtime and extra shifts. when I'm losing 40% of that income to tax?
(We are seeing that happen now where I work, people are asking for time off in lieu rather than payment, which is fine, but the tax man is missing out)

Having had a lot of work done on my property recently, it was amazing to see how many trades people wanted cash in hand! Of course this has always been the case, but the high tax burden for many of these people means that the tax man is now losing 40% not 25%

 

[shmmeee]

How do you definite wealth? Someone like Elon Musk is a billionaire on paper, if Tesla’s share price went to zero, we’d all be richer than Elon Musk.

On physical assets, like homes for example, if they continued growing in value at the same rate as the last 20-30 years, we’d all be multimillionaires on paper.

Gary Stevenson assumes that a wealth tax would fix everything because the rich would sell their assets and that would in turn drop the prices for ‘the many’.

If that was true, why has Wales’ second home tax not had the intended affect of locals buying homes? Likewise, the prices in central London are beginning to decline significantly because of other factors.

In specific relation to housing (as this is where I see the majority of justifications for a wealth tax), the fundamental issue isn’t one of hoarding. It’s that the supply of housing isn’t enough to meet demand so the solution is build more houses and less people needing said houses.

In short, if your goal is to ‘redistribute’ assets, a wealth tax isn’t the best means to do that.

Yeah if a billionaire lost all their money they wouldn’t be a billionaire! Makes you think.

 

[shmmeee]

Taxing wealth more is never the way to generate more income.

The wealthy just up sticks and move abroad ,
Hence why places like Monaco and Dubai are full of millionaires.
They take their money else where and the jobs that money creates goes with them.
We are currently experiencing a wealth exodus at the moment, and those people are being replaced by immigrants who are penniless (in a lot of cases) and will need financial support for years to come.

Also, if you increase the tax burden on the population, you stifle productivity, why should I work overtime and extra shifts. when I'm losing 40% of that income to tax?
(We are seeing that happen now where I work, people are asking for time off in lieu rather than payment, which is fine, but the tax man is missing out)

Having had a lot of work done on my property recently, it was amazing to see how many trades people wanted cash in hand! Of course this has always been the case, but the high tax burden for many of these people means that the tax man is now losing 40% not 25%

Yeah famously everyone stops earning once they hit higher rate. I have just stopped asking for promotions at work “no thanks boss, I’d only get 60% of it” I say. Follow me for more financial advice.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Taxing wealth more is never the way to generate more income.

The wealthy just up sticks and move abroad ,
Hence why places like Monaco and Dubai are full of millionaires.
They take their money else where and the jobs that money creates goes with them.
We are currently experiencing a wealth exodus at the moment, and those people are being replaced by immigrants who are penniless (in a lot of cases) and will need financial support for years to come.

Also, if you increase the tax burden on the population, you stifle productivity, why should I work overtime and extra shifts. when I'm losing 40% of that income to tax?
(We are seeing that happen now where I work, people are asking for time off in lieu rather than payment, which is fine, but the tax man is missing out)

Having had a lot of work done on my property recently, it was amazing to see how many trades people wanted cash in hand! Of course this has always been the case, but the high tax burden for many of these people means that the tax man is now losing 40% not 25%

Let’s go the whole hog then and charge the rich no tax whatsoever. I’m sure the money will trickle down regardless.

 

[fatso]

Yeah famously everyone stops earning once they hit higher rate. I have just stopped asking for promotions at work “no thanks boss, I’d only get 60% of it” I say. Follow me for more financial advice.

I'm not talking about promotions I'm talking about overtime and extra shifts.

Hence why I used the words "overtime" and "extra shifts"

It's really not difficult. Do try and keep up.

Is there anything else I can explain to you?