[Politics] Next Gov: Where will the money come from?

[BenGarfield]

Agree. Anything that is an 'alternative' to state provision such as education, or is a lifestyle choice such as religion, should not get tax breaks.

However I'm not sure this will raise much money.

Some will argue that state spending is a state of mind. Doesn't @BenGarfield suggest the government simply print and spend money and no harm will result?

My prejudice, working in higher education and medical research with feet and fingers across the piece is that the last thing we need is another review of higher education and the NHS, and yet.....we do need change there.

Perhaps removing all the little loopholes that allow certain types to game society for massive personal profit, the grift and corruption of giving massive HMG contracts to friends and family, and an active effort to make the NHS, education, transport and housing 'better' rather than more profitable for friends and family of HMG, may be of some value.

I didn't think the country was f***ed by Broon, and I don't think it is f***ed now. What is important is the direction of travel, and taking care of core business. We have plunged to a level of needless shit-ness now that is hard to fathom. The NHS, the state of the roads, the chucking up of massive housing estates without supporting infrastructure. Avoidable tomfoolery that has been allowed to grow so that friends and family of HMG can turn coin. Nothing that a little time and effort can't fix.

But beware the torrent of negativity that will be blasted at us by the tory opposition aided by their media chums. If we are not all riding around in £60K electric cars, on pristine roads, en route to waiting list-free NHS healthcentres, while booking skiing holidays a week after the general election, it will all be 'See, labour cannot deliver on the promises they didn't make! Boo!'.

Personally, I will feel cheery and engaged if labour get in, not looking around fearfully for the next bit of peevish shitehouse old bollocks that the present load of ****s plans to dish up to salve their wanky core vote. That will be enough for a bit.

Harry, you misrepresent the MMT position which I have explained at length in other threads. Government finances are not like a household. Central government creates new money every time it spends. Tax is the return of some of that money to the treasury which is then destroyed. Tax does not fund government expenditure, and its main roles are to make sure the populace need to use the currency, control inflation - alongside other fiscal measures, deal with equity issues, and discourage spending on undesirable espenditure, e.g., alcohol, smoking etc. Of course the government cannot spend as much money as it likes without harming the economy if its expenditure results in using up too many real resources and could lead to inflation.

 

[BLOCK F]

Mr Google must know something that no local government officer knows. Or even the local government chiefs.

We have not even been made an offer of a pay rise for 2024 yet. Despite the financial year having already started.

We'll be lucky to get 3%.

Anyway - scrapping it wouldn't save much money for the Government, which is what the thread is

I’m only mentioning what I read. If I have misunderstood or misinterpreted the article, then I bow to your superior knowledge. Check for yourself if you wish.
However, I am not sure that one can totally dismiss the notion that scrapping generous public sector pensions shouldn’t be the subject of discussion at some time, but MPs pension arrangements would have to be changed at the same time and thereby lies a stumbling block.

 

[Bodian]

I’m only mentioning what I read. If I have misunderstood or misinterpreted the article, then I bow to your superior knowledge. Check for yourself if you wish.
However, I am not sure that one can totally dismiss the notion that scrapping generous public sector pensions shouldn’t be the subject of discussion at some time, but MPs pension arrangements would have to be changed at the same time and thereby lies a stumbling block.

No - that's the point.

Local Government Pensions are nothing to do with pensions for Teachers, NHS, Police, Armed Forces, Civil Servants or MP's arrangements. The latter are all paid for out of future taxes - so will cost future taxpayers even if changed tomorrow (until all current staff die off that is). Local Government Pensions are paid for out of the lifetime contributions of the employee/employer.

Yes - it's a defined benefit, and so not at the whim of the stock market - and therefore reassuring if you have one (you know what you're going to get), but not more costly (and we could well end up with less than private pensions). And it's balanced by relatively lower pay (Local Government 'real' wages have decreased since 2010 (between 7%-32% depending on your job), average 'real' pay in the private sector has increased since 2010). And as pensions are defined by salary in local government - they also drop accordingly.

The Local Government Scheme could be changed with no corresponding change to MPs or any of the above list.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Having listened to Gary the Economist a bit, I’m included to agree about the introduction of wealth taxes. Those on £10m+ per year need to start paying an awful lot more. But a tax on their whole wealth, not just their income. His point was essentially, all those council houses that were purchased from the Government over the years eventually find their way into being owned by the richest 1%. This has to stop before they eventually own the vast majority of wealth in the country. Billionaires are the problem.

 

[beorhthelm]

Having listened to Gary the Economist a bit, I’m included to agree about the introduction of wealth taxes. Those on £10m+ per year need to start paying an awful lot more. But a tax on their whole wealth, not just their income. His point was essentially, all those council houses that were purchased from the Government over the years eventually find their way into being owned by the richest 1%. This has to stop before they eventually own the vast majority of wealth in the country. Billionaires are the problem.

is that really true, and they aren't mostly owned by owner occupiers?
the problem with fixating on wealth taxes is you set up a tax system to punish holding wealth rather than a system generating revenue to pay for services. that's not helpful for investment.

 

[Hugo Rune]

is that really true, and they aren't mostly owned by owner occupiers?
the problem with fixating on wealth taxes is you set up a tax system to punish holding wealth rather than a system generating revenue to pay for services. that's not helpful for investment.

It’s a direction of travel that has massively accelerated under the current government. It helps keep house prices high and out of reach to most under 30s who don’t have parental financial support.

In terms of a wealth tax fixation, it’s wealth that’s not needed that should be targeted. I’d be happy to see millionaires getting a tax cut if it stimulates the economy and simplifies the tax system. However, the billionaires need their wings clipped ASAP. They own way too much and don’t need it.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I’d be looking at …..



Amazon Tax. Obv’s not call it that. But it’s completely wrong that online companies who pay virtually no corporation tax, have been allowed to hollow out our high streets by undercutting companies that do. Find a way to tax them and tax them high.

Tax reliefs. I understand there’s a lot more savings by looking at areas where reliefs are used inappropriately, but it’s an area where a light is rarely shone.

Wealth tax. We’ll have to take the plunge and I think it should be regular. Say, all properties valued over £1m have to pay 20k per year. No exceptions, if little old Vera gets turfed out of the house she's owned for 85 years, well tough.

Fossil fuel tax. Something like … “any fossil fuel company making a worldwide profit of 1bn or more has to pay a levy of £50m per year to do business in the UK.

I’m sure there are complications and I’m sure there are back doors to reduce the payments made, but this is the governments job. We need to raise a lot more tax. Mostly, of course the well off, will have to find this, but pain will be felt by everyone.

I’d personally agree with sending gun boats and troops to tax havens and turfing the bankers out of their offices and forcibly shutting down their operations, but I agree there would be rule of law issues here.

 

[RandyWanger]

is that really true, and they aren't mostly owned by owner occupiers?
the problem with fixating on wealth taxes is you set up a tax system to punish holding wealth rather than a system generating revenue to pay for services. that's not helpful for investment.

The Swiss have a wealth tax. Hasn't stopped their billionaires from leaving or investment drying up.

 

[Diablo]

massively overborrowed is the real problem debt interest £116 billion wow

 

[rippleman]

1. Properly resource HMRC so they can collect the tax, penalties and interest that is due. The organisation has cut staff numbers and it is on its knees and absolutely cluless and directionless.

HMRC is not under-resourced!

They opened an enquiry into one of my clients only a couple of weeks ago. The target of their enquiry was a fixed rate trade allowance of £120. All employees within his industry are entitled to it to cover safety wear, cleaning overalls etc. No receipts / invoices etc are required.

I spoke to the officer conducting the enquiry and he said they had been instructed to open another 499 enquiries into the same thing.

Even if my client hadn't been entitled to the allowance (which he is), and HMRC had applied a 100% penalty, the total yield to HMRC would have been less than £50!!

They have plenty of resource, it's just being mismanaged. HMRC also has the highest number of staff "working from home" amongst all civil service departments. Only just over 50% of HMRC now go into the office. This has resulted in an appalling level of service. HMRC needs to employ those who have experience of running large businesses not just career civil servants.

And the total civil service headcount has increased by 66,000 since 2019.

Hunt confirms timeline for 66,000 civil service job cuts in Autumn Statement

Autumn Statement productivity review update sets out schedule for cuts target

www.civilserviceworld.com

 

[Randy McNob]

TAX THE RICH

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Probably because then net losses would need to be tax deductable. Would be more hassle than it's worth to try and sort the admin for that?

Surely you wouldn't be able to deduct say 10% gambling tax on a £100 win if that same person has lost £100 the week before, etc...?

From memory when I used to attend bookies in person, you used to be given the choice of paying the tax on the stake (9%) and having the winnings tax free. This was for UK racing only as bizarrely bets placed in the UK for say Sourh African racing was tax free

This was removed in the early 2000’s as there was a fear people would simply divert to offshore betting companies.

The tax was removed from the punter and replaced in 2014 by the Bookies having to pay 15% of their gross profit to HMRC and this includes overseas registered firms (need a uk gambling license whether you are based) so Essentially as the notation is the bookies always win, the state actually receive more gambling income this way than taxing the punter

 

[bazbha]

Wealth tax. We’ll have to take the plunge and I think it should be regular. Say, all properties valued over £1m have to pay 20k per year. No exceptions, if little old Vera gets turfed out of the house she's owned for 85 years, well tough.

Wow! So most of London then? I thought those on the left were meant to be caring? So where does Vera go? In your scenario she has lived there her whole life and all her friends could be local. Presumably her family would have all moved out of London to be fair. Judging by where I live most Londoners have moved out in to the home counties now. Only the old folk left really. Totally heartless and completely ridiculous. Vera deserves to live her last days in dignity. Not taxed out of her own property out of spite.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

. Vera deserves to live her last days in dignity. Not taxed out of her own property out of spite.

She does. You're right.

But also people with cancer deserve to be treated in a reasonable timeframe, children deserve a decent education and victims of crime deserve to see the perpetrator bought to justice in a realistic timeframe.

None of those things are happening any more. and I could have given a lot more examples, every part of the public realm is falling apart. To fix it is going to involve increasing the tax burden and that can't be done without some unfairness. What politicians have to do is weigh different unfairness's against each other and choose the least unfair option . Sorry Vera, you're going to have to downsize

 

[Randy McNob]

Wow! So most of London then? I thought those on the left were meant to be caring? So where does Vera go? In your scenario she has lived there her whole life and all her friends could be local. Presumably her family would have all moved out of London to be fair. Judging by where I live most Londoners have moved out in to the home counties now. Only the old folk left really. Totally heartless and completely ridiculous. Vera deserves to live her last days in dignity. Not taxed out of her own property out of spite.

Simple then, exclude people above 65 and / or on state benefits

It's the super wealthy we should go after. while the country has got poorer they have got richer - fact. Lets get our money back

 

[beorhthelm]

She does. You're right.

But also people with cancer deserve to be treated in a reasonable timeframe, children deserve a decent education and victims of crime deserve to see the perpetrator bought to justice in a realistic timeframe.

None of those things are happening any more. and I could have given a lot more examples, every part of the public realm is falling apart. To fix it is going to involve increasing the tax burden and that can't be done without some unfairness. What politicians have to do is weigh different unfairness's against each other and choose the least unfair option . Sorry Vera, you're going to have to downsize

least unfair option is to keep the tax base as broad on general population with few isolated impact on individuals. so indirect (sales, duties) taxes and income taxes. no coincidence these are the main sources of tax revenues across major countries.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

least unfair option is to keep the tax base as broad on general population with few isolated impact on individuals. so indirect (sales, duties) taxes and income taxes. no coincidence these are the main sources of tax revenues across major countries.

Sounds quite a lot like "whatever you do, don't tax the better off"

 

[beorhthelm]

Sounds quite a lot like "whatever you do, don't tax the better off"

not at all. it sounds like very different understanding of the word fair. i reckon fair is taxing everyone resonably the same, based on income, with some tiers for the better off. you say taking people's assets, focus on subgroups of the population, without care for the consequences (e.g. Vera has to have accomodation found by local authority).

you said politicans have to balance fairness, evidence shows they usually prefer the broadbase income base approach.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

(e.g. Vera has to have accomodation found by local authority).

Or at worse move from a £1m house to a £800,000, or do some kind of equity release thing.

I just think we can't raise the sums of money we need solely by taxing income. Plus wealth inequality has increased to levels corrosive to society. The best way to retain faith in a fair contract across society is to recoup more from the very well off. Unfortunately, they hide their money very effectively, so it’s hard to get at it. Property though is much harder to hide. Leaving a wealth tax on property the only logical option.

Yes it will create unfairnesses. I’d love it if it didn’t. But when we first levied income tax to stave off Napoleon, do you think that caused no societal unfairness? But we got used to that and we would get used to this.

 

[BenGarfield]

Or at worse move from a £1m house to a £800,000, or do some kind of equity release thing.

I just think we can't raise the sums of money we need solely by taxing income. Plus wealth inequality has increased to levels corrosive to society. The best way to retain faith in a fair contract across society is to recoup more from the very well off. Unfortunately, they hide their money very effectively, so it’s hard to get at it. Property though is much harder to hide. Leaving a wealth tax on property the only logical option.

Yes it will create unfairnesses. I’d love it if it didn’t. But when we first levied income tax to stave off Napoleon, do you think that caused no societal unfairness? But we got used to that and we would get used to this.

I agree with most of this. However, the purpose of tax is not to raise income for government spending. The rich should be taxed because they are too rich - we dont need their money to fund anything.