[Finance] Rachel Reeves to reveal £20bn shortfall left by Conservative Government

[Is it PotG?]

I used to like her when she presented Countdown but have gone off her not she is a commie

Regards

DF

Riley, it's RILEY.

 

[Weststander]

I don’t think even Rachel Reeves would go along with this, but who knows.
I see that ‘wealth’ would include pensions, so I assume they mean the pots of those have paid into such vehicles as SIPP’s to provide for their retirement. If pensions pots are to be included in wealth, then surely calculations would have to be made about those fortunate people, such as in the public sector and other DB schemes as to how much the theoretical ‘pot’ would be worth to provide whatever pension they are benefitting from.
What fun!

That would hand the next GE to another government. Many millions have SIPP’s. They’re not a controversial thing, they’ve simply replaced occupational and group personal pension schemes, as the employment and regulatory landscape has evolved. I’ve not heard anyone sensible say attack SIPP’s.

The only possible change is an IHT aspect. Defined contribution pension pots might fall within taxable estates on death.

 

[beorhthelm]

I don’t because this is a one off tax payable on the situation someone was is in at the time it would be introduced and to pay for a hang over from a very extreme event (e.g COVID). The one off nature of it is key here and you couldn’t do anything to avoid paying it including making a decision to subsequently move.

Most of the data also shows that taxing the ultra rich more does not cause them to leave the country they live in.

If you tax the rich, they won't leave: US data contradicts millionaires' threats | Inequality | The Guardian

Does raising taxes on the rich really trigger their migration to more obliging states or countries? This study of every million-dollar earner in the US shows otherwise

amp.theguardian.com

For most asset rich millionaires and Billionaires, getting and staying rich is intimately connected to where they live. A lot of their money comes from businesses and assets which are based in the UK. In the longer term there is also nothing to stop us from closing loop holes that allow rich people to earn income from UK based assets but live elsewhere and pay no tax on them.

the data claims to show this, yet tax havens exist. hmmm. i'm sure it's not at all biased data.
i'm not saying everyone would leave, but object to pretense it wouldn't have an effect. it's about is the country safe and reliable place for investment, the effects need to be acknowledged and accounted for honestly. adding retrospective application of rules just makes this worse. it's a wonder if it so simple why it's not been done, may be because the long term costs outweigh the short term gain.

investment is the key issue. it's obvious when people see wealth as a bad thing they forget most of it is in investments. its pensions, companies, shares, hoping to grow for the future. the main non-growth asset is property so maybe focus on that alone.

 

[abc]

I agree - but imagine the furore that would have caused! Meltdown at the Telegraph, Mail, Express etc. Unfortunately in our system honesty gets you nowhere.

It’s not our system, it’s US - all of us. If a politician is honest in this sense, listens to the arguments and does a ‘U turn’, or god forbid admits that there isn’t an immediate answer to whatever problem is the flavour of the day, then they become unelectable, incompetent and out of touch.

We get the politics we deserve but we will never take personal responsibility for that because everything is someone else’s fault

 

[Half Time Pies]

the data claims to show this, yet tax havens exist. hmmm. i'm sure it's not at all biased data.
i'm not saying everyone would leave, but object to pretense it wouldn't have an effect. it's about is the country safe and reliable place for investment, the effects need to be acknowledged and accounted for honestly. adding retrospective application of rules just makes this worse. it's a wonder if it so simple why it's not been done, may be because the long term costs outweigh the short term gain.

investment is the key issue. it's obvious when people see wealth as a bad thing they forget most of it is in investments. its pensions, companies, shares, hoping to grow for the future. the main non-growth asset is property so maybe focus on that alone.

One of the major effects of the QE that occurred during COVID was a huge increase in the value of assets such as equities which increased the wealth of those that owned them.

Typically older people, who tend to own more financial assets than younger people, gained the most from increased wealth.

It was almost obscene hearing people brag about how much they were benefiting from increases in the value of their assets during the crisis (it was happening a lot on here), is it really unreasonable to suggest that we claw some of that money back, from the people who benefited the most from a bad situation, when the country really needs it?!

 

[BLOCK F]

That would hand the next GE to another government. Many millions have SIPP’s. They’re not a controversial thing, they’ve simply replaced occupational and group personal pension schemes, as the employment and regulatory landscape has evolved. I’ve not heard anyone sensible say attack SIPP’s.

The only possible change is an IHT aspect. Defined contribution pension pots might fall within taxable estates on death.

Yes, I understand that, but you get the point I am making, I am sure, with regard to including pensions in a wealth tax which is all about the living not the dead. If the wealth tax proponents were only concerned with IHT, why mention pensions when talking about measuring so called wealth in regards to a wealth tax?

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I notice Labour have promptly bottled the social care crisis, like every government does, and just hope it will go away if they ignore it for long enough. It won't.

Just wait until you or your partner or your parents and relatives have dementia, and watch all your/their money disappear into an enormous black hole, in a care home where you never expected to end up.

It's coming for some of you....

 

[Weststander]

Yes, I understand that, but you get the point I am making, I am sure, with regard to including pensions in a wealth tax which is all about the living.

I did. But added IHT as the one change that might happen.

Wealth taxing SIPP’s, but not occupational scheme values which can be colossal or group personal pensions, would be both a vote loser and challengeable in the courts as unjust. Probably why no one sensible has mentioned it.

SIPP’s aren’t the bogeyman. It’s the just modern way millions across all income brackets invest for retirement.

There’s another world you haven’t mentioned …. wealth management. 10,000’s in southern England, possibly 100,000’s hold great wealth in the same products as SIPP’s, but not under a tax exempt wrapper.

 

[BLOCK F]

I did. But added IHT as the one change that might happen.

Wealth taxing SIPP’s, but not occupational scheme values which can be colossal or group personal pensions, would be both a vote loser and challengeable in the courts as unjust. Probably why no one sensible has mentioned it.

SIPP’s aren’t the bogeyman. It’s the just modern way millions across all income brackets invest for retirement.

There’s another world you haven’t mentioned …. wealth management. 10,000’s in southern England, possibly 100,000’s hold great wealth in the same products as SIPP’s, but not under a tax exempt wrapper.

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes, but why then did the proponents mention pensions with regard to a wealth tax, as per the link that Pieman, I think it was, who originally posted it?

 

[Weststander]

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes, but why then did the proponents mention pensions with regard to a wealth tax, as per the link that Pieman, I think it was, who originally posted it?

Are the proponents sensible people?

And why would SIPP’s be mentioned particularly. Other funds under wealth management are vast.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I notice Labour have promptly bottled the social care crisis, like every government does, and just hope it will go away if they ignore it for long enough. It won't.

Just wait until you or your partner or your parents and relatives have dementia, and watch all your/their money disappear into an enormous black hole, in a care home where you never expected to end up.

It's coming for some of you....

News Hidden away behind the winter fuel allowance.

 

[WATFORD zero]

It's good to see proper discussion on where more tax can be found as I'm sure anyone with any sense knows that the nation desperately needs it. I find it a little frustrating personally that we can't reverse the NI cut that was only implemented 3 months before the election as the last desperate measure of a Government in it's death throes and IIRC would be worth approx £20B pa, the size of Labour's 'black hole'

 

[Bold Seagull]

I notice Labour have promptly bottled the social care crisis, like every government does, and just hope it will go away if they ignore it for long enough. It won't.

Just wait until you or your partner or your parents and relatives have dementia, and watch all your/their money disappear into an enormous black hole, in a care home where you never expected to end up.

It's coming for some of you....

The trouble is, the last 3 manifestos that looked to address this properly weren’t elected.

Despite all the shit the Tories have done, had Starmer stood on a platform of higher taxation to pay for care etc he might not be PM and we might still have shady Hunt setting the budget.

Perhaps this government will do a good enough job that they can stand on platform of higher spending at the next election. With our press though it is like preparing your own noose to present it outright.

 

[BLOCK F]

Are the proponents sensible people?

And why would SIPP’s be mentioned particularly. Other funds under wealth management are vast.

Probably not!
Yes indeed, I just picked up on SIPPs because they are a pension vehicle I am familiar with. I am also a suspicious and sometimes cynical old bugger.
Nevertheless, I think it was a point worth mentioning.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Probably not!
Yes indeed, I just picked up on SIPPs because they are a pension vehicle I am familiar with. I am also a suspicious and sometimes cynical old bugger.
Nevertheless, I think it was a point worth mentioning.

Suspicious and Cynical old buggers definitely have a place in Society too and should be revered

 

[Weststander]

It's good to see proper discussion on where more tax can be found as I'm sure anyone with any sense knows that the nation desperately needs it. I find it a little frustrating personally that we can't reverse the NI cut that was only implemented 3 months before the election as the last desperate measure of a Government in it's death throes and IIRC would be worth approx £20B pa, the size of Labour's 'black hole'

The NI cut reduced revenue by £10.75b.

Shouldn’t have happened as middle to very high earners gained the most.

 

[rogersix]

I hope Reeves will have a lie detector fitted to her as she dishes out the forthcoming BS.
Anyone that thought the Tories were dishonest, perhaps you should start viewing it in a neutral way in the early days of labour reign.

do you take yourself seriously?

 

[beorhthelm]

The trouble is, the last 3 manifestos that looked to address this properly weren’t elected.

Despite all the shit the Tories have done, had Starmer stood on a platform of higher taxation to pay for care etc he might not be PM and we might still have shady Hunt setting the budget.

Perhaps this government will do a good enough job that they can stand on platform of higher spending at the next election. With our press though it is like preparing your own noose to present it outright.

i reckon Labour could have still won with some specific targeted tax increases. Johnson did, easily forgotten. Starmer boxed himself into a corner, promise of no taxes when some increased revenue must be found. if the hoped growth doesn't emerge and has to raise taxes in the next 5 years, it'll be a tougher election next time. short term gain for long term pain.

 

[Bold Seagull]

i reckon Labour could have still won with some specific targeted tax increases. Johnson did, easily forgotten. Starmer boxed himself into a corner, promise of no taxes when some increased revenue must be found. if the hoped growth doesn't emerge and has to raise taxes in the next 5 years, it'll be a tougher election next time. short term gain for long term pain.

4 election defeats can do that to a main political party.

 

[WATFORD zero]

The NI cut reduced revenue by £10.75b.

Shouldn’t have happened as middle to very high earners gained the most.

I got the £20B from a bloke down the pub who claimed he knew what he was talking about (1.25)



But I noticed he was a bit slow to the bar when it was his round so

Never understood Accountancy, as long as it's there give or take a few quid