[Politics] Starmer v Sunak *** Official Match Thread ***

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

My simplified tax system is this:
- Personal allowance of (just guessing here) £15,000 or £17,500?
- Abolish NI. Income tax records will become the sauce of state pension accruing rights data.
- Income tax starting at 25% graduated up 42.5%.

A a stroke; cutting all the thresholds/cliffs where people dance around avoiding a higher rate, reduce poverty, still incentivise people progressing in well paid careers or running businesses, a huge saving in DWP/HMRC admin, easier to follow and administer, making our tax codes slimmer (the second most complicated in the world).

I'd agree, but I'd set the % the same for everyone who pays income tax. Even simpler and less easy to dodge. (I would make 'people who pay income tax' all people who earn income from an employer, meaning a pressure for a rise in the minimum wage, but that's a separate discussion, as is what to do with the self-employed (pay them cash in hand seems to be a favoured answer)).

But we have had the 'fairness' discussion, and whether 25% of £30,000 is more than 25% of 300,000 (some people think it is more, in 'meaningful' terms making it 'unfair') before, so I won't go there.

Bugger. Too late

 

[WATFORD zero]

Interesting Article in the Tory bible 'The Spectator' today. Maybe you haven't read it yet ?

On Sunak’s maths, Tories will lift taxes by £3,000 per household​

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/on-sunaks-maths-tories-will-lift-taxes-by-3000-per-household/

They've just quoted the above on the news. I want some bloody commission, I found it first

In case he hadn't realised, when The Spectator is calling out a Conservative PM it really isn't good news. You're welcome Rishi

 

[Weststander]

I'd agree, but I'd set the % the same for everyone who pays income tax. Even simpler and less easy to dodge. (I would make 'people who pay income tax' all people who earn income from an employer, meaning a pressure for a rise in the minimum wage, but that's a separate discussion, as is what to do with the self-employed (pay them cash in hand seems to be a favoured answer)).

But we have had the 'fairness' discussion, and whether 25% of £30,000 is more than 25% of 300,000 (some people think it is more, in 'meaningful' terms making it 'unfair') before, so I won't go there.

Bugger. Too late

I believe in that too. Simplicity, no disincentives to work or prosper, poverty traps, tax traps.

But in always angry and polarised UK, it’d be spun as blah, blah, blah.

The same as getting rid of NI and having just higher income tax. “Ah, so you’re disassembling the welfare state”

 

[Pavilionaire]

I'd agree, but I'd set the % the same for everyone who pays income tax. Even simpler and less easy to dodge. (I would make 'people who pay income tax' all people who earn income from an employer, meaning a pressure for a rise in the minimum wage, but that's a separate discussion, as is what to do with the self-employed (pay them cash in hand seems to be a favoured answer)).

But we have had the 'fairness' discussion, and whether 25% of £30,000 is more than 25% of 300,000 (some people think it is more, in 'meaningful' terms making it 'unfair') before, so I won't go there.

Bugger. Too late

I think one of the reasons Sunak jumped on the £2,000 tax hike under Labour is to strangle at birth any proper debate about tax policy, which is less about fairness and more about wealth inequality.

Politicians are scared of tax, and of the threat that putting up tax will lose them an election. Yet it was touched upon last night by Starmer that young people have to wait on average until their late 30s before they own property (due to average house prices being 9x average earnings. In 1992 when I was a 24 year-old first time buyer it was 4x earnings.)

If you have a flat tax rather than a progressive tax system the wealthy retain more of their wealth and so wealthy inequality widens. The only way to reverse this is to tax assets and the rich, and so logically Capital Gains Tax and Inheritance Tax on assets should be at a person's highest marginal rate, i.e. 40 / 45%, yet with CGT now the very top rate is a just 28% on property and a mere 20% on everything else.

In theory Labour should be all over wealth taxes but they aren't, in part because of the Tory reaction we saw last night.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

I believe in that too. Simplicity, no disincentives to work or prosper, poverty traps, tax traps.

But in always angry and polarised UK, it’d be spun as blah, blah, blah.

The same as getting rid of NI and having just higher income tax. “Ah, so you’re disassembling the welfare state”

The only problem with this is that it becomes ‘just’ tax and not ring fenced or protected in anyway ( like Palace’s new stand) and so very easy to reduce, thus screwing over the welfare state. The Tories would be dancing in the street.

 

[Surrey Phil]

The recent fiscal studies from BoE & other insiders says the government has no spare money. To provide better services, all parties can only increase taxes or cut services. I don’t know why they all lie to a degree and don’t just tell us how they aim to pay for their extra promises. It‘s quite simple really.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I believe in that too. Simplicity, no disincentives to work or prosper, poverty traps, tax traps.

But in always angry and polarised UK, it’d be spun as blah, blah, blah.

The same as getting rid of NI and having just higher income tax. “Ah, so you’re disassembling the welfare state”

Indeed. The 'progressive' income tax (i.e., soaking the rich, percent wise, more that 'ordinary' people) is where I can get into serious 'discussions' with brethren of the orthodox left.

The fact that 40% of every man woman and child in this country is actively involved in the 'tax minimization' industry speaks volumes. I may have made that last bit up, but it is, nevertheless, a scientific fact, and proves that it is impossible in an always polarized UK . . . .(what you said)

 

[pb21]

But if Labour don’t give the answer as to where the money is coming from it leaves a gap to be filled by this doesn’t it. And if they don’t fill it, why?

Labour have come out and said it's bollox and that Sunak lied

Other sympathetic Tory cheerleaders have come out and said Tory policy will cost working families £3k

 

[BN41Albion]

This has always been a Tory board

Eh!?

 

[oldboyroy]

Well thats nonsense imho.

It says nothing more than the national split and people have already made up their minds. If youre one of the many who hates the Tories and thinks Sunak is a c*ck, despite him fairing better, youre still voting Starmer won the debate and vice versa.

Actually feel pretty objective and agnostic, dont particularly like or truly hate either, Starmer had a couple of moments, Sunak performed better overall.

Nope, I can't stand the tories and will vote Labour all day long but Sunak won last night without doubt!

 

[Weststander]

Indeed. The 'progressive' income tax (i.e., soaking the rich, percent wise, more that 'ordinary' people) is where I can get into serious 'discussions' with brethren of the orthodox left.

The fact that 40% of every man woman and child in this country is actively involved in the 'tax minimization' industry speaks volumes. I may have made that last bit up, but it is, nevertheless, a scientific fact, and proves that it is impossible in an always polarized UK . . . .(what you said)

I’m one of the 40% . A routine role is assisting folk in keeping their taxable income at £50,270 or £100,000, not a pound over. The employed play the same game too eg paying pension contributions to bring it down to exactly either of those numbers.

I wonder how many million folk submit a tax return with exactly that?

 

[A1X]

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think one of the reasons Sunak jumped on the £2,000 tax hike under Labour is to strangle at birth any proper debate about tax policy, which is less about fairness and more about wealth inequality.

Politicians are scared of tax, and of the threat that putting up tax will lose them an election. Yet it was touched upon last night by Starmer that young people have to wait on average until their late 30s before they own property (due to average house prices being 9x average earnings. In 1992 when I was a 24 year-old first time buyer it was 4x earnings.)

If you have a flat tax rather than a progressive tax system the wealthy retain more of their wealth and so wealthy inequality widens. The only way to reverse this is to tax assets and the rich, and so logically Capital Gains Tax and Inheritance Tax on assets should be at a person's highest marginal rate, i.e. 40 / 45%, yet with CGT now the very top rate is a just 28% on property and a mere 20% on everything else.

In theory Labour should be all over wealth taxes but they aren't, in part because of the Tory reaction we saw last night.

They retain more of their wealth with a progressive tax regime too.

Ten percent of ten thousand is one thousand. So the poor person keeps nine thousand
Fifty percent of a million is half a million. So the rich person keeps half a million. Which is more than nine thousand. Much more.

Labour realized this in the 70s and decided to up the top rate of tax to 90%. So the Bee Gees left the UK. And Tom Jones. And Sean Conmanerry. Obviously I don't care about those weirdos. But 90% tax is f***ing stupid.

So when does more fair become f***ing stupid? When it starts getting bigger, as a % of income, as you earn more income. It is always f***ing stupid. UNLESS it is deliberately designed to take from the rich and give to the poor. And I accept that is a good reason. But it isn't 'fair'.

I realize 'progressive' tax is an article of faith for some, but it is mathematically incontinent in terms of fairness, but it does soak the rich.

Except.... it doesn't soak the rich because they can pay someone to minimize their tax liability.

The problem with the Tories is they want to minimize (but not remove) progressive tax while allowing the proliferation of tax 'minimization' wheezes.

The problem with Labour is they want to keep (or increase at the top end) progressive tax while not doing anywhere near enough to curb proliferation of tax 'minimization' wheezes.

I do agree with your other points though. I don't wish to seem like an argumentative nit wit, because I would imagine we share 90% of each and every page.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I’m one of the 40% . A routine role is assisting folk in keeping their taxable income at £50,270 or £100,000, not a pound over. The employed play the same game too eg paying pension contributions to bring it down to exactly either of those numbers.

I wonder how many million folk submit a tax return with exactly that?

Yep, and I may be a labour member but I of course mess around with savings and pension to maximize my position. I don't spend anywhere near enough time on this, because I'm a bit peculiar, but I wouldn't criticize anyone for pushing the system to the limit.

And yet I am entirely comfortable voting for a party that puts the boot into the more egregious of the wheezes. I have never quite understood why they haven't done more of this. Perhaps they will this time (and feel disinclined to make much of a hoo ha about it).

 

[beorhthelm]

I think one of the reasons Sunak jumped on the £2,000 tax hike under Labour is to strangle at birth any proper debate about tax policy, which is less about fairness and more about wealth inequality.

Politicians are scared of tax, and of the threat that putting up tax will lose them an election. Yet it was touched upon last night by Starmer that young people have to wait on average until their late 30s before they own property (due to average house prices being 9x average earnings. In 1992 when I was a 24 year-old first time buyer it was 4x earnings.)

If you have a flat tax rather than a progressive tax system the wealthy retain more of their wealth and so wealthy inequality widens. The only way to reverse this is to tax assets and the rich, and so logically Capital Gains Tax and Inheritance Tax on assets should be at a person's highest marginal rate, i.e. 40 / 45%, yet with CGT now the very top rate is a just 28% on property and a mere 20% on everything else.

In theory Labour should be all over wealth taxes but they aren't, in part because of the Tory reaction we saw last night.

other than a tax so high on property it forces those without income to sell up, dont see how tax and property value are connected.

think you might be onto something though, make tax a toxic subject and avoid the current tax rises coming up. it's an odd way of running economic policy, complaining about the other's rises while hiding your own.

 

[Weststander]

The only problem with this is that it becomes ‘just’ tax and not ring fenced or protected in anyway ( like Palace’s new stand) and so very easy to reduce, thus screwing over the welfare state. The Tories would be dancing in the street.

Nye Bevan quipped "The great secret of the Fund is that there is no Fund." The account rises and falls depending on government depending on fiscal policy, money moved to/from the consolidated account. Spent almost immediately on today’s needs.

 

[Weststander]

Yep, and I may be a labour member but I of course mess around with savings and pension to maximize my position. I don't spend anywhere near enough time on this, because I'm a bit peculiar, but I wouldn't criticize anyone for pushing the system to the limit.

And yet I am entirely comfortable voting for a party that puts the boot into the more egregious of the wheezes. I have never quite understood why they haven't done more of this. Perhaps they will this time (and feel disinclined to make much of a hoo ha about it).

I have seen many Labour voting businessmen who’d do anything by hook or crook to reduce their own and their company’s tax. In a similar vein, lie to modestly paid staff that they’re going through lean times so can’t afford pay rises for two or three years.

The effect of money …. it’s a funny old thing.

 

[Flounce]

But there is a problem with this policy.

All State pensioners are equal, but some are more equal than others! Here's the rub, not all State pensioners receive the same rate of State pension. I have a client whose State pension is over £25K PA, and a couple more around the £20K PA mark.

So are ALL State pensioners to receive a Personal Allowance of £25K PA. Or is the idea that all State pensioners will get a Personal Allowance equivalent to their State pension?

He hasn't thought this through has he?

How do you get a State Pension up to 25k other than by not drawing it for more than a decade?

 

[GJN1]

Straight fight between Rishi Sunackers and Keir Starkers

 

[Pavilionaire]

think you might be onto something though, make tax a toxic subject and avoid the current tax rises coming up. it's an odd way of running economic policy, complaining about the other's rises while hiding your own.

I think Labour have got nothing to work with. Right now they can't put up mainstream taxes, they've had a botched Brexit foisted upon them, record and out of control immigration and all the pressure that puts on public services and the ever-growing NHS waiting lists. Thre Tories have not only f*cked up the country but f*cked up the opposition's ability to repair it.

The way out of it is taxing the rich, rolling back the worst excesses of Brexit and borrowing to cut the waiting lists and break the strike logjam so getting Britain back to work - all of which the Tories would crucify them for and the gullible would vote against them to keep the status quo.