Rachel Reeves

[Forest Hillbilly]

My Mrs has just read that her State pension is going to be means tested. She has got really angry. "That's my money I've paid into for ,..... years. Now they're saying if I have enough money from an employer, they are not going to give me a State Pension, or a reduced amount"
Well done Rachel from Accounts

Other inflammatory news, apart from taking money from people who've earned it.

The government then give peerages to people running organisations that cause people to commit suicide. NO, not the Post Office,...Amanda Spielman, who was Ofsted chief inspector when head teacher Ruth Perry took her own life after an inspection, is set to become a peer in the House of Lords.

And in other news Justin Welby says he forgives John Smyth, the serial kiddy-fiddler. That is up to the victims and God. And yet again someone overseeing devastating human tragedy from their organisation is given a golden handshake and much kudos.

 

[HKOwen]

Will you and beak please cut out the personal sniping before everyone else dies of boredom.... thank you

Yes and will do

 

[Stirlingsays]

I take it your solution is to 'tax the rich' Steely?

Well, I'm working class so it's not as if I have some issue with taxing rich people more.

However, all this has been tried before and ignores three glaring realities.....Firstly, the rich aren't stupid and most of what they have is in a form or places that are hard to tax. Second, they already pay by far the highest contribution as a sector. Thirdly, rats leave sinking ships and Britain has lost 20 percent of its millionaires in the last few years and increasing the squeeze will quicken the flight.

And fourth....and the most important fact.....You can tax the rich at high levels if the country and society is one in which they want to live. This factor is the biggest problem the social liberals/left have. They have lowered the cohesion factor within society so much that the areas of the country worth living in are far reduced in number.

France tried this a few years back.....failed.

But it's the old lie that the left use on the poor....and it results in making them poorer.

 

[HKOwen]

My Mrs has just read that her State pension is going to be means tested. She has got really angry. "That's my money I've paid into for ,..... years. Now they're saying if I have enough money from an employer, they are not going to give me a State Pension, or a reduced amount"
Well done Rachel from Accounts

Other inflammatory news, apart from taking money from people who've earned it.

The government then give peerages to people running organisations that cause people to commit suicide. NO, not the Post Office,...Amanda Spielman, who was Ofsted chief inspector when head teacher Ruth Perry took her own life after an inspection, is set to become a peer in the House of Lords.

And in other news Justin Welby says he forgives John Smyth, the serial kiddy-fiddler. That is up to the victims and God. And yet again someone overseeing devastating human tragedy from their organisation is given a golden handshake and much kudos.

Welby is self aware of his own divinity.
Your Mrs has a right to be angry.
I would abolish the Lords, people get elevated when they should be prosecuted

 

[Badger11]

Welby is self aware of his own divinity.
Your Mrs has a right to be angry.
I would abolish the Lords, people get elevated when they should be prosecuted

How insulting for Welby to say:
1. The problem was too over whelming. If he wasn't up to the job he should have resigned.
2. He forgives a sex offender. Well that is jolly nice of him, did he ask the victims first?

Full of self pity.

 

[steeleye20]

Well, I'm working class so it's not as if I have some issue with taxing rich people more.

However, all this has been tried before and ignores three glaring realities.....Firstly, the rich aren't stupid and most of what they have is in a form or places that are hard to tax. Second, they already pay by far the highest contribution as a sector. Thirdly, rats leave sinking ships and Britain has lost 20 percent of its millionaires in the last few years and increasing the squeeze will quicken the flight.

And fourth....and the most important fact.....You can tax the rich at high levels if the country and society is one in which they want to live. This factor is the biggest problem the social liberals/left have. They have lowered the cohesion factor within society so much that the areas of the country worth living in are far reduced in number.

France tried this a few years back.....failed.

But it's the old lie that the left use on the poor....and it results in making them poorer.

Wealth, not just 'the rich'.

If you re-distribute this equably you are also creating a fairer and better-off society, particularly as the weath does not 'trickle down' as the neo-liberalists said it would.

Wealth is actually subsidised in the UK, by those who don't have any, the average Briton is around £10k per annum worse off now than a basket of comparable european nations, Canada and Australia.

Even Stalin's old satellites are better off than the Brits.

If Keynes were here he would probably suggest giving the oppressed a raise as they would spend the money and it would improve their lot.

You trot out the same old tired mantra but you always were completely wrong.

😎

 

[HKOwen]

Wealth, not just 'the rich'.

If you re-distribute this equably you are also creating a fairer and better-off society, particularly as the weath does not 'trickle down' as the neo-liberalists said it would.

Wealth is actually subsidised in the UK, by those who don't have any, the average Briton is around £10k per annum worse off now than a basket of comparable european nations, Canada and Australia.

Even Stalin's old satellites are better off than the Brits.

If Keynes were here he would probably suggest giving the oppressed a raise as they would spend the money and it would improve their lot.

You trot out the same old tired mantra but you always were completely wrong.

😎

The ones with oil and gas are using it, unlike the UK, and in those the wealth is in the hands of a tiny elite

 

[Stirlingsays]

Where I would agree with Steely in terms of the rich and how government treat them and the general topic of wealth inequality is in areas like housing and assets.

Governments since Thatcher, left or right have not protected the working class from predation from the wealth class. It's always been the case that if government doesn't protect them then they are lunch.

For example, housing on these isles is expensive, so allowing millionaires and billionaires to buy up large amounts of housing and thus deny home ownership to the working classes is extremely bad.....There are significant knock on effects from that, from reduction in social mobility to hopelessness....and all so you can increase wealth for the wealthy...and it's lazy no brainer wealth that requires no innovation....it's bad governance that stores up problems.

Mass immigration keeps wages low, rents and housing prices up and puts massive pressure of social infrastructure and reduces social cohesion.....Which has significant social and economic effects, none of which effects the wealth class, indeed, both the business and housing sectors lobby for and want more immigration.

This wealth predation continues with small business.....the madness of covid policy destroyed many family sized businesses....many never coming back. The lack of emphasis and support for smaller business and lack of protections have been another kick in the teeth for the aspirational working classes.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

The list of people not fit for the job is quite high-profile, retrospectively. They knew they were out of their depth, but still took the massive pay wedge.


With Reeves, the situation is current, and there for everyone to see. Depriving society's most vulnerable (although there are many spongers amongst them), and then sending £a billion (or whatever it is), to Myanmar. Surely , you should means-test Foreign Aid ?

Reeves is an incompetent thief, and the sooner she and Labour are gone, the better. All we need is a viable opposition,....so obviously that might take a while. 🙁

 

[Stirlingsays]

Wealth, not just 'the rich'.

If you re-distribute this equably you are also creating a fairer and better-off society, particularly as the weath does not 'trickle down' as the neo-liberalists said it would.

Wealth is actually subsidised in the UK, by those who don't have any, the average Briton is around £10k per annum worse off now than a basket of comparable european nations, Canada and Australia.

Even Stalin's old satellites are better off than the Brits.

If Keynes were here he would probably suggest giving the oppressed a raise as they would spend the money and it would improve their lot.

You trot out the same old tired mantra but you always were completely wrong.

😎

I do have some sympathy with some of these arguments.

I don't think Keynes would suggest that.....We have had Keynesian policy for decades and he himself would have disagreed with that....as its point was to be used sparingly.

You trot out some contentions that I think are dubious but hey ho, as you didn't address any of my actual points I can't be bothered to go down those rabbit holes.

Still, as I say I think you have some justification that our governance has been deliberately negligent on the wealth of this country let alone its distribution. As I have said many times, low level elites being rewarded as if they were successful ones.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

And no, I wouldn't. It would take 5 large G&T's (she's paying) and a bag over her head for me to consider it. 😀

 

[palace_in_frogland]

And no, I wouldn't. It would take 5 large G&T's (she's paying) and a bag over her head for me to consider it. 😀

You need a bag over your own head as well, in case her one splits.

Oh and another for the dog, in case he sees you and loses respect for you.

That should do it.

 

[Spiderman]

And no, I wouldn't. It would take 5 large G&T's (she's paying) and a bag over her head for me to consider it. 😀

Sorry FH forget the drinks, she doesn’t seem to pay for anything 😉

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Well, I'm working class so it's not as if I have some issue with taxing rich people more.

However, all this has been tried before and ignores three glaring realities.....Firstly, the rich aren't stupid and most of what they have is in a form or places that are hard to tax. Second, they already pay by far the highest contribution as a sector. Thirdly, rats leave sinking ships and Britain has lost 20 percent of its millionaires in the last few years and increasing the squeeze will quicken the flight.

And fourth....and the most important fact.....You can tax the rich at high levels if the country and society is one in which they want to live. This factor is the biggest problem the social liberals/left have. They have lowered the cohesion factor within society so much that the areas of the country worth living in are far reduced in number.

France tried this a few years back.....failed.

But it's the old lie that the left use on the poor....and it results in making them poorer.

You're absolutely right that taxing rich people isn't easy (by design), but it doesn't mean we shouldn't bother. I think the context that always underpins these conversation is that around world the wealthy have a disproportionate impact on policy, and so a lot of the 'accepted' ideas in this space around how impossible it is to tax the rich are a result of that disproportionate influence.

I think the 'highest contribution' part of your post needs challenging - I think most of the 'tax the rich' movements nowadays are talking about wealth and assets, not the worker on a good salary - people recognise that the high-earning worker is already subjected to high tax rates.

(As an aside, we also need a societal reframe on salaries in this country; people still talk about '£100k a year' like it's the same £100k a year from 2001).

So yes, the high-earning workers pay the highest contribution, but the really wealthy do not.

Yes, some will leave and go a pursue a life in Dubai, but plenty will not - whilst I recognise it may be losing standing in this regard, I'd still challenge the suggestion that the UK is not a desirable place for the super rich to live.

Norway increased their wealth tax in 2022 and whilst some high-profile billionaires did f*** off, the overall wealth tax revenue was at a record high last year.

 

[Stirlingsays]

You're absolutely right that taxing rich people isn't easy (by design), but it doesn't mean we shouldn't bother. I think the context that always underpins these conversation is that around world the wealthy have a disproportionate impact on policy, and so a lot of the 'accepted' ideas in this space around how impossible it is to tax the rich are a result of that disproportionate influence.

I think the 'highest contribution' part of your post needs challenging - I think most of the 'tax the rich' movements nowadays are talking about wealth and assets, not the worker on a good salary - people recognise that the high-earning worker is already subjected to high tax rates.

(As an aside, we also need a societal reframe on salaries in this country; people still talk about '£100k a year' like it's the same £100k a year from 2001).

So yes, the high-earning workers pay the highest contribution, but the really wealthy do not.

I think a lot of that's valid.

You are talking taxing the super rich and that really relates to your first nine words.....times ten.
In fact I'd suggest that not only is it practically impossible it's counter productive and this has been born out not only by tax policy.....We don't get to cane the headmaster...the headmaster gets to cane us....ouch, I don't actually like my own metaphor here.

Yes, some will leave and go a pursue a life in Dubai, but plenty will not - whilst I recognise it may be losing standing in this regard, I'd still challenge the suggestion that the UK is not a desirable place for the super rich to live.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with that point. The answer to it was in my original post.

To keep the super-rich in your country when you start to tax them properly, you have to have something special about your country. Back in the seventies Britain was still quite nice so even though the high tax still ended up sending us to the world bank....There was still something here for people to stay for.

I'm afraid both the neoliberals and left collectively kind of destroyed that.....Where is left in Britain that would keep the super wealthy?

Surrey, Berkshire, and Buckinghamshire? How long is that going to last?

Norway increased their wealth tax in 2022 and whilst some high-profile billionaires did f*** off, the overall wealth tax revenue was at a record high last year.

Norway and the Scandinavian countries index for the happiest places to live....they are largely homogenous (though that is changing). That speaks to my point.

If you want to tax the super-rich you have to have something that keeps them here, low crime, high trust society, stability and so on.

None of that is us.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I think a lot of that's valid.

You are talking taxing the super rich and that really relates to your first nine words.....times ten.
In fact I'd suggest that not only is it practically impossible it's counter productive and this has been born out not only be tax policy.....We don't get to cane the headmaster...the headmaster gets to cane us....ouch, I don't actually like my own metaphor here.



I'm afraid I have to disagree with that point. The answer to it was in my original post.

To keep the super-rich in your country when you start to tax them properly, you have to have something special about your country. Back in the seventies Britain was still quite nice so even though the high tax still ended up sending us to the world bank....There was still something here for people to stay for.

I'm afraid both the neoliberals and left collectively kind of destroyed that.....Where is left in Britain that would keep the super wealthy?

Surrey, Berkshire, and Buckinghamshire? How long is that going to last?



Norway and the Scandinavian countries index for the happiest places to live....they are largely homogenous (though that is changing). That speaks to my point.

If you want to tax the super-rich you have to have something that keeps them here, low crime, high trust society, stability and so on.

None of that is us.

I don't agree it's practically impossible to tax the super rich - difficult, yes, but not impossible.

You're obviously right that this is a less attractive place to live than it once was, but I also think you're overstating it - London is still full of extraordinarily wealthy people, despite its obvious issues.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I don't agree it's practically impossible to tax the super rich - difficult, yes, but not impossible.

Morally I'm with you, I just think it's counter productive. They won....just like the markets win over Treasury policy and get to dictate it.

None of it is good but it's the evil we have to live with.

I think we have to attract the super wealthy....but as Ireland shows, that is in of itself a double edged sword.

Basically we are fecked both ways.

You're obviously right that this is a less attractive place to live than it once was, but I also think you're overstating it - London is still full of extraordinarily wealthy people, despite its obvious issues.

It's true for now (though we are already losing, not attracting millionaires), but the wealthy in London and the south east geniunely are balkanised.

I want you to be right, but with a birth rate of 1.4 per female and the government committed to sorting that out via immigration even that balkanisation isn't going to work long term. They are importing lower cohesion, which essentially leads to sectarianism.

I apologise for being such a doomer on this.....I'll end the post by saying I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Morally I'm with you, I just think it's counter productive. They won....just like the markets win over Treasury policy and get to dictate it.

None of it is good but it's the evil we have to live with.

I think we have to attract the super wealthy....but as Ireland shows, that is in of itself a double edged sword.

Basically we are fecked both ways.



It's true for now (though we are already losing, not attracting millionaires), but the wealthy in London and the south east geniunely are balkanised.

I want you to be right, but with a birth rate of 1.4 per female and the government committed to sorting that out via immigration even that balkanisation isn't going to work long term. They are importing lower cohesion, which essentially leads to sectarianism.

I apologise for being such a doomer on this.....I'll end the post by saying I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

Maybe.

Reducing wealth inequality would make starting a family a hell of a lot more affordable for most people.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

Maybe.

Reducing wealth inequality would make starting a family a hell of a lot more affordable for most people.

The wealthy don't have to mix with the Working Class and endure the wonders of daily life, such as crime and the NHS.
Immigration is an answer to the falling birth rate of the poor, that someone further down the line will have to sort out.