Tax raid on solicitors and GPs as Rachel Reeves targets wealthy
So, targeting the bit-better-off as opposed to the actual filthy rich. Quel surpris.
So, targeting the bit-better-off as opposed to the actual filthy rich. Quel surpris.
Well, the bit-better-off tend to be the ones who are easiest to go after.
The not-so-well off haven't got much of a pot left to piss in and cash-in-hand white van stuff isn't easy to trace and prove (and probably wouldn't net that much after all the expense of chasing so many dispersed transactions).
The very-well-off have access to all sorts of yummy advice, schemes, special purpose vehicles, trusts and even law to keep their wealth either off-book or beyond taxing. Even if they get 'done' the expense of getting to that point is prohibitive if you're looking at it purely from a net benefit/cost point of view.
It's the payrolled, PAYE, suckers in the middle who are easiest to assess and squeeze. The big problem with that is that we are the vast majority of working age voters.
Yep, I would vote for getting rid of PAYE all together then we can all have a go at deciding what taxes we want to pay and what loopholes we can use.
Yes it is always going to be harder to deal with wealth, closing loopholes etc,. than just hitting PAYE but so what, if you started working on it 20 years ago it would be in a pretty good place by now...
Get rid of PAYE and all you’ll get is millions of people being fined for late or inaccurate tax returns. Farage would have a field day.
"A penny in tax from a thousand or a thousand in tax from one"
Can't remember which chancellor it was though.
I'm not saying that PAYE is a bad thing at all.
All I am saying is that it applies to the vast majority of working age people and generally is easiest to avoid/evade for those who either:
Take lots of their income as cash - which, given the need to bank it over a certain level, will most often be those not-so-well-off. Or, in some extreme cases will involve turning that cash into less traceable assets.
Or:
Are already vastly wealthy or incredibly high-earning - so that schemes/advice etc that have an entry level requirement of wealth can be accessed to hide that wealth.
It really is just a pareto if you're wanting to get the maximum in for the minimum cost. Otherwise you're chasing tens of millions of small, cash in hand transactions or locking horns with financial advisers who are highly paid, motivated, and able to run rings around most civil servants just doing a 9 to 5.
So, targeting the bit-better-off as opposed to the actual filthy rich. Quel surpris
Like so many others I had big hopes for this administration, adults in the room etc. however they just take the easy shots.
They take the easy shots & still somehow keep missing.
Aren't we short of GPs and other countries keep trying to steal ours!? 🤷♂️
France introduced PAYE a few years ago taking on board the UK model. It means the tax comes in earlier (which at the time in France temporarily filled a growing hole) and means people can't decide not to pay which means more money comes in.
Still trying to rob from the current pie, rather than figuring out how to grow the pie. I bet they all **** missionary with their socks on.
I’m all up for a bit of redistribution. Growth that just gets creamed off the top is dismantling our society. Yeah, as an advanced economy we need steady slow growth, but using taxes to ensure we can deliver services to all, and to make sure everyone benefits from that, is key. At the most basic level, opt outs to pay a lower rate than PAYE only employees on your income are hard to justify, so starting there seems sound to me.
Here’s hoping that this signals more of the same, closing dodgy tax loopholes to stop high earners dodging it.
That they're going for solicitors and GPs and not the ultra wealthy suggests they'll do **** all about the serious tax dodgers
That they're going for solicitors and GPs
Are they? Or are just those examples journalists have used to make you decide these tax loopholes are justified?
Or are just those examples journalists have used to make you decide these tax loopholes are justified?
Can you point out where I said the stated loopholes are justified?
The bit you chose not to quote, maybe could be worded better...
not the ultra wealthy suggests they'll do **** all about the serious tax dodgers
Close the loopholes. Not getting millionaires to pay their fair share because… “what about the 1%”… is the common cry at the moment. Close the loops holes used by the better of and the super rich. Do both. If that headline in The Times was “Newspaper column writers and radio talk show presenters to pay the same taxes as you as Rachel Reeves targets wealthy tax avoiders” the responses would be quite different. Ask why it isn’t.
So when you said you wanted the government to close tax loopholes, you didn’t mean THOSE tax loopholes?
mkay…
So when you said you wanted the government to close tax loopholes, you didn’t mean THOSE tax loopholes?
What are you talking about? I haven't said "not those loopholes". I haven't said anything of the sort so don't start inventing it.
That they're going for solicitors and GPs and not the ultra wealthy suggests they'll do **** all about the serious tax dodgers
I would argue that the fundamental basis of a tax system is that it should be fair. If someone on the same income as me pays less tax by using a convenient (but legal) means, then as a PAYE taxpayer I object.
Don't really understand why Rachel Reeves isn't just straightforward with the electorate and says upfront that more money is needed and that everyone in the higher tax brackets can cough up an extra penny.
Making ridiculous promises just pins you into a corner when the easiest solution is just staring you in the face. This issue led to them increasing the employer's NI tax, which seemed a futile idea at the time and still does.
Don't really understand why Rachel Reeves isn't just straightforward with the electorate and says upfront that more money is needed and that everyone in the higher tax brackets can cough up an extra penny
Because she's clueless.
The tax system is separate from the spending system.
The reason to tax is to reduce inequality not to fund spending.
Reeves is not interested in either. She doesn't understand the actual sequence of the economy.
Spend - grow - tax.
Until governments recognise these operational facts we will be in a mess, and historically we have followed this path which is why things are dire.
Reeves is not really interested in making substantial tax reforms either. There is no appetite for neoliberal Governments to raise taxes at a high enough level to make a difference.
Evidence the fact that she chased and chased old people for 1.5bn. A totally dismal amount that most won't even register in terms of economic change.
They're stuck - and we are suffering because of that.
Things are simply not going to get much better with Labour. In fact they will get much worse because she will drain money in the budget without the subsequent investment.
Tax - remove money from the economy.
Spend - add money to the economy.
Net(deficit) - our wealth.
The whole idea that the we broadly agree the economy is not really serving its people well and then as a result - cutting stuff from people to try and save money and not expecting poor outcomes is economically insane.
Especially whilst at the same time the BoE pays people with money - interest income for people with wealth. That money all comes from the same place that Reeves calls the black-hole.
If someone on the same income as me pays less tax by using a convenient (but legal) means, then as a PAYE taxpayer I object.
In this instance, it seems to be National Insurance Contributions as being "partners" they're self employed.
More than 190,000 workers use partnerships, particularly in the legal world, and they offer a significant tax benefit over ordinary employment. They are not subject to employer’s national insurance as partners are treated as self-employed.
Treat dividends as income when it comes to all National Insurance. Even better (and there’s no chance of this from this government as they’ve boxed themselves into a corner on direct taxation) scrap NI and roll it into income tax.
Imho there’s always been an issue with the disparity between the different taxation types, so working on that seems fine to me,
https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/are-preferential-tax-rates-self-employed-justified
Oh dear. It seems that Keir and Lisa have been making stuff up. Shocked, I tell you
So the attack on higher earning PAYE employees turns out to be closing a loop hole very specific to certain professions. Not really going to generate a lot of revenue, seems fair to me, probably done for sound bite purposes. All in all meh on every level.
Generally higher rate tax payers are always the easy targets, not much we can do about it but if I hear those with broadest shoulders I'm not going to be impressed. They need to go after the uber wealthy and the cash in hand brigade, don't kid yourselves the latter are all on the breadline
They need to go after the uber wealthy and the cash in hand brigade, don't kid yourselves the latter are all on the breadline
I absolutely agree, but that is because of the political message it sends, not the actual monetary benefit to the country. It all depends on how they view the task. If it is to get the maximum income for least additional cost, you go after the on-book, rule-abiding majority and stick a percent here and half a percent there. If it is to appear to be fair you do go after the cash in hand brigade and the fat cats, but you have to accept that the return (if any) is likely to be marginal with the additional cost of either going after tens of millions of off-book transactions or taking on tax avoidance/evasion schemes that will be defended by extremely motivated and well-paid 'advisors'.
In other news, has anyone noticed that no one suitable seems to want to be anywhere near the child abuse inquiry top jobs? I think that the political heat around this issue, now it is being weaponised by the far right, is causing a fair few potential candidates to say "err, no thanks".
has anyone noticed that no one suitable seems to want to be anywhere near the child abuse inquiry top jobs? I think that the political heat around this issue, now it is being weaponised by the far right, is causing a fair few potential candidates to say "err, no thanks".
You have to marvel at the sheer hard-faced audacity of Kemi Badanoch and Chris Phelp, both of whom were members of a government that did the square root of sod all about child grooming gangs, including totally ignoring ALL the recommendations of the inquiry that’s already published its findings after 7 years investigation. When given the opportunity to actually do something themselves, they instead just brushed the whole thing under the carpet!
I thought Starmer was very statesmanlike and showed remarkable restraint at PMQ’s this week, obviously through respect for the survivors, when faced by those charlatans who seem more than happy to weaponise this whole thing to suit their own personal agendas.
And as for having a go at Jess Phillips? That woman has done more to represent the interests of the victims of sexual and domestic violence than the entire Tory party managed in 14 years in power
They're absolutely shameless! They literally couldn’t give a shit!
No wonder nobody fancies being at the sharp end of that sort of rank and morality-free opportunism. Would you?
The worst part is that the co-opting of some victims and the wesponisation of the inquiry as a whole is already leading to a diminished chance of survivors seeing justice. The survivors need to beware of false prophets. Numerous candidates to chair the inquiry have already walked away citing political interference. No one wants a brick through the window or threats against family members for not reaching the 'right'* conclusions. Reform in particular want an anti-muslim witch hunt. Badenoch and Jenrick aren't far behind.
Sadly, this is the country we now live in.
*Politically correct as opposed to good, old-fashioned, objective, fact-based correct.
huh???
Elon Musk has been key to mainstreaming this as a political wedge issue. The likes of Badanoch and Phelp are just riding his wave.
The problem for Labour (or the Greens or Lib Dems etc etc) is that the weaponisation (weatherspoonisation?) of all these issues in the age of social media has been perfected by the (far) right, and its incredibly hard to counter with facts and reasoning. A 30 second youtube/tiktok/facebook/tweet is a very powerful tool.
Yup, and "the far right" are very much mainstream in many key countries now (with still more going that way along with us very fast)... but most importantly in the USA, where most of our "public spaces" online are now controlled and populated/polluted from.
I think we’ve also got monumentally arrogant gobshite Dominic Cummings to thank for weaponising social media in this country during the Brexit campaign.
Farage and co have been using his Cambridge Analytica bullshit as a blueprint for all subsequent campaigns, aided by a cowed and neutered BBC and a media model that basically relies on clickbait for revenue
A 30 second youtube/tiktok/facebook/tweet is a very powerful tool.
And the ability to churn them out in their thousands is unique in our history.
Deliver the same hate to different groups (as determined by profiling them) with a slightly different slant to each. Target those who like posts or follow pages about cuddly animals with the swan-eating bullshit. Target those who like things to do with the outdoors with stuff about surviving the multiracial 'hellscape' by going off grid etc.
It also allows you to churn out this poison at a rate that cannot be fact-checked, reported or taken down before millions have seen it.
"Things Fell Apart" on BBC Sounds with Jon Ronson is essential listening, IMO.
And now this:
This is already degenerating into a political circus which will most likely just cause more rage and won't deliver any new justice or information for the survivors.
This is already degenerating into a political circus
If it helps get rid of Jess Phillips it can't be all bad.
If it helps get rid of Jess Phillips it can't be all bad.
yes because removing a safeguarding minister who has long history of standing up for abuse survivors because the far right want the enquiry to persecute muslims is definitely worth it 🙄
If it helps get rid of Jess Phillips it can't be all bad.
Literally - WTAF?
Because:
because removing a safeguarding minister who has long history of standing up for abuse survivors because the far right want the enquiry to persecute muslims is definitely worth it 🙄
Couldn't have put it any better. Wow.
because removing a safeguarding minister who has long history of standing up for abuse survivors
She has a long history of standing for herself. I still remember very clearly her celebrations when Labour lost in 2019.
I suppose Dazh is talking about this kind of thing...
. I still remember very clearly her celebrations when Labour lost in 2019.
My memory goes further back than that. 2015 :
Two years later Philips must have been absolutely gutted when Labour got 40% of the vote in a general election and robbed the Tories of their majority.
Like many others in the PLP who prefer the Tories to a left-wing alternative Philips went on to double her efforts to undermine the Leader of the Labour Party, and stab him in the back and in the front, and in 2019 she eventually got the result that she wanted.
The rest of the story takes us to where we are today.
You can dedicate your entire life to fighting for the rights of victims and survivors of domestic and sexual violence, but - perish the thought - you should dare speak a word of disapproval of the beardy messiah and you will be denounced accordingly
And ‘the left’ get accused even by their own, the latest being Zarah Sultana and her ‘boys club’ comments, of being misogynists
I can’t imagine why….
🙄
Jesus H Christ.
So now it's OK to use a child sexual abuse inquiry to do a hatchet job on a politician and minister who has a track record of standing up for exactly this kind of victim? And because of an internal party squabble over a bloke who was never going to be elected in a million years?
It makes the far right weaponising this issue seem quite upstanding in comparison. At least they're doing it to score points against an opponent, not doing it to sabotage their own.
That's crazy talk.
You can dedicate your entire life to fighting for the rights of victims and survivors of domestic and sexual violence
That's a stretch really. 10-15 years or so maybe in some form.
The beardy one has though spent 50+ years of his life pushing back against the junk that the Labour right now want to sell us and landed us in this mess.
I'm taking a step away from this for now. Justifying using this particular issue as a means to pursue internal party back-biting is totally beyond the pale.
That's a stretch really. 10-15 years or so maybe in some form
Maybe, instead of using her platform as an MP to fight for the rights of domestic and sexual abuse victims, and actually doing something about it, she should have spent those 15 years impotently but very publicly gobbing off about the plight of the Guinea pig farmers of Venezuela or whatever virtue-signalling cause was presently in vogue at Islington dinner parties?
Tell me that you never really left sixth form without actually telling me you never left sixth form…
the beardy messiah
Also known as the Leader of the Labour Party.
Perhaps you think that proudly and publicly stabbing the leader of your party in the back (and in the front) and doing your very best to help the Tories win in 2019 was a great strategy but not everyone necessarily agrees.
Even if you want to bizarrely justify it by bringing up a "child sexual abuse inquiry" is it that somehow exonerates her
Of all the weird justification for right-wing so-called "Labour" MPs sabotaging their own leader, and therefore causing incalculably damage and helping the Tories, that has to be one of the weirdest.
Btw Dannyh you can change your username as many times as you like by you can never hide your centrist arrogance and contempt for ordinary working people.
Dannyh is back?!
Oh, and surprise surprise, we’re back into the usual spirit-crushingly tedious, conspiracy theory territory, so beloved of the common room to justify their abject failure and general uselessness….
Anyway… I’m dipping out of this one as well as I also think it’s pretty distasteful to use a public inquiry into sexual abuse of children to indulge in some perceived score settling and grind the same tired old axe.
it does seem to prove the adage though that if you go far enough to the left or right, they tend to meet in the middle, around the back, by the bins
to justify their abject failure and general uselessness….
It could be worse: at least they're not members of the current government. Or a tedious crayon botherer.
If anyone wants a real giggle tonight, Reform's own Alan Partridge, Nadine Dorries is on Question Time.
I thought you were dipping out, binbins?
Nadine Dorries is on Question Time
im not watching it, hut is she still as insane as ever?
Nadine Dorries is on Question Time
im not watching it, hut is she still as insane as ever?
She's struggling to describe the benefits of Brexit. It's a hoot.
I'm taking a step away from this for now.
Oh come on it’s way too early to flounce, we’re just getting going! 😂
Seriously though, a leftwing govt - lead by Corbyn or someone else - would be far more beneficial for the protection of women and other vulnerable people than Jess Phillips could ever deliver, for the simple reason that they wouldn’t have a Tory chancellor and idiot PM who are too afraid of facing down the billionaires and bond markets.
I'm taking a step away from this for now.
Oh come on it’s way too early to flounce, we’re just getting going! 😂
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1981412929762099673?t=jXkMqAZWekiXxl386lGalA&s=19
Imagine writing this on behalf of the leader of your country and thinking this sounds amazing.
Bet ya it's more frustrating if you can't afford to pay the ****ing bill. No you nesbit - more public investment, better wages and lower inequality will make our lives better.
Everything wrong with drunken centrism in a nutshell.
The man is a delusional, incompetent technocratic failure.
(Also not once in the last five years have I had a paper bill that I needed to open a bank account - which is almost seemingly done in 15 mins online these days without additional ID.)
Labour are crap. Truly crap. Definitely in the top 3 worst governments of my lifetime. If not the top - on lack of ambition and total ignorance.
If the Guardian got you here it's time to examine your version of reality. (But Corbyn has a beard...)
I see that Labour has just come third in its former stronghold Caerphilly. I guess digital ID wasn't enough...
sake rone take a break! We know your views on the man by now
Someone with a 90000 post count shouldn't really be telling someone with a 10000 post count to take a break.
Besides until this idiot remotely addresses actual problems and contributes to society like this there's a constant argument to be made.
It really is just easier to scroll down.
If you want to ignore me I tend to post first thing in the morning, and very rarely during the day as I'm busy etc.
Good for Plaid Cymru.
Reform will claim corruption/rigging or something. Labour will say they have more 'work' to do.
At least Plaid won comfortably but Reform have increased the right vote share from historically around 20/25% to 36%
Also a high turnout - I'm guessing for Reform as that's a worry across the country that people who don't normally vote will do for Farage.
I know Labour are a clown car of a Government but even if they improve this really does point towards a Reform Government, possibly on a low vote share, without concerted tactical voting for whichever party is most likely to beat them
The national MRP polling showing big Westminster election majorities for Reform hides that although they are first choice for 30ish % of the voters they are last choice for 40% - so they could well win an election despite being very unpopular
I know Labour are a clown car of a Government but even if they improve this really does point towards a Reform Government, possibly on a low vote share,
Which is why it was extremely important for Labour to turn around the country instead of rummaging around in a cupboard looking for leccy bills.
We all know that Labour's GE landslide was loveless, so now that the Tories are spent, voters have no reason to carry on voting for them.
We all know that Labour's GE landslide was loveless, so now that the Tories are spent, voters have no reason to carry on voting for them.
Not even tactically to keep reform out? Not everywhere has an obvious alternative like Plaid or SNP. There are areas where Lib Dems or Greens will push through (and we need to see what Your Party do) but I'm worried the anti-reform vote will not coalesce locally..
Next year's devolved elections will be an absolute massacre for Labour and the Locals will probably be similar
The thought of Reform holding power across Local politics them strolling into Downing Street with a majority fills me with dread.
yebbut don't worry due to this farce of an electoral system labour will probably get a few ineffective years in power again in the next decade or so and that's all they really want.
Not even tactically to keep reform out? Not everywhere has an obvious alternative like Plaid or SNP.
Not enough places, in my view.
but I'm worried the anti-reform vote will not coalesce locally..
There's a real risk that the LibDems, Greens and Your Party (if it happens) will splinter the centre left vote and allow a Reform/Tory coalition in.
I don't believe our weird system will favour Labour next time. They've burnt those bridges.
The thought of Reform holding power across Local politics them strolling into Downing Street with a majority fills me with dread
Reform being in power locally might well show up their incompetence (their track record in local councils is already poor)
There's a real risk that the LibDems, Greens and Your Party (if it happens) will splinter the centre left vote and allow a Reform/Tory coalition in.
and A reform/tory coalition would be a car crash , farage's ego would not allow any partners
the latest mooted tory plans are so extreme, im not sure that reform would back them, proper eugenics shit!
https://bsky.app/profile/sundersays.bsky.social/post/3m3ql5v4slk2t
sunder's full thread is worth a read the crazy thing is that the overton window has shifted so much that a tory MP talking about ethnically cleansing 2.5% of the population barely gers noticed
sunder's full thread is worth a read the crazy thing is that the overton window has shifted so much that a tory MP talking about ethnically cleansing 2.5% of the population barely gers noticed
That comparison to Idi Amin shows just how deranged this has become
I'd be not surprised (maybe) if this government are now making some last minute changes to the budget based on this result.
They'd be nuts not to.
This budget is more eagerly waited than the first fire-sale sham.
It will basically set the precedent for probably a whole lot of economical turmoil that is bubbling up.
I bet Reeves' note pad has lots of crossings out.
This budget and the run through to May elections is completely make or break for Starmer and Reeves.
Double post gremlin
Oh, and surprise surprise, we’re back into the usual spirit-crushingly tedious, conspiracy theory territory, so beloved of the common room to justify their abject failure and general uselessness….
What conspiracy theory is that........ the one reported in the Daily Telegraph in which Jess Phillips openly boasted of her stabbing the leader of her party "in the front" to emphasis just how willing she was to publicly damage him?
That conspiracy "theory"?
Do you understand what the term "stabbing someone in the back" means? Well Phillips wanted to suggest a more extreme version of that.
Which must have been music to the ears of Daily Telegraph readers. Why do you think that might have been?
You don't need to wear a tinfoil hat to work out the answer to that question.
This budget and the run through to May elections is completely make or break for Starmer and Reeves.
Agreed
Oh, and surprise surprise, we’re back into the usual spirit-crushingly tedious, conspiracy theory territory, so beloved of the common room to justify their abject failure and general uselessness….
Jesus - if the current Labour party aren't the real spirit crushers then I don't know what is.
Fair play to the common room critique because Starmer won't be getting any of the young folk on his watch.