Topic: Labour Thread * No Gaza *

[killer-heels]

Is there a monolithic right for people to unite against in PR countries? Here, FPTP means the right unites under the Tory umbrella or its one offshoot, and "the enemy" is easy to identify. This might not be the case in PR environments.

And yet they decide to back a racist shit bag?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Everyone should agree with tubby.

And Mac red …

Tubby thinks PGMOL are awesome..

[Schmarn]

What is interesting is that the young in this country are overwhelmingly left leaning. The Tories are polling less than 5% in the 18-24 category for instance.

I would assume this was the same in other countries, but across much of Europe the rise of the right a
Has been amongst the younger groups.  LePen in France for example is supported by the young.

I wonder why we differ?

It’s always been the way that the young are heavily left wing although worth noting that they are the worst demographic for actually turning out to vote. Lots of good intentions but forget to register or can’t be arsed on the day. Whereas the elderly who have every excuse to not vote have the highest turnout of any demographic.

Also worth remembering that many of yesterday’s progressive youngsters become today’s older little Englanders. It’s not the case that in 30 years they’ll still be left wing and the Tories will never win again. You’ve probably all seen the transition among some of your own friends.

Wish it were otherwise!

[Libertine]

First of all, don’t underestimate the political effectiveness of lies, propaganda and easy solutions to complex problems, right wingers have been using that same technique across the world for a very long time and it does sadly work sometimes.

If the election is the disaster for the Tories that we hope it is it’s also a question of whose left in the party, a lot of the moderates have already left or have said they are not standing at the next election so it there might not be many sensible Tories left to pick a sensible leader, it could well be headbangers voting for headbangers, especially when you have a dwindling, old and out of touch membership who very much buys lies, propaganda and easy solutions approach (see the Truss leadership campaign). So I am sticking to my long standing prediction, they will get hammered at the next election, blame it on Sunak who many Tories see as a centrist (which he probably is in the current Tory Party) move further to the right because they will read the hammering as them not being right wing enough, then come 2029 they will get beaten convincingly again and then move to the actual centre as most people see it.

Seems almost inevitable this will be the case.

Everyone can see it and can predict the consequences, and yet they will continue regardless (the same way they did after 1997 and that Labour have done more than once). The very definition of insanity.

And of course, it's the "democratisation" of leader selection that is very much to blame here (for both parties) - having a hugely unrepresentative and relatively small proportion of people choosing the leader rather than the elected MPs who know the candidates and their weaknesses.

[tubby]

Tubby thinks PGMOL are awesome..

No I don't, can you stop saying that about me, please.

[Nobby Reserve]

What is interesting is that the young in this country are overwhelmingly left leaning. The Tories are polling less than 5% in the 18-24 category for instance.

I would assume this was the same in other countries, but across much of Europe the rise of the right a
Has been amongst the younger groups.  LePen in France for example is supported by the young.

I wonder why we differ?

I think young people are more likely to vote for a party that disrupts the norm - especially if they consider 'the norm' isn't working for them.

In many countries, that is represented by either environmentalists (there's a consistent support for the Green Party in various countries amongst young people) or the far-right.

IMO, question marks need to be raised toward the established parties, who all support a continuation of the corporate-capitalist consensus that
is increasingly failing so many millions of people (growing wealth inequality, creeping erosion of public services and falling direct taxation, housing markets have become predominantly investment options for the wealthy, etc)

[filopastry]

What is interesting is that the young in this country are overwhelmingly left leaning. The Tories are polling less than 5% in the 18-24 category for instance.

I would assume this was the same in other countries, but across much of Europe the rise of the right a
Has been amongst the younger groups.  LePen in France for example is supported by the young.

I wonder why we differ?

Is there still a significant youth unemployment issue in countries like France?

[Robinred]

It’s always been the way that the young are heavily left wing although worth noting that they are the worst demographic for actually turning out to vote. Lots of good intentions but forget to register or can’t be arsed on the day. Whereas the elderly who have every excuse to not vote have the highest turnout of any demographic.

Also worth remembering that many of yesterday’s progressive youngsters become today’s older little Englanders. It’s not the case that in 30 years they’ll still be left wing and the Tories will never win again. You’ve probably all seen the transition among some of your own friends.

Wish it were otherwise!

I don’t doubt that for a sizeable chunk of the electorate you’re probably right.

I’m still as wedded to left wing principles as when I first voted over 55 years ago. However, I’ve become far more pragmatic, and have come to recognise that, given the overall nature of the electorate as a whole, it’s impossible for a Party standing on a radical left platform to win a G.E. Stealth and compromise are needed; not outright lies, but a recognition that politics in U.K are not conducted under Lord Queensbury’s rules.

The alternative is what we’ve witnessed over the past 13 years.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I think young people are more likely to vote for a party that disrupts the norm - especially if they consider 'the norm' isn't working for them.

In many countries, that is represented by either environmentalists (there's a consistent support for the Green Party in various countries amongst young people) or the far-right.

IMO, question marks need to be raised toward the established parties, who all support a continuation of the corporate-capitalist consensus that
is increasingly failing so many millions of people (growing wealth inequality, creeping erosion of public services and falling direct taxation, housing markets have become predominantly investment options for the wealthy, etc)

So, let's say that Labour put into policy that doesn't support any of corporate-capitalist consensus or businesses in the UK as a whole. Completely gets rid of capitalism and entirely opposes all businesses across the board at every level - domestically and internationally.

What would be the economic result?

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

I think young people are more likely to vote for a party that disrupts the norm - especially if they consider 'the norm' isn't working for them.

In many countries, that is represented by either environmentalists (there's a consistent support for the Green Party in various countries amongst young people) or the far-right.

IMO, question marks need to be raised toward the established parties, who all support a continuation of the corporate-capitalist consensus that
is increasingly failing so many millions of people (growing wealth inequality, creeping erosion of public services and falling direct taxation, housing markets have become predominantly investment options for the wealthy, etc)

Great post

Not only the young!

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Great post

Not only the young!

I'd honestly ask 'what is the norm' any more?

I honestly have no fucking clue. The whole country/world is batshit at the moment.

'The norm' sounds like a truly astonishing and wonderful place.

[Sangria]

And yet they decide to back a racist shit bag?

What's the French equivalent of "Fuck the Tories"?

[Nobby Reserve]

So, let's say that Labour put into policy that doesn't support any of corporate-capitalist consensus or businesses in the UK as a whole. Completely gets rid of capitalism and entirely opposes all businesses across the board at every level - domestically and internationally.

What would be the economic result?

Well that's an extreme alternative, and it would - as you allude to - bring economic chaos.

An element of 'capitalism' is so deeply embedded in not just economies but in the psyche, that that must remain IMO. In fact, I believe a properly regulated version of capitalism is beneficial overall. One with strong workers' rights.

What we have, though, is corporations using their power to influence policy in their favour. And usually 'in their favour' is against the interests of 'the masses'.

I also agree with you and other that say Labour - or any left-leaning party - would struggle to get elected on a platform of outright radical-left economics. Left-leaning parties need to be smart in how they present manifesto pledges - but certainly not abandoning left-of-centre economic principles

That is a problem stemming from how the 'free press' is majority controlled by super-rich people with [at least economically] right-wing views - and they use their media outlets to influence voters into rejecting left-of-centre policies. When media are giving far-right/neo-nazi/fascist parties less criticism than an economically-progressive/mid-left party wanting proper regulation of business and finance and adequate levels of progressive taxation to fund strong public services, you know the whole media sphere is broken.

And we need to find a way to address the issue of housing and how prohibitively expensive it's become, especially for younger people trying to get on the ladder. The jeopardy, though, is not collapsing the market, which creates even more severe problems for existing home-owners. Most of the mammoth rise in prices has been driven by buy-to-let investors (low interest rates and sluggish stock markets have led the wealthy to seek new investment options that give a better RoI)

Finally, the issue of tax-dodging by the super-rich is massive and should be a priority for any even centrist government.

The difficult issue is, most of the problems require a collaboration between countries. I used to have a pipedream that the EU could become an economically progressive beacon, formulating bloc-wide policies to address proper regulation of business and finance and tax dodging. Sadly, I realised some time ago (prior to the Referendum) that the influence of the ECB was very strong and the ECB was stuffed with ex-Goldman Sachs corporate-capitalists who were intent on directioning the EU down that path (the aftermath of the GFC was brutal on countries like Greece, Italy, and others, with no fucks given for the hardships imposed on ordinary people). The EU is still a force for good and I'm gutted we're no longer part of it, but it isn't presently how I waqnt it to be.

[well, that was a rambling one!  )

[So… Howard Philips]

Just look how the Tory fiddling with constituency boundaries puts more pressure on Labour to gain a huge swing vote;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67361138

[ianburns252]

I know we sit a bit apart on economics at times Nobby but that is a great post and think it sums it up really well.

Property market especially is a big one - the best option I can see for myself right now would be a shared ownership property whereby you own 50%, for example, and slowly buy up the rest but that is far from ideal.

[Yorkykopite]

Our relationship to democracy has changed in the last 15 years or so. It isn't just that we take it for granted. We think it's always been there, that it's a permanent feature of society and that it is basically indestructible. Not even the insurrection in America has made anyone change their mind; nor the system's subversion in Turkey, India and Hungary.

Between the wars parliamentary democracy seemed worth defending because its enemies were open about destroying it. The Fascist movements of Europe hated 'democracy' like they hated 'communism' or 'Jews'. They called it a decadent system and were very clear they intended to destroy it - "chase it to the devil" in Hitler's words. The various Communist parties were equally hostile, saying quite plainly that they would replace parliamentary democracy with 'The Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. This all had a big effect on those who liked democracy. They valued it, were vigilant about protecting it and faithfully played the democratic game, even they lost. They also held democratic politicians with some respect, even when they hadn't voted for them. For the Labour Party and the social-democratic parties of Europe democracy was also linked - usually via full employment and the welfare state - to the slow but appreciable increase in security and happiness for the working class. The system was worth preserving because it delivered the goods.

Most of that goodwill has gone now. It's not the mass poverty of the 1930s has returned, or even that the welfare states have been ripped out. It hasn't; and they haven't. 'Neo-liberalism' doesn't cover what has happened either. Government spending varies between 40 and 55 per cent of GDP in western democracies (as opposed to 5 to 10 per cent of GDP in the classical days of liberalism). But there's no doubt that people's expectations about the future are much lower than they used to be. Democracy has stopped delivering economically in the way it once did, even where it still delivers on other things like human rights and the rule of law.

We also have the new phenomenon of democratically-elected politicians (mainly of the Right) who say they believe in democracy but are utterly careless or indifferent about its preservation. Trump is an extreme example of this, but Johnson was of the same school. People who vote for them do so for frivolous reasons. They certainly don't vote for them to increase their prosperity (The vote for Brexit is a good example of this of course). They see them as entertainers and they see politics as a branch of entertainment. They enjoy the chaos and disruption they bring. They enjoy 'characters' like Trump and Johnson and Wilders saying 'the unsayable'. But only because they think the democratic system will absorb all the shocks and survive all the hilarity. This is massive complacency.

In our country the Labour Party is almost pathetically democratic in the old sense. Starmer could quite easily be Clem Attlee in his greyish demeanour and his commitment to public service. The rest of the front bench is pretty dutiful too. Line them up against the Tory front bench and you have a lot of fairly accomplished, sober, non-corrupt, rational and earnest politicians on one side and a surfeit of gangsters, incompetents and irrational and inflammatory rhetoricians on the other. Our forbears would be amazed that the Tory front bench is in government, not in opposition, and that these extremists who go around trashing the country and saying what a mess it is are the ones who have responsibility for fixing things and wield power. Blowhards used to belong on the streets, in opposition.

The real test for the Labour Party won't be winning the election. Now they've got rid of the Trotskyists, the anti-Semites and ex-Stalinists in the leadership they are electable again, even if they don't inspire anyone. The real test will be governing a country which has no faith in the future and which - because it is complacent about democracy - enjoys politics only as a form of light entertainment.

That's why, incidentally, the defeated Tory party will - as West London Red said above - look to its extreme right-wing for the next leader. That's where the fun is. GB News will grow in popularity too, as it takes upon itself the role of His Majesty's Opposition. The 'boring' and 'sober' BBC, which never takes an ideological line on anything and plays the pathetic game of 'being fair', will lose even more viewers. Everything will be about disruption and chaos and no lie will be big enough or disgusting enough to prevent it from being aired on GBN and repeated by the Tory rump in parliament. Starmer's 'honeymoon period' will last about a week.  Immigration and paedophilia will be the biggest political issues facing the new Labour government. Not because they are particular important to most people - especially the second one - but because they easily generate delirium.

I don't envy Starmer. And fear what will follow him.

[Sangria]

Well that's an extreme alternative, and it would - as you allude to - bring economic chaos.

An element of 'capitalism' is so deeply embedded in not just economies but in the psyche, that that must remain IMO. In fact, I believe a properly regulated version of capitalism is beneficial overall. One with strong workers' rights.

What we have, though, is corporations using their power to influence policy in their favour. And usually 'in their favour' is against the interests of 'the masses'.

I also agree with you and other that say Labour - or any left-leaning party - would struggle to get elected on a platform of outright radical-left economics. Left-leaning parties need to be smart in how they present manifesto pledges - but certainly not abandoning left-of-centre economic principles

That is a problem stemming from how the 'free press' is majority controlled by super-rich people with [at least economically] right-wing views - and they use their media outlets to influence voters into rejecting left-of-centre policies. When media are giving far-right/neo-nazi/fascist parties less criticism than an economically-progressive/mid-left party wanting proper regulation of business and finance and adequate levels of progressive taxation to fund strong public services, you know the whole media sphere is broken.

And we need to find a way to address the issue of housing and how prohibitively expensive it's become, especially for younger people trying to get on the ladder. The jeopardy, though, is not collapsing the market, which creates even more severe problems for existing home-owners. Most of the mammoth rise in prices has been driven by buy-to-let investors (low interest rates and sluggish stock markets have led the wealthy to seek new investment options that give a better RoI)

Finally, the issue of tax-dodging by the super-rich is massive and should be a priority for any even centrist government.

The difficult issue is, most of the problems require a collaboration between countries. I used to have a pipedream that the EU could become an economically progressive beacon, formulating bloc-wide policies to address proper regulation of business and finance and tax dodging. Sadly, I realised some time ago (prior to the Referendum) that the influence of the ECB was very strong and the ECB was stuffed with ex-Goldman Sachs corporate-capitalists who were intent on directioning the EU down that path (the aftermath of the GFC was brutal on countries like Greece, Italy, and others, with no fucks given for the hardships imposed on ordinary people). The EU is still a force for good and I'm gutted we're no longer part of it, but it isn't presently how I waqnt it to be.

[well, that was a rambling one!  )

And how important is that economic argument to the left? I've seen statements that people won't vote Labour because of how they've betrayed the Palestinians by not backing the SNP's amendment, with these statements being reiterated in that part of the Tory thread that was recently excised. Despite my looking at the actual Labour and SNP amendments (rather than what was reported), and showing that there was little that people accused Labour of in the actual text. How important are cultural and foreign affairs issues to sections of the left who've given up on Labour? And probably at the root of it, how much of that abandonment is said sections of the left feeling that they don't own the party, and are thus looking for any excuse to oppose it?

[Nobby Reserve]

And how important is that economic argument to the left? I've seen statements that people won't vote Labour because of how they've betrayed the Palestinians by not backing the SNP's amendment, with these statements being reiterated in that part of the Tory thread that was recently excised. Despite my looking at the actual Labour and SNP amendments (rather than what was reported), and showing that there was little that people accused Labour of in the actual text. How important are cultural and foreign affairs issues to sections of the left who've given up on Labour? And probably at the root of it, how much of that abandonment is said sections of the left feeling that they don't own the party, and are thus looking for any excuse to oppose it?

I've made the point recently that a large proportion of 'the left' are much more/universally focused on the social/cultural element of politics than the economic.

It's a problem, as it seems to turn-off a majority of the country

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I've made the point recently that a large proportion of 'the left' are much more/universally focused on the social/cultural element of politics than the economic.

It's a problem, as it seems to turn-off a majority of the country

Well yeah. The only people that are wealthy enough to be able to be focused entirely on social/cultural stuff aren't your normal average family.

Most people worry about paying their mortgage or rent or council tax or food bills or energy bills and the like.

That's the problem, the things that the 'far left' care about the most don't even register as being even remotely important to the average voter.

The irony is that the things the 'far right' care about the most used never to register with the 'average voter' but the assault by social media, firms like Cambridge Analytica, foreign (and billionaire) owned media outlets and the new far right TV stations make people think that they care - Brexit is an excellent example of this and a wake up call for the experts. The experts and even the average politicians and journalists couldn't believe a country would be stupid enough to impose economic sanctions on itself and fuck it's kids, grand-kids and great-grandkids - but the misinformation worked and people that cared about X, Y and Z and paying for it have made their problems much worse and X, Y and Z more expensive for the forseeable future, while making their own country weaker and poorer and their own children poorer, with less rights, less opportunity and less hope for the future.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

This from that fat grifting bastard;

"Governments around the world are now trying to imitate the UK Rwanda policy for tackling illegal people trafficking. This bill must be as legally robust as possible - and the right course is to adopt the amendments."



Are they now, you fucking bloated fucking chump?

[Sangria]

I've made the point recently that a large proportion of 'the left' are much more/universally focused on the social/cultural element of politics than the economic.

It's a problem, as it seems to turn-off a majority of the country

It's a problem when they claim to embody what the left is really about, and thus anyone who isn't them is a betrayal of the left. Discussion of economics and anything concrete and implementable can be discussed with real world evidence, measured with metrics, and solutions compared in terms of effectiveness. Discussion of high principles are won by embodying these high principles, without needing corroboration from the real world. Any departure from these high principles is dismissed by people claiming to better embody these principles.

[Jiminy Cricket]

We also have the new phenomenon of democratically-elected politicians (mainly of the Right) who say they believe in democracy but are utterly careless or indifferent about its preservation. Trump is an extreme example of this, but Johnson was of the same school. People who vote for them do so for frivolous reasons. They certainly don't vote for them to increase their prosperity (The vote for Brexit is a good example of this of course). They see them as entertainers and they see politics as a branch of entertainment. They enjoy the chaos and disruption they bring. They enjoy 'characters' like Trump and Johnson and Wilders saying 'the unsayable'. But only because they think the democratic system will absorb all the shocks and survive all the hilarity. This is massive complacency.

It really does come down to this, doesn't it!? I ask myself when I participate here about politics, or watch clips of Trump spouting his latest dreadful (but hilarious) outrage, am I adding tothe problem in my own (more minor) way? The problem, I think, is the way nearly all of us now consume politics, political news, and all news for that matter. There is little in the way of traditional gatekeeping, and it comes down to whoever (individual or outlet) can supply the most shocking or funniest (often the same thing) latest (political) news.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeping_(communication)

[Bobsackamano]

It's a problem when they claim to embody what the left is really about, and thus anyone who isn't them is a betrayal of the left. Discussion of economics and anything concrete and implementable can be discussed with real world evidence, measured with metrics, and solutions compared in terms of effectiveness. Discussion of high principles are won by embodying these high principles, without needing corroboration from the real world. Any departure from these high principles is dismissed by people claiming to better embody these principles.

You need to ignore them, they make a lot of noise but they've thrown everything at Starmer and it's not dented him at all. Nobody who isn't already part of their group are listening to the hard left at all, their intransigence makes them irrelevant, you can't win them over so why bother trying. They are also perfectly entitled to their opinion as well.

Lazer focused on the Tories now, the internal battle is won

[Bobsackamano]

Read this

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/16/free-money-avanti-west-coast-bosses-caught-joking-about-uk-government-handouts

Reminded me of this

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/mafia-in-awe-of-uk-train-companies-2014082789914

[Robinred]

James Tilley, an Oxford Uni professor of politics, is broadcasting a 15 minute exploration of European far right Parties’ attraction for young voters; starting yesterday, and continuing every day until Friday. The title - “Why are the kids alt right?” is self explanatory:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001vcdq?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Definitely worth a listen - and food for thought given the notion that young voters are traditionally attracted to left-leaning Parties.

[Yorkykopite]

Cheers R.

[TepidT2O]

James Tilley, an Oxford Uni professor of politics, is broadcasting a 15 minute exploration of European far right Parties’ attraction for young voters; starting yesterday, and continuing every day until Friday. The title - “Why are the kids alt right?” is self explanatory:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001vcdq?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Definitely worth a listen - and food for thought given the notion that young voters are traditionally attracted to left-leaning Parties.

thanks…. Very interesting

[Yorkykopite]

Very interesting. Good one for anyone on the left to have up their sleeve. Thanks RS.

[Indomitable_Carp]

It's not the first time either.

2019 letter from billionaires calling for wealth tax:
https://time.com/5613228/billionaires-calling-for-wealth-taxes/

Again in 2022:
https://fortune.com/2022/01/19/100-millionaires-billionaires-sign-letter-more-taxes/

2023 at the last Davos:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/18/tax-us-now-ultra-rich-wealth-tax-davos

Here is the Wealth Tax Commissions December 2020 report on the potentially beneficial impacts for UK finances:
https://www.wealthandpolicy.com/wp/WealthTaxFinalReport.pdf

Impacts of a one off five-year wealth tax (highly effective):

A one-off wealth tax can raise substantial revenue. After accounting for non-compliance and administration costs, a one-off wealth tax payable on all individual wealth above £500,000 and charged at 1% a year for five years would raise £260 billion; at a threshold of £2 million it would raise £80 billion. This would be paid by individuals whose total wealth after mortgages and other
debts, and after splitting the value of shared assets such as a jointly-owned family home, exceeded the tax threshold, and only on the value of wealth above that threshold. To be clear, a
wealth tax levied at 1% above £500,000 would require a couple to have net wealth of more than £1 million before any wealth tax would be payable.

Alternative tax rises which could also raise £250 billion over five years include:
• Basic rate of income tax to rise by 9p (20p to 29p)
• All income tax rates to rise by more than 6p
• All VAT rates to rise by 6p (taking main rate from 20p to 26p)
• Corporation tax to rise by 5p and VAT to rise by 4p.

A one-off wealth tax would be economically efficient. Since it is based on wealth at a (past) point in time, a one-off wealth tax does not distort behaviour. In contrast, income taxes on employment and self-employment reduce incentives to work, capital taxes reduce investment, corporation taxes encourage companies to reduce (UK taxable) profits.

Impacts of a regular annual wealth tax (not so effective as compared to other forms of taxation):

Unlike a one-off wealth tax, an annual wealth tax would require regular reassessments of  wealth, with tax due changing as wealth changed. If it were introduced, it would also be a
permanent addition to the UK tax system (as much as any tax is permanent), rather than a temporary measure.
 
Based on its ability to achieve the objectives below, we recommend that instead of an annual wealth tax, the government should reform existing taxes on wealth. Many existing taxes on wealth have major structural flaws, and recommendations for improvement have come from many sources.

An annual wealth tax would only be justified in addition to these reforms if the aim was specifically to reduce inequality by redistributing wealth. We do not take any position on whether the government should use tax policy actively to reduce wealth inequality. If this were the government’s aim, there are limits to the extent of redistribution that can be achieved using existing taxes on wealth, even after reform. An annual wealth tax could be justified on this conditional basis, but proponents should be clear that this is their aim and that it may be difficult to achieve

I would sincerely hope Labour find the guts to argue for such a beneficial and indeed necessary idea, that would likely be popular, and that billionaires themselves are apparently supportive of. Unfortunately, the last statement we had on wealth taxes and higher rates of income tax for the wealthiest was this:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/27/rachel-reeves-rules-out-wealth-tax-if-labour-wins-next-election

Yet apparently Labours "iron" fiscal rules will prevent them making any unfunded pledges:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/04/keir-starmer-labour-fiscal-rules-green-investment-targets

But where could you possibly raise revenues, I wander?!

[Jiminy Cricket]

Honestly.  Is that all you take home from the issue........

I think Sangria was highlighting the inability of (many on) the left to focus on what's most important rather than their pet obsessions. Or, that's what I took from his post.

[oldfordie]

It's not the first time either.

2019 letter from billionaires calling for wealth tax:
https://time.com/5613228/billionaires-calling-for-wealth-taxes/

Again in 2022:
https://fortune.com/2022/01/19/100-millionaires-billionaires-sign-letter-more-taxes/

2023 at the last Davos:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/18/tax-us-now-ultra-rich-wealth-tax-davos

Here is the Wealth Tax Commissions December 2020 report on the potentially beneficial impacts for UK finances:
https://www.wealthandpolicy.com/wp/WealthTaxFinalReport.pdf

Impacts of a one off five-year wealth tax (highly effective):

Impacts of a regular annual wealth tax (not so effective as compared to other forms of taxation):

I would sincerely hope Labour find the guts to argue for such a beneficial and indeed necessary idea, that would likely be popular, and that billionaires themselves are apparently supportive of. Unfortunately, the last statement we had on wealth taxes and higher rates of income tax for the wealthiest was this:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/27/rachel-reeves-rules-out-wealth-tax-if-labour-wins-next-election

Yet apparently Labours "iron" fiscal rules will prevent them making any unfunded pledges:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/04/keir-starmer-labour-fiscal-rules-green-investment-targets

But where could you possibly raise revenues, I wander?!

Why are they even putting forward the alternative tax rises over 5 yrs to raise £250 bill as a option, it's not a option as the public cant afford to pay far higher taxes , how will the economy react if people have even less money to spend???  and even if they could afford some of those tax rises then this would only confirm the shit the Torys throw at Labour over wanting to tax and spend our way out of trouble, introduce  those alternative suggestions and the Torys would be over the moon as Labour would be shown the door at the following election.
Rule out higher taxes for the man in the street.
The Wealth Tax looks good and it will help but £10 bill is sod all in the grand scheme of things.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I think Sangria was highlighting the inability of (many on) the left to focus on what's most important rather than their pet obsessions. Or, that's what I took from his post.

He was being antagonistic, and you are reducing what for many is a major thing in their life to a pet obsession.

I doubt Rowling pays tax at a higher '%rate than I do.

[Red Beret]

The problem with 250 billionaires asking politicians to tax their wealth is that it only takes two billionaires to pay the politicians not to.

And we all know which two billionaires it would be.

[oldfordie]

Are you really suggesting that 10 billion is not a lot and couldn't make a huge difference to services and society?  For a start, it's 5 times more than the Non-Dom loophole, that Labour are going to close (but it wont close straight away, as explained recently).

The reason I posted was to point out I think the alternative tax rises suggested in the article aren't a option so why are they putting them forward. I know nothing about the people who come up with that article but am not impressed to be honest.

I never said am against the Wealth tax.
This is about bringing in more money for the government to spend. the article only looks at raising taxes when there are other ways to bring in revenue.
 Labour have explained how they will raise revenue as your right we need more than just £10 bill to get us out of this mess. they will bring in more revenue as the economy grows,  I also expect Labour to bring in more than just closing the Nom Dom Loophole

[Sangria]

Honestly.  Is that all you take home from the issue........

When you have an extremely rich person paying all their taxes without any attempt at evasion, and a sustained campaign against them for not being quite the right message on trans issues, what does it say about what people deem to be more important?

NB. The issue with rich people is not them not paying enough taxes. The issue is with them not paying the taxes they're supposed to.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Starmer absolutely destroying the Tories here.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Fucking hell Starmer is hilarious

Not laughed this much at PMQT for ages.

People openly laughing at the Conservative Party in the commons.

Starmer:

- Conservative Party are a farce
- hundreds of bald men fighting over a comb
- I can tell you where these 4,500 missing immigrants aren't - they aren't in Rwanda



Sunak making himself looking like a complete knobend and making Labour and Starmer look good - he has no fucking idea how much people hate the Tories and no much idea how much people hate Tory MPs - they are absolutely horrible people.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Fucking hell Starmer is hilarious

Not laughed this much at PMQT for ages.

People openly laughing at the Conservative Party in the commons.

Starmer:

- Conservative Party are a farce
- hundreds of bald men fighting over a comb
- I can tell you where these 4,500 missing immigrants aren't - they aren't in Rwanda



Sunak making himself looking like a complete knobend and making Labour and Starmer look good - he has no fucking idea how much people hate the Tories and no much idea how much people hate Tory MPs - they are absolutely horrible people.

Thats a good line

[Yorkykopite]

He was being antagonistic, and you are reducing what for many is a major thing in their life to a pet obsession.

I doubt Rowling pays tax at a higher '%rate than I do.

Isn't that the whole point of her letter? She thinks she should do.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Isn't that the whole point of her letter? She thinks she should do.

Its not Rpwlings opinion on tax Im struggloing with. Its Sangria's  point  that people cant criticise those who dont evade tax that Im struggling with

Perhaps he should have just said I agree with Rowlings gender critical critical views.