- Tue Mar 18, 2025 7:53 pm
#86009
The reason I didn't post a link was because I was reading through the I newspaper in a newsagents.
The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 7:53 pm The reason I didn't post a link was because I was reading through the I newspaper in a newsagents.Oh! This preposterous nonsense goes to a different school? Got it.
Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 9:21 pm Is Grok any good?Generally? I'm not sure.
Has Labour taxed wealth sufficiently?
Historically, UK taxation of wealth was higher—post-World War II top income tax rates exceeded 90%, and inheritance taxes were more stringent. Today, the effective tax rate on the wealthiest remains lower than on average earners due to reliance on income and consumption taxes rather than wealth or assets. Labour’s current approach—raising £40 billion in the 2024 Budget through various tax hikes and borrowing—avoids systemic wealth redistribution, focusing instead on funding public services and investment (e.g., £100 billion over five years for infrastructure).
Supporters of Labour’s strategy might argue it balances fiscal responsibility with growth, avoiding policies that could deter investment. Critics, including left-leaning voices, contend it preserves inequality, with the richest 1% still undertaxed relative to their wealth—estimated at £653 billion for billionaires alone in 2022 by the Equality Trust. Without a comprehensive wealth tax or broader reform, they say, Labour’s measures are insufficient to reverse decades of growing disparity or fund strained public services fully.
In short, Labour has increased some taxes on wealth since taking power in July 2024, but these are incremental rather than transformative. Whether this is “sufficient” hinges on whether one prioritizes stability and growth over aggressive redistribution—a debate that remains unresolved as of now.
The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 8:06 pm Just fuck off.If you are going to post DMGT titles' content in order to further your distinctly non Labour-aligned agenda, you might want to reflect upon the name of this forum.
Last summer, Becky Sheaves did something she hadn’t done for almost 20 years: she voted Labour. Sheaves, a 57-year-old nursery owner who lives on a family farm in rural Devon, is based in a Conservative constituency that occasionally swings Liberal Democrat. She knew the Tories were going to lose the general election and decided, rather than gifting her vote to the Lib Dem challenger, to vote with her heart.Oh and before anyone comes at me with why didn't the post the link in the first place. There's a reason for that first read the article in the actual I not online and so couldn't post the link at the time.
“I was one of only about 2,000 people to vote Labour here, but I wanted Sir Keir Starmer to know that I wanted him to win. I wanted the Labour candidate to know that I voted for him,” she says.
Sheaves – who voted Labour during the Blair years but moved her support to the Tories under David Cameron – was excited by the possibility of the country’s first female chancellor and a chance for Britain to rethink its priorities.
“I was really pleased that Labour had taken a shift firmly away from the extreme left,” she explains. “I was getting more and more concerned about the extremes of wealth in this country and I thought they might rein that in. I thought it would be more ‘for the people’ and that there would be a kinder vibe. I was quite reassured by Rachel Reeves; I thought she would do a really good job economically, and hoped they’d all be a bit more sane and sensible.”