Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Think there's been some watering down, hasn't there on "from day one". I don't think there's anything wrong with a short probation period, but I'd like to see some definition of it.

I don't think they were under any big political pressure on this, so looks like it might be something business told them.

How much are people expecting them to achieve on day 1?

Evidently the Unions saw no issue with a structured implementation of it. Also of course you are going consult businesses there is some major changes in this that will probably take a couple of years.

As someone who knows something about employment law points out.

Lots of this stuff about. What was ruled out, a Wealth Tax, is not very popular among tax experts. When was this said exactly? Given that she says "effectively", I'm guessing never (apart from the rise in the top rate of tax).

So, in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves has effectively ruled out a wealth tax if Labour wins the next election, ditching suggestions of higher taxes on expensive houses (the Ed Miliband “mansion tax”) or an increase in capital gains tax. Crucially in terms of staking out the tax argument at the next election she has also signalled no rise in the top rate of tax. Those able to remember as far back as 2019 will remember that Reeves’s predecessor Anneliese Dodds was in favour of raising the top tax rate — and so indeed was her boss when he ran for the leadership.

Of course, you don't have to raise rates to raise revenue in real terms (which is what Blair did, and what Sunak is intending to do. You could easily extend the Sunak freezes a couple of years and bring in a fair bit more money.

Abandoning a wealth tax is a ruinous Labour strategy. It’s ‘Blairism without the cash’
Owen Jones

Corbyn didn't have a wealth tax in either of his manifestos.

SKS was only going to administer a corrective slap to the top five percent, even if non-doms might feel that a mite more sharply. It was hardly Red Oktober.

Students can fend for themselves, let's all worship white vans, and tomorrow's climate can fry. What is left (sic)? That he isn't Priti fucking Patel? The redistribution of precious plant pots for all?

"I am not as hideous a those thieving cunts" is a pitch I would still probably go for, but I would quite like to outlive the deliberately imposed penury of the Island of my birth.

We don't really know what's left, but you can do quite a lot in terms of raising revenue without wealth taxes, increasing the top rate of income tax etc. Reeves ruled out a wealth tax, but merely said "no plans" to raise capital gains tax. Plus of course there is a lot of space to borrow more for investment.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 6:59 pm

Lots of this stuff about. What was ruled out, a Wealth Tax, is not very popular among tax experts. When was this said exactly? Given that she says "effectively", I'm guessing never (apart from the rise in the top rate of tax).

So, in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves has effectively ruled out a wealth tax if Labour wins the next election, ditching suggestions of higher taxes on expensive houses (the Ed Miliband “mansion tax”) or an increase in capital gains tax. Crucially in terms of staking out the tax argument at the next election she has also signalled no rise in the top rate of tax. Those able to remember as far back as 2019 will remember that Reeves’s predecessor Anneliese Dodds was in favour of raising the top tax rate — and so indeed was her boss when he ran for the leadership.

Here's the relevant part of the interview

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... es-labour/

Income tax increase off the table
After several years of flirting with policies such as a new wealth tax and a radical plan to remove the VAT exemption enjoyed by private schools, persuading wealthier voters that they will not be further punished if they vote for Labour might seem like a tall order. But it appears that Ms Reeves and Sir Keir have decided to attempt just that – starting now.

The shadow chancellor insists that Sir Keir’s previous plan to increase the 45p top rate of income tax is off the table – as is any form of wealth tax.

Asked how a Labour government will view wealth, she says: “I’m very much in favour of wealth creation, and I want to see more of that in Britain.”

She wants children growing up on estates in poorer parts of her Leeds constituency to have the same opportunities as young people in the more affluent suburbs. But she insists: “I want more people to have those opportunities, not to water down the opportunities for anybody.”

Asked whether Sir Keir’s pledge during the 2020 leadership contest to increase the top rate of income tax has been ditched, Ms Reeves replies: “Yeah. The tax burden is its highest in 60, maybe even 70, years. There have been 24 tax rises in the 13 years of Conservative government.

“I don’t see a route towards having more money for public services that is through taxing our way there. It is going to be through growing our way there. And that’s why the policies that we’ve set out are all about how we can encourage businesses, big and small, to invest in Britain.”

What about a form of wealth tax?

“No,” she says, for the first time.

The moment marks a significant shift from two years ago when she declared: “People who get their income through wealth should have to pay more.”

Ms Reeves insists that those remarks were in the context of Mr Sunak’s ill-fated attempt to hike National Insurance to raise an extra £12 billion for the NHS and social care.

No need for a wealth tax
“The point I was making then, the Government said that they needed to raise £12 billion, and I said, well, why do you always have to come to working people and ask them to contribute more?”

She continues: “I don’t have any spending plans that require us to raise £12 billion. So I don’t need a wealth tax or any of those things. We have no plans for a wealth tax. We don’t have any plans to increase taxes outside of what we’ve said. I don’t see the way to prosperity as being through taxation. I want to grow the economy.”

She has previously set out plans to abolish non-dom tax status and scrap a “loophole” that benefits private equity fund managers.

Denying “current plans” of course, is a favourite “non-denial denial” phrase for politicians seeking to avoid a blanket denial that they could do such a thing in the future. But Ms Reeves is happy to be categorical. “We won’t be doing that. It’s a denial. It’s not a non-denial, it’s just a denial.” She is also “not instinctively in favour of a frequent-flyer levy”.

Her preparations for office include “spending an awful lot of time with businesses” and seeking advice from Lord Darling of Roulanish and Gordon Brown, her Labour predecessors, and the “odd conversation” with George Osborne, a hate figure among the Labour Left because of his spending cuts.

Ms Reeves says she encourages members of Sir Keir’s front bench to come up with reforms and identify schemes that could be scrapped so that the money can be spent elsewhere, on the basis that she was “not going to be able to turn on the spending taps as chancellor, because ... the money is simply not going to be there”.

She adds: “I say to my colleagues all the time, don’t come to me with plans to spend more money. Are there other ways to do things? Is there reform that you can do? And then the next thing is, are there things that your department is spending money on that aren’t priorities?”

The general stuff there is a load of bollocks- she's got some tax rises that increase spending capacity, one would hope.

But they've never supported a wealth tax. And that's not the only way to tax people more who don't get their money from incomes. Seems like the journo is rather overselling their story there. I'm sure Reeves is very happy for the audience of the Telegraph (lots of business among them) to get that impression.

£12bn doesn't actually go that far with public spending, certainly not compared to the problems, but worth pointing out that Ed Milliband raised only £8bn extra in 2015 (is that about £12bn by today's rate, probably not much more). And of course taxes have been raised a fair bit by the government since 2015, so I suppose it's not that surprising that Reeves isn't seeking to go much further. But still going to be grim.

I wonder if there may be some tax allowances abolished. Some people exaggerate the amount of these- there was an absurd report a few years ago which put this at £93bn a year- but there are probably some allowances that can be abolished with very little public protest. The non-radical leftist IFS and people like Dan Neidle point these out.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:58 pm We don't really know what's left, but you can do quite a lot in terms of raising revenue without wealth taxes, increasing the top rate of income tax etc. Reeves ruled out a wealth tax, but merely said "no plans" to raise capital gains tax. Plus of course there is a lot of space to borrow more for investment.

I would also point out that in that same interview she called for more more support for gigafactories plus she said they wanted to bring more green jobs, so how is that letting tomorrow's climate fry I don't know.

Not sure what this has to do with higher rate taxes but there must be a lot of Del Trotters out there without a pot to piss in. “But this time next year, Rodney, we could all be millionaires”

Asked how a Labour government will view wealth, she says: “I’m very much in favour of wealth creation, and I want to see more of that in Britain.”

She wants children growing up on estates in poorer parts of her Leeds constituency to have the same opportunities as young people in the more affluent suburbs. But she insists: “I want more people to have those opportunities, not to water down the opportunities for anybody.”

This whole "We're not going to ..." is all very well.

I feel the time's come for a two footed tackle to follow up Braverman's latest appearance.

It seems the carrying of the priceless vase has now become a hybrid of "keep schtum at all costs lest we frighten the voters" and "kinder, gentler politics".

Not the bloody wealth tax again.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... hel-reeves

In ditching a wealth tax, Labour is rejecting growth and embracing bad economics
Josh Ryan-Collins

Again, assumption that no rise in capital gains tax will happen. Like Dan Neidle, I thought she said "no plans". I'm sure they won't be equalised with wages, but there's some scope to raise them. Rishi Sunak briefed that he was considering it as chancellor.

End of the day I want to see what’s in the manifesto.

What’s the Green’s plans, what’s LDs plans?

We don’t even know what the hell will be in the governments plans. There seems to be a play on this idea of national service which will really encourage the youth vote to switch. It’s also struggling really badly with women, again can’t see national service winning them over especially mothers.

This seems normal

“Weird” wasn’t the first word that I thought

Do we have any provenance for that?

Former DPP worked with British intelligence, huge if true.