What is the point of Labour ?

[GHF-23]

1 minute ago, Left Back said:

 

It's the same old argument.  You more tax paid but not by yourself.

Yes, "you more tax paid but not by yourself" is a phrase that I never stop hearing 

[carpetmonster]

Labour MP for Norwich South with one of P&B's favorite gifs

 

[lichtgilphead]

10 hours ago, Jedi2 said:

Point one one 'lie'

Well, there's all these non-existent posts that you claim to have made in the TV & Film forum...

More importantly, however, there's this:

 "Why do they (the SNP) need the recent tax hikes? With the now 6 bands of taxation in Scotland, and increase for lower earners."

Between 2023/24 & 2024/25 here will be a reduction in tax paid by every taxpayer who pays the starter, basic & intermediate rates, and even people that pay some tax at the higher rate will see a tiny reduction in the tax payable. 

This reduction is due to the increases in the starter, basic & intermediate earning thresholds, and the freezing of the higher earning threshold

Scottish income tax rates and thresholds

Income tax bands and rates	2023/24 earnings thresholds (and tax rates)	2024/25 earnings thresholds (and tax rates)
Personal allowance (for most)	Between £0 and £12,570 (no income tax due)
Starter	Between £12,571 and £14,732 (19%)	Between £12,571 and £14,876 (19%)
Basic	Between £14,733 and £25,688 (20%)	Between £14,877 and £26,561 (20%)
Intermediate	Between £25,689 and £43,662 (21%)	Between £26,562 and £43,662 (21%)
Higher	Between £43,663 and £125,140 (i) (42%)	Between £43,663 and £75,000 (42%)
Advanced	N/A	Between £75,001 and £125,140 (i) (45%)
Top	Over £125,140 (47%)	Over £125,140 (48%)

 

Accordingly, I estimate that anyone in Scotland who earns more than £14,732 and less than £75,000+ will pay less tax in 2024/25 than they did on the same salary in 2023/24, albeit higher paid people will only save around £15 per year.

Anyone earning under £14,732 will pay exactly the same amount.

You can check out the year on year differences here: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/money-mentor/income-tax-calculator/ - please note that I'm not complicating the matter by including NI or pension contributions. Happy to be corrected if I've got this wrong.

Obviously, this goes against the MSM narrative, which Jedi has fallen for hook, line & sinker, but the consequence is that either Jedi  believes that £75,000+ is a low earner, or he's lying. Simples!

 

[Highlandmagar]

Yet another cartwheeling drawback on policy. How on earth can anyone vote for these utter charlatans. 

[Wee Bully]

I’m now at the point of wondering if there is a single policy left that Labour once pretended to have. Their manifesto must be exactly the same as the Blues Tories now. 

[coprolite]

4 hours ago, Left Back said:

In the interests of international comparison that's not how the higher tax countries tend to achieve higher taxes.

https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/how-do-uk-tax-revenues-compare-internationally?tab=tab-389

It's the same old argument.  You want more tax paid but not by yourself.

That’s an interesting comparison.
 

Raising capital taxes would still increase revenue though. Not by nearly enough to replace income tax or reduce VAT or anything.

Raising corporation tax would probably raise revenue too, again not by a huge amount. Not sure I agree with @Freedom Farter that that would be a tax on ownership in as straightforward a way as capital gains tax is. In conjunction with tax on dividends it is, but income in a company can be earned by doing stuff as well as owning it. 
 

What other countries do doesn’t show the whole range of what we could or should do differently.

Unearned income disproportionately goes to the richest in the country. There is a moral case to tax that income at least as heavily, if not more so, than the fruits of labour. 

[Left Back]

49 minutes ago, coprolite said:

That’s an interesting comparison.
 

Raising capital taxes would still increase revenue though. Not by nearly enough to replace income tax or reduce VAT or anything.

Raising corporation tax would probably raise revenue too, again not by a huge amount. Not sure I agree with @Freedom Farter that that would be a tax on ownership in as straightforward a way as capital gains tax is. In conjunction with tax on dividends it is, but income in a company can be earned by doing stuff as well as owning it. 
 

What other countries do doesn’t show the whole range of what we could or should do differently.

Unearned income disproportionately goes to the richest in the country. There is a moral case to tax that income at least as heavily, if not more so, than the fruits of labour. 

So you agree it’s not as straightforward as “tax anyone that has/earns more than me”?

Personally I think there’s a lot we can learn from other countries.  Of course some of it wouldn’t be popular with the groupthink on this forum.

Even in that article I posted it talked about examples of benefits and pensions having a link to salaries.  Whether that’s a viable solution or not who knows but I can imagine the seethe of most on here.
 

Alternatively  It might stop tax avoidance if people think they may get something back eventually.   If you got a pension linked to earnings from the state you might feel less inclined to hoard more in your own pension fund (as an example).  I think all ideas are worth exploring instead of setting one demographic against another.

There will always be people that have more and people that have less.  That’s an unavoidable fact.  You have to show the haves the benefit of contributing more to get them on board instead of making them feel punished.

Of course we could carry on the way we are with pretty much everyone being pissed off with the tax regime but that’s not going to solve anything.

[Freedom Farter]

2 hours ago, coprolite said:

Raising corporation tax would probably raise revenue too, again not by a huge amount. Not sure I agree with @Freedom Farter that that would be a tax on ownership in as straightforward a way as capital gains tax is. In conjunction with tax on dividends it is, but income in a company can be earned by doing stuff as well as owning it. 

That's right and I appreciate the correction.

Here's a related idea. Its radical in that its not currently being proposed or undertaken by any mainstream party of governance. The described universal basic dividend could instead be a national fund for tuition, for example:

Quote

A common myth, promoted by the rich, is that wealth is produced individually before it is collectivized by the state, through taxation. In fact, wealth was always produced collectively and privatized by those with the power to do it: the propertied class. Farmland and seeds, pre-modern forms of capital, were collectively developed through generations of peasant endeavor that landlords appropriated by stealth. Today, every smartphone comprises components developed by some government grant, or through the commons of pooled ideas, for which no dividends have ever been paid to society.

So how should society be compensated? Taxation is the wrong answer. Corporations pay taxes in exchange for services the state provides them, not for capital injections that must yield dividends. There is thus a strong case that the commons have a right to a share of the capital stock, and associated dividends, reflecting society’s investment in corporations’ capital. And, because it is impossible to calculate the size of state and social capital crystalized in any firm, we can decide how much of its capital stock the public should own only by means of a political mechanism.

A simple policy would be to enact legislation requiring that a percentage of capital stock (shares) from every initial public offering (IPO) be channeled into a Commons Capital Depository, with the associated dividends funding a universal basic dividend (UBD). 

(https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/basic-income-funded-by-capital-income-by-yanis-varoufakis-2016-10)

[coprolite]

9 minutes ago, Freedom Farter said:

That's right and I appreciate the correction.

Here's a related idea. Its radical in that its not currently being proposed or undertaken by any mainstream party of governance. The described universal basic dividend could instead be a national fund for tuition, for example:

(https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/basic-income-funded-by-capital-income-by-yanis-varoufakis-2016-10)

Love a bit of neo Marxian analysis and that’s quite a tidy idea. 
 

I can’t imagine Keith trying to explain it on The One Show.

[coprolite]

2 hours ago, Left Back said:

So you agree it’s not as straightforward as “tax anyone that has/earns more than me”?

Personally I think there’s a lot we can learn from other countries.  Of course some of it wouldn’t be popular with the groupthink on this forum.

Even in that article I posted it talked about examples of benefits and pensions having a link to salaries.  Whether that’s a viable solution or not who knows but I can imagine the seethe of most on here.
 

Alternatively  It might stop tax avoidance if people think they may get something back eventually.   If you got a pension linked to earnings from the state you might feel less inclined to hoard more in your own pension fund (as an example).  I think all ideas are worth exploring instead of setting one demographic against another.

There will always be people that have more and people that have less.  That’s an unavoidable fact.  You have to show the haves the benefit of contributing more to get them on board instead of making them feel punished.

 

Of course we could carry on the way we are with pretty much everyone being pissed off with the tax regime but that’s not going to solve anything.

I do agree with that, but I also think that taxing the wealthy more and specifically taxing wealth more would be fairer than broadening the tax base. 

I also don’t think it’s only the “haves” that need to be persuaded.  

It’s a failure of leadership from our supposedly left leaning parties that no one makes the case for the benefits from public spending. Whether it’s capital spending to boost productivity (like the program they just shat out of, or arguably tuition) or the efficiency savings of having decent public services, the discussion is always about funding through current taxes and not about the gains.

Tuition fees don’t need to be funded through current taxation, in principle. I’m no expert on the devolution settlement but I think that they do in practice because the Scottish Government can’t borrow independently? Is that right?

If it could,  then there would be no need to put up current taxes. Privately paid fees are funded by borrowing and paid back out of higher future earnings. The Government can borrow more cheaply than individual students (and the default rate would be nil). Increased skill levels should increase future productivity across the economy and not just the production of the individual, so there should be more higher earners in the future. Maybe investing in education could pay for itself through taxes without any rise in the tax rate at all, or with only a modest one.
 

Labour in England has no reason to not make this case, which it apparently believed in until recently, other than timidity and wanting to appeal to tories.

 

[DA Baracus]

Is Starmer trying his best to miss an open goal?

[HTG]

2 hours ago, DA Baracus said:

Is Starmer trying his best to miss an open goal?

 

[pawpar]

Labour shit it again.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68280098

[Highlandmagar]

Labour. An utterly spineless party who dont deserve to form a government.

[Salt n Vinegar]

Never put it past the Labour Party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  The Tories aren't beat yet.

[TheScarf]

‘Hi, we’re the Labour Party. We agree with all the right wing policies of the Tories, we’ll just implement them better than them.’

Fucking scum, get them to fuck.

[Big Rider]

The UK poltical class are more and more unappealing as time moves on. I was a Labour supporter once.

Its time for Scotland to be independent.

[Steelly]

7 hours ago, Highlandmagar said:

Labour. An utterly spineless party who dont deserve to form a government.

Spineless, the irony, you could not admit you were wrong, now that's spineless.

And I'm still waiting for you to point out the rabid right wing policies from Reform. You said you read their policies so it shouldn't be  hard to do. 

[HTG]

 

Oh dear. 

 

 

[Steelly]

9 minutes ago, HTG said:

 

Oh dear. 

 

 

Ffs