[Politics] The Labour Government

[Guinness Boy]

I’m not sure it is simplistic bolleaux. There have been quite a few reports of increasing numbers of very wealthy planning to do just that, however, I have no idea whether or not they actually will. Let me put it slightly differently, there are fears amongst some, that the very wealthy who are often in a position to arrange their affairs to mitigate against government action to get more tax from them, will legitimately do so, whilst the ‘ neither rich nor poor Joes in the middle’ will get clobbered. There are more of them and they are easier targets. You may not agree, but I think it is a reasonable view to take. I believe the leaders of the country’s most powerful union, the BMA are already making noises/threats about doctors quitting or retiring early if there are changes to their pension arrangements, so there may be trouble ahead with the militant medics and I don’t suppose Wes Streeting would look forward to that.
Finally, re your remark on checking every single line of dear Rachel’s budget, you can be sure the lawyers, advisers and accountants of the very wealthy will be doing just that for them. The ‘neither rich nor poor Joes in the middle ‘ may not be so fortunate.
Anyway, let us hope, it all goes swimmingly well and those of us with misgivings about our leaders are worrying about nothing.

I'm not sure you've debunked the point.

Is it your contention that there will be no super wealthy people left in the country and no one will want to replace them, which is the point I made? Or is it your contention that they will be better able to protect themselves, in which case why leave?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

If that really is your stance, then why are you sarcastically quoting figures for boat crossings now - when you know full well that anything Labour will be working towards / putting in place will not yet be kicking in to any meaningful effect? You can't have it both ways.

Because he doesn’t think through what he posts. Or even read beyond the headline of links he posts. He’s the king of glib.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The worry is that Starmer can't tell the difference between active and passive income.

If he thinks someone who receives dividends is not a working person then millions of owner-managed directors who take low salary, high dividends from their own businesses are in for a big shock on Wednesday.

 

[BLOCK F]

I'm not sure you've debunked the point.

Is it your contention that there will be no super wealthy people left in the country and no one will want to replace them, which is the point I made? Or is it your contention that they will be better able to protect themselves, in which case why leave?

Hello again,
I originally said, (and this is the gist) some people fear that those in the middle will be clobbered and those really wealthy bods will buzz off.
Of course there will be wealthy people left in the country and I said I have no idea whether or not considerable numbers will or will not go. I then went on to make a further point re the wealthy being in a good position to ‘arrange their affairs’ to mitigate any government steps to part them from their wealth, unlike the middle Joes.
People will always come and go, but it is quite possible that some super wealthy people may leave and others may think twice about replacing them. However, this was not my main point. It was that the ‘middle Joes ‘ fear that they might get clobbered in any tax changes, because they present an easy target.
As far as the super wealthy leaving or not, you’d best ask them! They are often in a good position of choosing to go or stay, and as I said, suitably arrange their affairs.
I wasn’t trying to debunk your point, I was more interested in putting over the possible fears of the neither rich nor poor Joes. I think we may not be on the same track, but no worries, it is good to discuss.

 

[A1X]

Just want to say I'm a huge fan of the increasing insinuation from some that a chancellor who worked at the Bank of England doesn't really understand how money works as well as they claim to do

 

[chip]

No one seems able to define wealthy. It's always someone who has a bit more than me. I don't expect anyone wants to put any numbers to this do they?

 

[BLOCK F]

Just want to say I'm a huge fan of the increasing insinuation from some that a chancellor who worked at the Bank of England doesn't really understand how money works as well as they claim to do

Well, let us wait and see how it all works out for the country and its people.
Anyway, by the same token, it has never stopped any of us on NSC criticising a professional manager re a football team’s tactics!

 

[carlzeiss]

Racist! He was from Walsall. Or at least that's what the BBC reported.

Thank the lord for the BBC

 

[amexer]

The rich are an interesting subject.. As I have said so easy in opposition for genuine and vote reasons to say will go for rich including non doms but when in government realise how much these people contribute. An example I read at present non doms at present time contribute over £6b
Our top PL players pay 45% and would be interesting what the top rate is in Spain Italy and Germany

 

[Chicken Run]

Just want to say I'm a huge fan of the increasing insinuation from some that a chancellor who worked at the Bank of England doesn't really understand how money works as well as they claim to do

Just want to say i preferred the Chancellor’s previous hair style.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The rich are an interesting subject.. As I have said so easy in opposition for genuine and vote reasons to say will go for rich including non doms but when in government realise how much these people contribute. An example I read at present non doms at present time contribute over £6b
Our top PL players pay 45% and would be interesting what the top rate is in Spain Italy and Germany

Is this from the Adam Smith Institute report that supposed they're all going to leave and added up all the money they might now not spend in restaurants and buying stuff? Given they're mostly funded by donations from said non doms, may take that with a pinch of salt.

Rightwing thinktank deletes offer of access to ministers for donors

Adam Smith Institute offered £1,000 donors invites to ‘power lunches and patrons dinners’

www.theguardian.com

Abolition of Non-Dom Status Could Cost £6.5 Billion by 2035 — Adam Smith Institute

If the Government enacts its plans to abolish non-dom tax status, this could cost the UK £6.5 billion by 2035, and 23,000 jobs by 2030; This will be due to lower investment in capital, a drop in tax revenue, reduced consumption across the economy, and a corresponding loss of jobs; These figur

www.adamsmith.org

 

[Notters]

Is this from the Adam Smith Institute report that supposed they're all going to leave and added up all the money they might now not spend in restaurants and buying stuff? Given they're mostly funded by donations from said non doms, may take that with a pinch of salt.

Rightwing thinktank deletes offer of access to ministers for donors

Adam Smith Institute offered £1,000 donors invites to ‘power lunches and patrons dinners’

www.theguardian.com

Abolition of Non-Dom Status Could Cost £6.5 Billion by 2035 — Adam Smith Institute

If the Government enacts its plans to abolish non-dom tax status, this could cost the UK £6.5 billion by 2035, and 23,000 jobs by 2030; This will be due to lower investment in capital, a drop in tax revenue, reduced consumption across the economy, and a corresponding loss of jobs; These figur

www.adamsmith.org

Indeed, this is surely more of an issue for you're average working family though, who will inevitable spend less if they have to pay more income tax.

 

[Pavilionaire]

This should be Labour's starting point. If they used this example then even the most stupid person could grasp what Starmer is so far unable to communicate:

Employee with £18,570 gross salary sole income source pays £1,678.20 in tax / NI

Saver receiving £18,570 interest sole income source pays £NIL tax / NI.

 

[carlzeiss]

This should be Labour's starting point. If they used this example then even the most stupid person could grasp what Starmer is so far unable to communicate:

Employee with £18,570 gross salary sole income source pays £1,678.20 in tax / NI

Saver receiving £18,570 interest sole income source pays £NIL tax / NI.

But the saver has already had their income taxed , have they not

 

[chip]

This should be Labour's starting point. If they used this example then even the most stupid person could grasp what Starmer is so far unable to communicate:

Employee with £18,570 gross salary sole income source pays £1,678.20 in tax / NI

Saver receiving £18,570 interest sole income source pays £NIL tax / NI.

I think they would be paying tax on £1000 above their tax code so ~£1200

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Probably the same people who a decade earlier were furious that the Government stepped in to prop up the banks during the financial crisis (although that obviously excluded the bank which they had their savings / mortgage with)

To be fair there’s is a difference, in that the majority of it has been repaid.

The bailout funds were converted to equity and of the c£137b paid roughly £100B has been repaid. The UKG still have a 40% stake in NatWest which will be sold in the next couple of years.

Still a significant cost but equally not an unsecured write off

 

[chip]

This should be Labour's starting point. If they used this example then even the most stupid person could grasp what Starmer is so far unable to communicate:

Employee with £18,570 gross salary sole income source pays £1,678.20 in tax / NI

Saver receiving £18,570 interest sole income source pays £NIL tax / NI.

You'd also need £464250 in savings. Maybe those savings in NS&I income bonds (4%), providing government borrowing. You wouldn't get any benefits either whereas your employed person would. The capital would also reduce with inflation. I hope Starmer is more honest than you want him to be.

 

[Weststander]

The worry is that Starmer can't tell the difference between active and passive income.

If he thinks someone who receives dividends is not a working person then millions of owner-managed directors who take low salary, high dividends from their own businesses are in for a big shock on Wednesday.

I thought, for 4 years, people might be having this conversation once Starmer gained power.

4m owner directors of small limited companies, many who’d been desperate for a change of government. Who didn’t cotton on that a bigger spending government would come after them for greater taxes and NI.

 

[Bodian]

But the saver has already had their income taxed , have they not

Not if was tax-free interest added to the savings.

I think they would be paying tax on £1000 above their tax code so ~£1200

Not if it's ISAs - they're all tax-free.

And the £1k only applies to people with other income of £17.5k. If you have no other income, then I think you can earn savings interest up to the normal tax threshold (£12,570), plus the personal savings allowance.

Edit - no, if your 'other income' is nil, it looks like your £1k PSA is upped to £5k.

 

[chip]

Not if was tax-free interest added to the savings.

Not if it's ISAs - they're all tax-free.

And the £1k only applies to people with other income of £17.5k. If you have no other income, then I think you can earn savings interest up to the normal tax threshold (£12,570), plus the personal savings allowance.

Personal savings allowance is £1000 for basic rate.

It would take a lot of savings to get that much interest from ISAs, ~25 years.

In a way this misses the point, it is interest not income in this example. If you have £20K savings you might get £1K interest, at what point does this become income? I imagine most of us get an income (interest) under this definition.