[Politics] The Labour Government

[carlzeiss]

Don't think enough has been said about farmers. OK get they want to get the super rich but what truly functioning family farm is worth less than £1m? Pokey small hobby farms favoured by their mates not your average productive family farm. Who's going to buy the land to pay the tax? Big ltd company conglomerates who give a shit about animal welfare or the countryside.

These days we get most of our food from the supermarkets or takeaways so who needs farmers anyway

 

[drew]

Simple solution for the farms would be to defer IHT provided the land is passed to a family member and that is continued to be used productively as a working farm. Thelt moment that ceases, IHT becomes payable at the rate and value at that time.

Alternatively, farmers can do a bit of IHT planning and transfer assets to family and hope they don't die in the next 7 years!!!

 

[chip]

GPs have always been employed as contractors and yes it harks back to the days at the birth of the NHS. Apparently many GPs weren't keen on their businesses being taken over, many worked out of their own homes & guess it's never been looked at to change. GPs can charge for things like vaccinations for overseas travel, couldn't if they were directly employed by NHS.

I only know GPs who work in the NHS so my knowledge is limited, but my understanding is that there's quite a difference in being a salaried GP or a partner. There's a recruitment problem with GPs, it would seem like a good time to pilot NHS GPs integrated with social care, MH, etc. perhaps as hospital satellites. I think, from memory, the mayor of Manchester is doing something like this. For example, you only need to visit a reasonable sized hospital A&E to see large numbers of elderly people in terrible situations. It's where many get diagnosed with age-related illness and, in a lot of cases, could and should have been identified earlier. It's not a very caring system and it is terribly inefficient.

 

[BLOCK F]

Quite a few comments on here in praise of the budget, mainly by those who are supporters of the Government (no surprise there), but whilst the Chancellor’s proposals may satisfy their political views, the real test of the budget has to be, will it do any good for the economy and improve the lives of the people of this country?
We shall see, but today’s Times didn’t appear to me to have much good to say about the budget, with the IFS and OBR weighing in with quite a lot of criticism, as did other budget centric articles and comment.
Regardless of one’s own political views, we have all got to hope it comes good for everyone’s sake.
Well, we’ll find out over the coming months and years.

 

[Machiavelli]

Quite a few comments on here in praise of the budget, mainly by those who are supporters of the Government (no surprise there), but whilst the Chancellor’s proposals may satisfy their political views, the real test of the budget has to be, will it do any good for the economy and improve the lives of the people of this country?
We shall see, but today’s Times didn’t appear to me to have much good to say about the budget, with the IFS and OBR weighing in with quite a lot of criticism, as did other budget centric articles and comment.
Regardless of one’s own political views, we have all got to hope it comes good for everyone’s sake.
Well, we’ll find out over the coming months and years.

To return to a previous exchange, they're betting on growth. As the projections indicate, there's not too much of it forecast. I suspect that the forecast will be fairly accurate. Piketty said back in 2013 that we're in a low growth regime and that's been borne out, and think we're going to have to adjust to it -- demographic changes in Europe are bound to have that effect, as has happened in Japan this century.
Within that, there's the question of how much growth and how low it goes. My position is that there will be more of it via RR strategy than what's come before under the litany of predecessors post-Brown.

 

[Bry Nylon]

To return to a previous exchange, they're betting on growth. As the projections indicate, there's not too much of it forecast. I suspect that the forecast will be fairly accurate. Piketty said back in 2013 that we're in a low growth regime and that's been borne out, and think we're going to have to adjust to it -- demographic changes in Europe are bound to have that effect, as has happened in Japan this century.
Within that, there's the question of how much growth and how low it goes. My position is that there will be more of it via RR strategy than what's come before under the litany of predecessors post-Brown.

It’s a tricky one to balance and I don’t envy RR deciding how to place her bets. No question she had to raise money to repair public services that have been hollowed out and run into the ground.

But instinctively, I believe that taxing the generators of wealth makes it really tough to get the investment needed to grow the economy. Already businesses are looking how they can make cuts to either staff or investment plans to absorb the higher NI rates, increased business rates, increase in the minimum wage and new employment legislation. Doing all of these things at once is a bold move, especially if you are bettting on growth.

Let’s hope the government spend our money wisely. Governments of all shades typically have a v poor record in this regard.

 

[Machiavelli]

It’s a tricky one to balance and I don’t envy RR deciding how to place her bets. No question she had to raise money to repair public services that have been hollowed out and run into the ground.

But instinctively, I believe that taxing the generators of wealth makes it really tough to get the investment needed to grow the economy. Already businesses are looking how they can make cuts to either staff or investment plans to absorb the higher NI rates, increased business rates, increase in the minimum wage and new employment legislation. Doing all of these things at once is a bold move, especially if you are bettting on growth.

Let’s hope the government spend our money wisely. Governments of all shades typically have a v poor record in this regard.

Yes, think you're right on this. Paul Johnson was perplexed at how they've front-loaded spending and whether they will get VFM out of it. But, as you say, public services really need a boost. Darren Jones has done the rounds and has been consistent: the money is there to help departments out initially, but a significant amount of the investment is there such that they can derive efficiency in the second half of the term via eg AI.
I'm confident that the minimum wage and benefit increases will generate Keynesian effects -- it'll be spent in economies rather than paying off interest/debt, and that'll have positive impacts more broadly on the economy. The investment in the green/energy transition will at the very least dampen malign impacts down the road. Beyond that, I don't really know and am not making predictions.

 

[amexer]

On tax can someone explain why there is no tax charged on bets or winnings. Surely there is more justification in this been taxed than many others

 

[abc]

In many ways meaningless, but the i are reporting a poll saying the tories have overtaken Labour. Surely Starmer et al must be wondering how they have managed to lose the country so quickly? I certainly am.

 

[BrightonCottager]

To add another dimension to the debates about the Labour Government, I met Chris Ward, MP for Kemptown and Peacehaven, yesterday about a water quality issue and was impressed by what he told me about the Government's intention to take on the polluters.

 

[Diablo]

To add another dimension to the debates about the Labour Government, I met Chris Ward, MP for Kemptown and Peacehaven, yesterday about a water quality issue and was impressed by what he told me about the Government's intention to take on the polluters.

Very easy to promise to do things....... It`s what they actually do that counts !!!

 

[dsr-burnley]

On tax can someone explain why there is no tax charged on bets or winnings. Surely there is more justification in this been taxed than many others

There is betting tax on bookmakers, though I don't know how it works nowadays. I suspect the reason it's not taxed as income is because logically that would mean losing bets could be allowed as expenses.

 

[Titanic]

Irrespective of politics, can anyone explain why it is a good idea to tax businesses just for employing people? Surely is suppresses both employment and wages?

The tax could be collected quite reasonably from individual income and company profits.

( this latest rise is an additional £902 per employee on median earnings on £33000, taking it from £3298 a year to £4200 )

 

[amexer]

There is betting tax on bookmakers, though I don't know how it works nowadays. I suspect the reason it's not taxed as income is because logically that would mean losing bets could be allowed as expenses.

Thanks. Like Cigs betting is such a non esential spend and when I do have the occasional £5 bet just surprised say 10% is not added to the bet as a betting tax

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Very easy to promise to do things....... It`s what they actually do that counts !!!

Yes, like compensation to the sub postmasters and blood contamination victims, but nobody has received it yet.

 

[Machiavelli]

Irrespective of politics, can anyone explain why it is a good idea to tax businesses just for employing people? Surely is suppresses both employment and wages?

The tax could be collected quite reasonably from individual income and company profits.

( this latest rise is an additional £902 per employee on median earnings on £33000, taking it from £3298 a year to £4200 )

Employers NICs are not a new thing. They've just gone up. Note that there were other measures in the budget that took a lot of very small employers out of employers NICs altogether.
I can't delve into the minds of RR, SKS, DJ, etc but two things spring to mind.

First, they needed to raise money to repair the shower of sh!te they'd been left with (note that pre-election you couldn't provide one beneficial thing that had been achieved during the past 14 years, something even I've managed to do). They were backed into a corner by Hunt's two terrible NI cuts which damaged the public finances, as the OBR testify.

Second, many employers will 'consider things in the round', and some of the other measures will generate economic activity which will leave them in a situation where they actually do employ more people. Other measures have been taken to prevent the suppression of wages at the lower level. Workers have had to accept lower wages for at least a decade, probably more. This might lead me to question why you're all of a sudden concerned about such things.

As to the substantial point you're raising, I suspect that you're right that it'll have deleterious effects. I'm still disappointed that they didn't go after US big tech more in trying to generate more tax and also closing down more loopholes that the asset-rich use to avoid taxation. But it's probably the case that wanting to generate more tax in those areas is easier said than done, and I'm not aware of all the mechanisms that accountants and lawyers will use to get round them. The two posters that I know of that are most likely to be able to explain this and/or identify areas/assets where it'll be harder to avoid are @Weststander and @Pavilionaire.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The inheritance tax on farmland is a bad bit of business all round - very poor and will be the end of some family farms for sure.

Tge last Government knew exactly which loopholes needed closing but couldn’t/wouldn’t do it.

Without doubt this Government know exactly which loophole needs closing but I very much doubt they will do it.

You yourself… on this very thread have said Exactly which loophole needs closing - your own caveat being that it won’t happen because it’s too hard!!!

It’s not the case that nobody should criticise Government policy unless they have a better idea, as you so very often imply on here.

I don’t get the farm argument tbh

Let’s just take a typical adult having kids 20-35, living to say 70-85 or so. If they’re passing a farm to their child who is working the farm, why on earth by the time the farmer is 70 odd and presumably no longer working the farm, and the child is say 50 - haven’t they already sorted the ownership and business model out?

You have both Partnership and Limited Liability Partnership models, as well as going the Limited Company route.

No way I would work my arse off on the family farm into my 40s and 50s and be given nothing of it until my parent dies.

If you’ve got to your death in reasonable old age and given nothing to your offspring if they’ve worked hard on your farm all their lives then paying that tax is your own fault imho. Any reasonable person could logically see that as your child showed passion and enterprise and ability to work the farm, you would be offloading assets and control to them within your own lifetime.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Simple solution for the farms would be to defer IHT provided the land is passed to a family member and that is continued to be used productively as a working farm. Thelt moment that ceases, IHT becomes payable at the rate and value at that time.

Alternatively, farmers can do a bit of IHT planning and transfer assets to family and hope they don't die in the next 7 years!!!

Or just go Limited Company and share assets, distribute shares, make offspring directors etc. There’s a lot of noise about this more likely related to an antiquated view of landownership and inheritance that actually running the farm business.

How a limited company structure can help farming businesses - Farmers Weekly

Most farm business owners should investigate whether trading as a company would be beneficial to them, says Iain McVicar, head of the farms and estates

www.fwi.co.uk

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Life long labour supporter.

So far, it's very difficult to be enthused by this lot.

Mikdly better than the last Tory govenment, wasn't what I was hoping for.

 

[Bodian]

I don’t get the farm argument tbh

Let’s just take a typical adult having kids 20-35, living to say 70-85 or so. If they’re passing a farm to their child who is working the farm, why on earth by the time the farmer is 70 odd and presumably no longer working the farm, and the child is say 50 - haven’t they already sorted the ownership and business model out?

You have both Partnership and Limited Liability Partnership models, as well as going the Limited Company route.

No way I would work my arse off on the family farm into my 40s and 50s and be given nothing of it until my parent dies.

If you’ve got to your death in reasonable old age and given nothing to your offspring if they’ve worked hard on your farm all their lives then paying that tax is your own fault imho. Any reasonable person could logically see that as your child showed passion and enterprise and ability to work the farm, you would be offloading assets and control to them within your own lifetime.

You're right - and of course there are loads of other family businesses around that don't get this whopping IHT exemption. But because of the previous IHT exemption farming families didn't need to think that way - because it simply didn't matter. They had no need to make provisions for inheritance and so on - because it would just pass down without any bother.

But I do think you also misunderstand the deep seated nature of some farming families. In many there is no way the father is going to cede any control or ownership to his sons / daughter (especially the latter) - because it is 'his' farm, and things will be done 'his way'.

They'll soon change their business models to sort this out - they're a financially canny breed.