New Labour government - legislative agenda

[littlebabyjesus]

If the government says the finances need fixing, there's an easy thing for them to do, which is to increase major taxes such as income tax rates. Somehow their 'tough choices' never seem to include that one. 14 years of the Tories have magically given us income tax rates that are just right.

 

[The39thStep]

Clearly since only 20% of over 70s voted Labour, they need to be gotten rid of. 60-69 year olds to be forbidden from aging.

Very similar to what was put forward by the continuity wing of the Remainers.

 

[Silas Loom]

If the government says the finances need fixing, there's an easy thing for them to do, which is to increase major taxes such as income tax rates. Somehow their 'tough choices' never seem to include that one.

Why not tax wealth instead? Land taxes, capital gains, dividend income. All up for grabs on October 30.

 

[two sheds]

The budget is going to have to do something special but somehow I doubt it. I'm undoubtedly biased but any of the solutions seem to be along along Corbyn-era lines and he must rule them out on principle.

Aside from things like halving rents (with compensations for proper individual hardship for landlords ) of course.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why not tax wealth instead? Land taxes, capital gains, dividend income. All up for grabs on October 30.

There are lots of options for actually progressive taxation in which those who are richer pay more. Means-testing pensioners for a fuel allowance isn't progressive. Neither is removing the 25% council tax discount for single people.

Point is that these cuts are a choice. Stating that any cuts are needed at all is a choice.

 

[Silas Loom]

There are lots of options for actually progressive taxation in which those who are richer pay more. Means-testing pensioners for a fuel allowance isn't progressive.

Point is that these cuts are a choice. Stating that any cuts are needed at all is a choice.

BIB - how on earth can you say that means-testing isn’t progressive? It’s the very definition of progressive, in the narrow economic sense which contrasts with regressive or proportional taxation and distribution.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

Band A houses are usually pretty small, so this just a reprise of the argument that has been trotted out several times on this thread about studios and two bedroom flats. Since it’s you, though, I’ll assume it’s being deployed in good faith.

I am not suggesting that anyone in Band A downsizes. Why would I?

The heftiest council tax bills, where 25% discounts make the greatest difference, apply only to the largest houses - which it could be argued should really be occupied by families, given the general shortage of housing. In these cases, of course, equity easily funds the moving costs and stamp duties.

Single people - especially the widowed elderly - have a perfect right to occupy very large houses that they feel comfortable in, but it’s reasonable to question property tax incentives for this choice.

Thank you, yes, it was a genuine question, as I took what you said quite literally (being autistic, I often do).

So I was a bit perplexed, as I wasn't just thinking about me in my three-bedroom ex-council flat, but also all the two-up two-down terraces in so many towns and cities in the north, which are usually Band A. And if single people were supposed to downsize to one bed properties, there wouldn't be enough and it wouldn't make a difference re council tax anyway.

Btw, in theory, I could/should downsize, but in reality, I'm sort of asset rich, cash poor. I don't have any savings to pay for solicitor's conveyancing fees, moving costs, etc., although there's enough equity to fund those costs retrospectively, but you tend to have to pay upfront for such services, and I'd hazard a guess lots of other people face similar constraints.

 

[two sheds]

Is there a reason that peoples' incomes can't just be taken from their tax returns? Data privacy, something else? The problem is that people are having to apply for pension credits isn't it?

 

[Silas Loom]

Is there a reason that peoples' incomes can't just be taken from their tax returns? Data privacy, something else? The problem is that people having to apply for it isn't it?

DWP and HMRC barely communicate, much less share records electronically. I’m sure there are data protection reasons to hide behind, but essentially it’s the two biggest beasts in Whitehall IT, operating on completely incompatible systems while defending their turf, and they have never been at peace since tax credits were introduced, which DWP saw as tanks on their lawn.

 

[Chz]

DWP and HMRC barely communicate, much less share records electronically. I’m sure there are data protection reasons to hide behind, but essentially it’s the two biggest beasts in Whitehall IT, operating on completely incompatible systems while defending their turf, and they have never been at peace since tax credits were introduced, which DWP saw as tanks on their lawn.

This. So much this. When you think about how conceptually it should not be unduly difficult to have a fairer system of taxation and benefits, but you'd have to destroy half of Government and rebuild it, it's then that I glimpse things through the eyes of the "Revolution is the only way forward" crowd.

 

[Silas Loom]

This. So much this. When you think about how conceptually it should not be unduly difficult to have a fairer system of taxation and benefits, but you'd have to destroy half of Government and rebuild it, it's then that I glimpse things through the eyes of the "Revolution is the only way forward" crowd.

Lord preserve us from govtech revolutionaries, though. I still have nightmares about Francis Maude and his henchmen. Mad as boxes of frogs.

 

[Sasaferrato]

in favour? that's against the 'have a go at pensioners' option. You mean voted No?

Voted in favour of the cut.

 

[brogdale]

Meanwhile, here in Starmerisle...

 

[agricola]

If the government says the finances need fixing, there's an easy thing for them to do, which is to increase major taxes such as income tax rates. Somehow their 'tough choices' never seem to include that one. 14 years of the Tories have magically given us income tax rates that are just right.

TBF though the problem is not one of the government not having the money to do what it wants, the problem is the government (this and every one back to Thatcher's) is doing what it wants with the money that it has.

Raising taxes, on anyone rich or poor, will do nothing positive if the government continues to pour money away on all the usual things - PFI / outsourcing rather than doing things in house, selling off state assets rather than acquiring them, setting up fake yet wasteful internal markets (such as in the NHS, in tertiary education and on the railway), subsidizing landlords via HB rather than building social housing that generates money back to the government, procurement (in every sector), wildly overpaid managerial sector and so on and so forth. HMG wastes, deliberately hundreds of billions a year and no amount of extra money will ever fix the problems they have caused.

I think it is eminently, arguably easily possible for the government to cut taxes, cut government spending (and ultimately the level of national debt), and improve considerably the services and support that it provides to its citizens in the process.

 

[Petcha]

I'm not a Labour voter. But wtf were they supposed to do on the prison problem?

 

[smokedout]

Band A houses are usually pretty small, so this just a reprise of the argument that has been trotted out several times on this thread about studios and two bedroom flats. Since it’s you, though, I’ll assume it’s being deployed in good faith.

I am not suggesting that anyone in Band A downsizes. Why would I?

The heftiest council tax bills, where 25% discounts make the greatest difference, apply only to the largest houses - which it could be argued should really be occupied by families, given the general shortage of housing. In these cases, of course, equity easily funds the moving costs and stamp duties.

Single people - especially the widowed elderly - have a perfect right to occupy very large houses that they feel comfortable in, but it’s reasonable to question property tax incentives for this choice.

So re-evaluate the council tax bands then so people in big houses pay their fair share. This is a vicious proposal, that will hit lone parents, widows, disabled people, couples who have seperated or older people living on their own and most of these groups will not be in larger properties than they need or be able to downsize their way out of it. It's a tax on misfortune which will be devastating to the poorest, many of whom are already in huge arrears after the Tories localised and cut Council Tax benefits.

 

[Chz]

I'm not a Labour voter. But wtf were they supposed to do on the prison problem?

According to the guy on the radio, Labour should have built new prisons, trained new staff, and had them open and running inside two months. Which would have admittedly been really impressive.

 

[stethoscope]

and gaming

Still doing so, @Kid_Eternity anything to offer regarding your shit Labour pals? or too excited over apple's next iphone?

 

[PTK]

.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

.

(reply to now deleted post also deleted)

 

[PTK]

umm

state pension is based on your national insurance contributions over your working life, not on your income in retirement - you can get state pension and continue working and / or have a private pension or works pension/s.

The income tax people will need to know about it all, but DWP won't know about any of that unless you apply for pension credit and give them proof of income.

Yes, I realised that I had made a mistake, and deleted the contents of my post. However, the DWP will know who is not receiving the full pension. But they Pension Credit will only be paid to those who have not got another source of income that puts them above the limit. I was confusing applying for Housing Benefit, when you have to disclose other pensions.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

This is useful.



What passes for a left in the PLP has already had the whip withdrawn by Starmer or been expelled.

The rest of them are rotten to the core as they’ve demonstrated today, happily voting to freeze the poor.

Given that Starmer’s foul brand of centrism is inevitably going to usher in far worse at the next GE, the independents and Greens need to begin planning for a left alternative offer to the populist right and dying centrists now.

 

[PTK]

This is useful.



What passes for a left in the PLP has already had the whip withdrawn by Starmer or been expelled.

The rest of them are rotten to the core as they’ve demonstrated today, happily voting to freeze the poor.

Given that Starmer’s foul brand of centrism is inevitably going to usher in far worse at the next GE, the independents and Greens need to begin planning for a left alternative offer to the populist right and dying centrists now.

I am not sure if the peole listed are members of the Socialist Campaign Group. I have established that Dan Carden resigned from it

 

[PTK]

I am not sure if the peole listed are members of the Socialist Campaign Group. I have established that Dan Carden resigned from it

And Rachel Hopkins resigned from the SCG.

 

[taperoo2k]

If the government says the finances need fixing, there's an easy thing for them to do, which is to increase major taxes such as income tax rates. Somehow their 'tough choices' never seem to include that one. 14 years of the Tories have magically given us income tax rates that are just right.

They boxed themselves into a corner by saying they wouldn't raise National Insurance or Income tax. They could have raised those with a bit of uproar from some.
But why they've chosen such dim witted policy of taking away the WFA is beyond me. I had a feeling they'd be making some questionable choices but
I didn't expect this. I can see them slashing Universal Credit payments and PIP as well.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I am not sure if the peole listed are members of the Socialist Campaign Group. I have established that Dan Carden resigned from it

Whether they are or arent what’s clear is that anyone who purports to hold left politics and had argued for a labour vote on the basis of some vague hopes of a left revival of Labour now needs to give their head a wobble.

 

[PTK]

This is useful.



What passes for a left in the PLP has already had the whip withdrawn by Starmer or been expelled.

The rest of them are rotten to the core as they’ve demonstrated today, happily voting to freeze the poor.

Given that Starmer’s foul brand of centrism is inevitably going to usher in far worse at the next GE, the independents and Greens need to begin planning for a left alternative offer to the populist right and dying centrists now.

It appears that Olivia Blake is the only member of Socialist Campaign Group amongst the posted list if MPs who voted for the abolition of the Winter Fuel Allowance.

Dan Carden and Rachel Hopkins resigned from the SCG this year.

It seems that Steve Witherden, Connor Naismith, Anneliese Midgley, Brian Leishman, and Irene Campbell were never members of the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

BIB - how on earth can you say that means-testing isn’t progressive? It’s the very definition of progressive, in the narrow economic sense which contrasts with regressive or proportional taxation!

For starters, means-testing isn't progressive because it removes people's dignity. It also misses many of those eligible, which I keep repeating but is a very important point.

But it isn't progressive in strictly mathematical terms either, not in the same way as taxes that take a proportion of income/wealth. This is where you paying for others as well as yourself comes into it.

So let's say you're a high earner. Your personal contribution towards a universal payment of £1,000 works out at £3,000. But you get the £1,000 payment as well, so you're paying £2,000 net. Let's say the payment is made means-tested and only a third of the people now get it. So your contribution towards that is reduced by two-thirds. Now you're paying £1,000 and not receiving the £1,000 so you're paying £1,000 net, half what you were paying before.

Moving from universalism to means testing means that the richest pay less.

That's a generalisable principle that applies to pretty much any kind of govt expenditure. And that's before accounting for the increased costs of administration and the fact that you are now missing more of those in need than you were before.

So it's not progressive. It's also less efficient and less effective.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

Is there a reason that peoples' incomes can't just be taken from their tax returns? Data privacy, something else? The problem is that people are having to apply for pension credits isn't it?

HMRC report people's PAYE earnings to DWP in sort of real-time in order for DWP to eg calculate Universal Credit payments, which fluctuate depending on earnings.

I suppose a big unknown quantity is unearned income in the sense of non-job earnings, like interest on savings, dividends from stock holdings, freelance/self-employed income, which are reliant on people reporting them retrospectively in their income tax filings.

 

[teuchter]

So let's say you're a high earner. Your personal contribution towards a universal payment of £1,000 works out at £3,000. But you get the £1,000 payment as well, so you're paying £2,000 net. Let's say the payment is made means-tested and only a third of the people now get it. So your contribution towards that is reduced by two-thirds. Now you're paying £1,000 and not receiving the £1,000 so you're paying £1,000 net, half what you were paying before.

Whether the high earner pays more or less depends on what numbers you plug in.

Also, this assumes that taxes are reduced in line with the savings from means testing which is not what's being done here. If means testing is introduced and tax on the high earner is not changed, they are still paying £3000 and you are not giving them £1000 back. Of the £3000 they are paying, only £1000 is needed to fund the scheme so you have £2000 to fund something else as well.