According to the Guardian this morning, pressure is being brought to bear on Rachel Reeves to impose more taxes on wealth as a way to speed up and enhance the scale of investment in Labour's plans for reform when in government.
The direct pressure appears to be coming from trade unions. They are, unfortunately, largely ignored by Labour these days.
Other pressure comes from comments in the media, like this article by Josh Ryan-Collins in the Guardian yesterday.
Even Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies is raising the issue.
The consensus is around three things. The first is that Labour's plans cannot be funded on the basis of the announcements already made.
The second is that this problem can only get worse as an election approaches because it will become increasingly apparent that what Labour is saying makes no sense unless additional funding sources are found.
Third, given that tax pressures on lower-income households are already at their likely limit, the additional revenues required to tackle the risk of inflation arising from future government spending must be sought from those with higher incomes and, most especially, above-average income from wealth.
The Taxing Wealth Report 2024 is proving timely. It is also being noticed. I gather it got several mentions at the Green Party conference, and I know other parties are taking note.
No one will implement all the ideas included within it. I do not suggest that they should. Instead, it presents a range of options that can be debated. The need is real. My intention has always been to provide the potential answers to the problems that we face in raising more tax from those most able to pay it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Who should pay taxes? Those with money, who can afford to pay.
Agreed
Agreed re the need to raise more taxes from the wealthy. The question then is who is defined as wealthy, what is wealth and what sort of taxes are used. Thats where there will be disagreements.
I address this, persistently, in the TWR 2024.
The problem is, everyone with wealth is in denial of the fact.
You seem to define people earning 50k as wealthy.. well it might be above the median but in the SE and with a family it doesn’t go far…for that reason this “crusade” will fail.
Where did I say that?
And this is not a crusade. It is about creating a necessary debate.
You really don’t get it, do you?
Not everyone with wealth is against paying more tax. For example, Jo Maugham was working with Dale Vince according to one of your other threads. I imagine you count Dale Vince as someone with wealth.
There is a group called Patriotic Millionaires whose motto is Tax Wealth not Work who agree with you.
Taxation reinforces democracy and curbs the self interest of the rich.
I’m all for it.
I wouldn’t say that ‘tax pressures on lower-income households are already at their likely limit’. Tax pressures on lower-income households in other European countries are actually higher. The problem is expenses outside of tax that make any increased tax pressure on such households practically impossible. I’m talking mostly about housing and child-care costs. Can two people on median (or even considerably above) wage living in rented accommodation or with a mortgage with a pre-school child absorb more tax than they’re paying now? I very much doubt so. A single person (particularly a parent) even less so. Could a retired person living on 25 or 30k a year in paid-off or council house/flat absorb more tax than they are paying now. Most certainly so.
I’m not arguing for more tax for people on lower or average incomes (tax on wealth should definitely be a priority), but tax pressure itself when it comes to lower or average-income households isn’t the problem – but practically more or less everything else.
I think you are simply clarifying my point
Retired people, the same as anyone else, pay tax on income above £12,570.
Why should they pay more than anyone else?
I pay £20 a month more tax this year than last year simply because my taxfree personal allowance has not gone up, just like everyone else with an income above £12570.
https://patrioticmillionaires.uk/latest-news/release-patriotic-millionaires-uk-invites-rich-lister-rishi-sunak-to-become-a-member
Love this. Any chance of him agreeing?
https://patrioticmillionaires.uk/latest-news/report-out-of-touch-when-it-comes-to-taxing-extreme-wealth-the-house-of-commons-flags-behind-even-the-richest-in-the-country
And this.
77% of Labour supporters are in favour of the idea, but only 6% of tory MPs, and none on the labour front bench. I wonder why that is. Are they afraid of being ejected from the front bench, or even the party?
But wealth taxes are nigh impossible to collect for reasons I have discussed before
Yes, I realise that.
However, what makes me feel optimistic about taxing wealth is that you must see from this how many people in power are on your side.
Which forms of wealth would be included and which forms of wealth would be excluded from this, and why the difference?
Why not read the link to the report?
How do we decide who is best able to pay more taxes?
You’ve previously said that there are people on above average wages who have told you that they literally could not live on median incomes. And there are people who earn less than 12.5k who could pay more but choose not to, because they don’t need to – they have enough wealth or welfare (2 extremes i know) not to need to push their paid contribution to society above the basic rate threshold.
We have parliamentary democracy to do that
I don’t understand that.
Who do you know who lives on less than £12,500 who can afford to pay more tax?