Rachel Reeves is not, and never has been, a Labour politician. Neither indeed, is Keir Starmer. They are nothing other than closet Tories, and the current version of Labour is pure blue Tory as we are now discovering.
Success is not built on success. It's built on failure, It's built on frustration. it's built on fear that you have to overcome. I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in Life
Some persons think inves'tin is all about buying stocks; I think going into the stock market without a good experience is a big risk, tone like mrs Geraldine Lane.
I began investing in stocks and Def earlier this year, and it is the best choice I've ever made. My portfolio is rounding up to almost a million and I have realized that when a stock makes it to the news, chances are you're quite late to the party, the idea is to get in early on blue chips before it becomes public. There are lots of life changing opportunities in the market, and maximize it.
That's why taxing the mega rich is the way to go.the wealth of the uk billionaires has increased by 300% during the period of tory misrule rule.they are the people most able to shoulder the extra tax and that Loss of wealth will have zero effect on their life style and will allow the country to make the investments so badly needed for rebuilding our frastucture which will benifit everyone in our country.
Isn't it depressing that such reasonable, rational and moderate ideas seem like radical revolution compared to what is actually on offer from this Labour government?
@@DewiSant-o3y When I retire I'm planning on paying as little in tax as possible. I don't mind paying tax, I just don't like governments, especially Labour governments, squandering my money.
@@kw8757Am already retired and that’s exactly how I feel. If the tax I pay was put to good use I’d have no issue paying but when you look at the nonsensical ideas politicians have it’s clear the majority of our money gets wasted.
Morally repugnant on so many levels. A manifesto to tax the middle class yet again. Tax those that are trying to provide for their own future by taxing your wage, then tax pension contributions, then tax pension withdrawals!!! A manifesto to ensure you remain dependent on the state. We will tax your freedom of movement cars are so evil, you must walk. We will tax your parents' estate so you cannot benefit from their lifetime of hard work. We will cause inflation by MMT and then tax your house by pretending it has gone up in value. This is a recipe for universal poverty.
The ugliness of socialist policies laid bare. I pay tax at a highest marginal rate of 60%. I am not willing to pay a penny more, if my taxes go up I will cut back and the Chancellor will lose more than I do.
It's not the first time he's come up with a recipe for universal poverty. Have a read of the tax proposals he came up with for Common Weal ("A Scottish Tax System - Imagining the Future"). If such idiotic suggestions had been put into practice it would have caused economic collapse.
My previous reply in support has been deleted. Suffice it to say at my level of income more people benefit if I am incentivised to keep grinding away whereas far more people lose including the taxman if more taxes are piled on. You choose.
It's morally repugnant to think that you should be able to drive around in a polluting vehicle, of which the toxic fumes cause a whole host of chronic issues including cancer, stroke, dementia, heart disease, depression and infertility, without paying the necessary costs to cover these externalities. Let's not forget that car driving itself is already heavily subsidised by the state and thus by non-drivers through general taxation. VED and fuel duty do NOT cover the costs of the car usage and infrastructure. Fuel duty has been frozen for years and it is relatively cheaper to drive an ICE vehicle now than it was a decade ago. Explains, as Richard said, why there are SUV's and grotesque pickup trucks everywhere now barrelling down tiny roads causing destruction and death wherever they go. It's also morally repugnant to think that extremely wealthy people should be able to pass down their ill-gotten gains to their descendants, thus passing down priveleges and advantages that the majority of the population will never receive, without giving just a bit more back to society to address the rampant generational inequality. This is not about getting rid of all inheritance, it's about making it fairer so that somebody can't just receive billions of pounds of assets and wealth by pure luck and chance. Look how that's worked out in the UK so far? We have a seemingly unremovable aristocracy that has and continues to cause devastation to the land in the UK. These so called 'custodians' of the land have effectively mismanaged and ruined it. This is not about you, unless you're mega rich. The selfishness of some of the replies is quite astounding. The Thatcherite legacy is still running strong in the UK. It's all about 'me', not about society. Look where that has led us to. (edit: spelling/typos)
@mxj-x2r Nah, UK started going downhill when it abolished slavery and gave voting rights to non-property owners. In the interest of the country, we should start treating those on benefits as second class citizens, in particular they should not get the right to vote. If you don't contribute, then you should have no right to decide how the money is distributed
Airlines are currently exempt from fuel duty, yet trains, cars, lorries, etc are not. It's true that nobody wants their imported food to suddenly become more expensive, but it would increase attempts to import from near neighbours when possible if there was a level playing field - in our case, Europe rather than the other side of the world.
This is a global issue - there doesn't seem to be any viable route for UK (for example) to apply a fuel duty tax on its own. Short of a full global agreement, maybe it is not inconceivable for a pan-EU air fuel duty tax - allowing UK to come to some agreement on that single issue. But how that would work for flights not within the EU+UK, I really have no idea.
HMRC have said raising CGT by 10% would reduce the amount gained by £2bn, this is the problem with socialist Labour economics, they don't work in the real world.. Have a CGT rate in line with income tax seem sensible until you realise you can buy assets in a company and pay way less, and some people hold assets for an extremely long time, if you earn £20k a year so are a 20% tax payer but have an asset that gains £10k a year but you sell it after 20yrs you will have a gain of £200k and pay 45% tax on a lot of it but if you invested elsewhere that gave you an income of £10k a year then over 20yrs you still get the £200k gain but you only pay 20% tax, that does not seem fair, if you invest in ISA's you can build up a substantial pot over the years and pay no tax... People will change their behaviour which is why HMRC say you will reduce the tax.. I stopped working 5yrs ago at 35 because I get income from other sources, if I work I pay 40% income tax and 9% NI, plus other taxes that were increased in the previous government and reduced allowances etc means my effective tax rate is 72%, after paying for commuting etc its just not worth me working, I pay way less tax than I did before and the higher taxation means the government gets less tax, I also spend less and am less productive so the government loses in reduced tax and the economy loses.... Read the story of the 10 blokes that went to the pub and paid for their beer in the same way tax is worked out and you will realise higher taxation is not the answer...
A lot of people paying relatively small amounts of CGT can probably "defer" the CGT to a later year if the person does not need the money to live on or, for example, if a landlord can keep renting somewhere out rather than sell a property. According to the government, most CGT comes from the small number of taxpayers who make the largest gains. In the 2022 to 2023 tax year, 41% of CGT came from those who made gains of £5 million or more. This group represents less than 1% of CGT taxpayers each year. 8% of CGT came from disposals that qualified for Business Asset Disposal Relief (BADR) i.e. the selling or liquidation of companies. London and the South East of England accounted for around half of total gains (48%) and CGT liability (50%). About 10% came from property sales. Approximately one third of CGT taxpayers have gains under £25,000 and this group contributes around 1% of total CGT. 66% of total CGT comes from those making more than £1m gain. So why is the CGT allowance so bloody low? Raise the allowance a bit and raise the tax. If all the people making up to £50k gain were not taxed then CGT tax revenue would go down by just 3.5%. The admin burden would reduce and a large number of people will pay less individual tax while the richest can be taxed more. E.g. ignoring any allowance change, increase the tax by just 2% on those who make >£1m gain and you probably have an increase in CGT tax revenue of about 7%. Please, challenge my figures; they could be wrong.
Don't tax those who would otherwise spend and support the economy, tax instead those who have wealth that is not being spent or used to support the economy.
It's early days yet but labour have truly lost their way forward . Their rhetoric and their actions are two different things which is the worst case scenario because it's like being in the dark .
The issue I see with raising all of the aforementioned tax rates is that you don’t end up actually taxing the real rich, the ones with trust funds and shell companies and ownership structures because these are the same people that fund the political parties’ election campaigns and so they will never actually redistribute wealth. All your tax measures above will be paid by the same people that always brunt the majority of the tax reforms and that is the middle class, and whilst in the short term you may raise taxes, it will hinder growth and lead to an exodus of these high salarial earners to other countries with lower tax burdens. That’s because the people who pay the most tax aren’t employers and estate/business owners rather those who are employed and have a salary, and the companies who pay well are MNCs and so these people would have alternatives and be wanted elsewhere where they aren’t crucified for working hard and reaching the top. Going along your line of thought, should we redistribute GCSE grades from this who have the highest marks down to those who failed all of them?
Typical left-wing thinking. 1st step is to identify & cut the wasted money. The options presented simply encourage tax to go up & up & up. That's the logical conclusion
"Going along your line of thought, should we redistribute GCSE grades from this who have the highest marks down to those who failed all of them?" That's a strange analogy. You're either impyling that those people who got higher GCSE grades don't deserve them, or if they do, that billionaires deserve the billions that they have accumulated (stolen) through the work of other people. So, maybe you think that a billionaire has earnt that money all by themselves? Perhaps Elon Musk genuinely has worked hundreds of billions of times harder than his employees and has not benefitted from a lenient tax system and undemocratic corporate structures which favours, obviously, those in charge of decision making 🤣
@@mxj-x2r I had assumed that people would have interpreted this analogy in the context of my message as it would have made sense then, but I will expand on it so that you may understand. First of all I am not implying that those who work hard for their grades don't deserve it, in fact it is the opposite I think they do. The same way the people earn good money (on salaries), have also had to have worked hard for them whether you like it or not. Secondly, it is a quite black/white view by saying billionaires either all deserved or didn't deserve any of it. Also, Net worth is not actualised so it isn't liquid money, and often quite difficult to accurately calculate. Today Musk may be worth $200bn, but tomorrow after a market crash he could be worth $50bn. And success is decided on what you bring to the market, and if you can add value to people's lives. Supply and demand. My point is that those billionaires wouldn't be in the conversation of having their GCSE results shared and redistributed because they would be the ones who would be absolved from it, as they would have helped those who would want that policy implemented, to get into power as they would have paid for their campaigns, and in return those ultra-wealthy would be protected. All the other common folk like your middle and working class who would have had to have worked hard for their grades would be the ones punished once again. That being said, no one earns billions by sitting on their arse, and I sense a bit of frustration (envy) at your describing of how they accumulated their wealth. Yes some may have accumulated their wealth in certain unfavourable ways, but don't let these hypocrites of labour socialists fool you into thinking they'll do something about it (Free-gear Keir is worth north of £7m, Corbyn the communist is worth north of £3m). They'll never be taxed or reprimanded for it because they pull the strings in the first place, funding their politicians to get into power. So don't expect their lenient tax-system to change in any way whatsoever. (Corporate structures is a whole 'nother topic where i agree that the marketplace is being monopolised by big funds - BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street - and give you the illusion of choice whilst squeezing every penny out of your pockets.)
Why not cut costs first, rather than the knee jerk 'tax more'? Areas like overseas aid, pointless non medical staff in the NHS, excess staffing in the Civil Service and more...
Many non-medical roles in the NHS are necessary, not pointless. Think about all the admin work that has to be done in a country-wide health system. Also, if you then cut a load of jobs, you lose out on the tax that you would have gained if they were still in work. If you were to, say, cut 100,000 public sector jobs, then those people will be unemployed, and there may well be 100,000 more people claiming universal credit. And that then means the fiscal deficit rises!! I'm not saying that every job in the public sector is vital, but we shouldn't try and implement deflationary policies to combat the economic mess that the UK is in right now. Especially because there is a much more reasonable response, one which Richard Murphy has talked about in many of his other videos - Modern Monetary Theory.
Overseas aid already was cut by a huge amount. Besides, that's not a lot compared to the revenue amounts that Richard has talked about. Why are you focusing on overseas aid and civil service staff? What do you think about capital gains tax? Corporation tax? Tax on wealth and assets and high polluters? What are your thoughts on those which we do not tax nowhere near enough
We have been had for centuries. The amount of educated people who genuinely think national economies are run like the household is staggering. When I tell them the messages from these very informative videos, they often look at me like I'm a moron. The general 'tax DOESN'T fund expenditure' message should be RAMMED home every single day. I recommend these videos to everyone I speak to and also "The secrets of Oz' video which tells the story of the Central Bank and usury scams absolutely brilliantly!
@MrMassivefavour unfortunately it's chicken and egg. Saying that taxes Don't fund expenditure is technically true. However, if you do not tax to cover expenditure, then inflation is violent because the money you have printed is worthless. So you tax to cover expenditure, or you only spend tax money, SAME THING. Be careful of who you accuse of being a moron because, essentially, they are just as correct as you are.
Brain drain is quite a strange (media created) and fairly disprespectful term to use. Especially considering it seems to discount the millions of people on so called 'low-skilled' work who do vastly more important work every day than your average banker and accountant does. You do realise we can also just train and educate people with the right public investment right? People who are willing to pay a fair share of tax relative to their wealth will always stay and work here. The others, good riddance to em. Many scientists and other professionals will gladly come from other countries to work here if necessary.
@@cleanhit777 He's advocating better targeted tax, and if you watched the video, he explains that it will benefit the majority of people and affect the wealthiest just a bit more. As it absolutely should. I would go even further and have a 100% tax rate on wealth and assets over £1 billion. Because we just do not need billionaires to exist.
Illegal immigrants …..no money can’t come in . Try registering in Spain as a resident to retire if you haven’t got money . One rule for them one rule for us . Cut MPS fuel allowance to Zero . That’ll also help their net zero con job . Labour utter disgrace ……resign .
You are entirely wrong on taxing pension contributions. It is not relief, it is delaying when you pay tax until the time you draw the funds. Otherwise you create double tax and strong disincentives to put money into a pension.
That’s not really true. I get 40% relief on my income but when I draw it out, I will be either using my 25% tax free allowance (so there’s a quarter gone straight away) and drawing the rest at either zero (up to my allowance) or at 20%. Further more, there are plenty of ways to avoid double income taxation, so changing the point at which it’s taxed need not mean double taxation.
@@debbiegilmour6171 ; Yes Debbie … You can get agricultural relief now - but in this video the mad professor is saying Labour should rid of it ! … (Which would cause a significant transfer of land from small holdings to giant corporations re-enforcing the belief that Labour, especially Starmer, hate the native English).
@@Hickalum It's not that they hate the native English (though that is a ridiculous notion for a party that is meant to be "British"), it's that they love mega corporations far too much. But I'm sure nobody is suggesting that generational farmers be afflicted by a removal of agricultural relief.
Before they follow your suggestion of redistributing wealth by further taxing those of us who have been prudent, worked hard, and made the choice to sacrifice our free time and other pleasures to make a good living for us and our families, perhaps the government should address mass immigration? Why should any of us work hard to help support the lifestyles of the ten million people in this country who were not born here or the millions more coming each year, most poor and poorly educated? Society cannot function like that. If you want to raise taxes, start by simplifying the tax laws and close the numerous loopholes which allows multi national corporations and UHNW individuals legally avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
That! Worked 75+ hours on average every week over my entire working life. Didn't pay myself dividends because it was wrong IMO, so paid myself PAYE. I'm not very wealthy, just about scrape into the millionaire bracket, but I worked hard for every penny. There should be some recognition of that.
I work for the NHS and Labour have given a 5% pay rise. At my grade that equates to about £44 per month. I am also a single occupier who gets 25% discount on council tax. If that 25% discount is removed I will have to pay an additional £58 per month so that will wipe out my pay increase. With energy, water and insurances all going up I will be about £85 per month worse off. Whatever your income or budget, we will all be worse off in the long run and for me personally, probably the rest of my life.
Very well said Richard. Labour could change the feeling of national depression at a stroke if they did this....and put a stop to rediculous, eye-watering 'bonuses' given to people who are already very wealthy.
People earning a 100k salary are not the problem - they're already paying plenty of income tax, and contributing to the economy through their spending. Nor are people retiring with 1m in assets (home+pension+ISAs) - that's just what is required for a comfortable retirement these days (house, travelling, eating out, supporting their grandkids etc), and we should be aiming for this to be the norm for a typical working person - not putting more barriers in the way. The issue is people with tens of millions or more in assets, raking in interest and rent from the lower economic classes, and then just sitting on their pile of money rather than feeding the economy by spending it.
@SocietalDefibrilation You need to understand the difference between tax rates and taxes. Taxes as a percentage of the economy are at the highest in over 70 years AND we are running a massive deficit. We are getting massive amounts of tax, what we have is a spending problem not a tax problem. Taxes are too high, higher than when the Beatles were complaining in song.
@@mikefish8226 Yes, but taxes are unfairly leveraged. That's the whole point, the tax burden as an overall percantage of the economy is high but it's not fairly distributed and directed in the right way. The government's plan makes no sense - expecting the private sector, which only interest is to maximise their own profits, to invest in public utilities (including labour) and infrastructure and then somehow this magical growth will result in higher tax revenues for the state which they will then use to finally invest in the public. It's all backwards. If we tax these corporations less, they won't just invest more, they'll pay more dividends to their shareholders. This has been clear for so long, it's absolute madness that a so-called Labour government believes in this ludicrous and demonstrably failed ideology. There's zero difference between this and the last government. The same neoliberal shite. Corporations and wealthy twats are running (ruining) this country.
10m not working because massive taxes mean there is no incentive to do so. The focus needs to be on reducing spending, rather than crushing workers and businesses.
Workers and businesses don't share the same values so I don't know why you have lumped them together. Amazon is a business and would you say it is being crushed through taxation? Unless you mean small businesses, then I share some sympathy. Reducing spending is the complete opposite of what we need to do. Public services and the public domain have already deteriorated so much in the UK, how can we possibly let that degradation carry on as you suggest? The private sector has ruined most of the public utilities they have been handed, such as water, rail, staffing, etc etc. They need to be removed from the public sector. 10 million are not working because of massive taxes? are you sure that's the reason, where did you get that analysis from?
You need to be more aware about how much someone on disability benefit actually gets!! Pip £185 ish a week, UC - rent plus £325 a week plus council tax, so all in all much more than the equivalent of £30k before tax for a working person!! Not to mention free travel, free parking and cost of living payment and warm home discount etc etc etc…… Who would be working on minimum wage eh!! A family member of mine struggled to spend it all and that was with Amazon wearing out the hallway carpets to his flat. Get real. And he was a single person!!
The vast majority of people on UC do not receive that amount at all. Are you talking about the maximum cap? Also, free travel and free parking? Are you just making this up? Send me links to where you got this information from please!
The kind of equity proposed in this video would also encourage growth. Trickle down is a lie: we have seen periods of higher growth after government-led investment. Put an extra £100 in the pocket of the average working family and they will spend it the local economy. Put the equivalent total in the accounts of the richest and they will either move it offshore or buy assets to rent back to us at extortionate prices. As the patriotic millionaires remind us: inequality stifles growth.
From $37K to $65K that's the minimum range of profit return every month I think it's not a bad one for me, now I have enough to pay bills and take care of my family. ❤️
Trading crypto now should be wise, but trading without an expert isn't advisable. I tried trading on my own but keep on losing. I think I'll give her a try
Venturing into crypto as a newbie was very difficult due to lack of experience which resulted in loosing funds......... But Rachel Friedman, restored hope shes a good woman
And that’s why I was so angry when we bent over backwards to accommodate the airline companies during the pandemic. I wonder how many thousands died of covid just because the companies wanted their profits and selfish barstards wanted their holidays 🤔🤬
They need to have the difficult conversations with the likes of The Energy wholesalers, Amazon, Google, Starbucks ect who get away with paying little or no tax. The reason we needed a winter fuel allowance in the first place is because of the ridiculous cost of standing charges and fuel. Tax the greedy energy wholesalers.
Worldwide available atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are at critically low extinction level of 0.04%. When carbon dioxide levels fall to 0.02% all plant photosynthesis will stop leading to the collapse of available atmospheric oxygen and human extinction.
I spent 40 years working in the private sector and was, because of my job, required to reduce input costs from suppliers and providers by 3-5% EVERY SINGLE YEAR. And to do so with ever-decreasing headcount numbers in my team(s). The ethos was (and is) DO MORE WITH LESS. Until the state, central and local, can demonstrate its INTENTION to replicate that approach to managing cost, it can pi55 off simply asking me for more tax every year.
Very good you just make people redundant, who then will make up your consumers and tax payers, you know the people that pay tax and buy your goods and services???????????????????????????
@@scottyfive4319 I was fortunate enough to never have to make anyone compulsorily redundant. We're not talking about mass redundancies here. People made individual choices on where they were going to take their work, their education, or indeed bring forward their retirement plans. Not everyone who leaves work becomes economically inactive and becomes the recipient of state benefits.
@@davidatkinson-lifematters4826 Well I have been made redundant twice, once because the company ultimately moved to another country and once due to lack of orders, although 5 months later they received a world manufacturing order for an American oil company. Both times I was too young to retire and did different things. In my experience it is very rare for redundancy to come at the right time, having said that a few hundred of the 2.5K+ people made redundant at the first place I worked were within the 55 - 65 age group with often 30+ years of service, so had choices.
The rich. No brainer. They can afford it. And still remain rich. They have got away with obscene tax breaks from the Tories who have savagely plundered the public purse and resources to the benefit of these obscenely rich people. Labour did give a clue during the election campaign. They said the burden to fall on the 'broadest shoulders'. Remember? I haven't seen any of that yet, but maybe the Budget will give some indication. We shall see.
VAT hits the poorest most because the poorest spend all their money, whereas the rich only spend a small fraction of their money. Tax should be on income, not spending.
@@tonyy452all the others I mentioned they are scared to tax , this guy is wrong about carbon , I thought he had more brains than get fooled by the climate wombles , the weather is not controlled by carbon , forget that and houses are not that expensive , people seem to believe they have a right to buy one without putting in the effort , if they work and save some money young people can easily afford high quality housing
@@helenheenan3447 you really think a carbon tax will change the weather ? If so can you detail what weather we can expect with differing levels of carbon tax ?
The primary benefit of a land tax, in my view, would be that it might force sale of land to reduce estate sizes. That sold off land could be used to build homes on.
Likewise removing agricultural inheritance tax relief. This would prompt a significant redistribution of farmland from private ownership to giant corporations (who don’t pay inheritance tax). And, no doubt, re-enforce the popular belief that Labour, and Starmer in particular, hate the ethnic English.
Capital gains tax on property would be a scam. If anybody knows this it’s the good professor. If my house goes up 5% it’s because the value of money has gone down 5%. So I gain nothing - but government tax me as if I have gained something, when I haven’t.
I came to know of your work through an interview on Tskysour. I have listened to most of your content and find it extremely beneficial. It would be great if you did a course on economic literacy giving a broad education of economic concepts and their application to condemnatory political economics?
When have you ever heard of the government being smaller, more efficient, or a reduction of staff, never! Its constant expansion, borrowing, and waste. We are at an incredibly high amount of taxation. When will it stop?
You’re going to have to explain how CGT for the most part isn’t just a tax on inflation Richard???? And taxing investment is bl00dy stupid. The issue the UK has that it’s low investment and one of the reasons is that growth and productivity poor. The investment risk will not be taken for no return. Therefore money is being invested in assets that yield rent and one of the results of that is the increasing property prices. Other than that, she’s coming for that pension you’ve been stuffing everything into Richard 😂
WHAT ABOUT GETTING RID OF THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT, HAVE LOCAL COUNCILS RUN BY HONEST RESPECTED PEOPLE WHERE THE ACCOUNTS ARE PUBLIC NO SPAFFING MONEY UP THE WALL OR TO YOUR UNCLE.
I do not agree with your suggestion to leverage more tax from property transactions. It is a tax on mobility. When industries decline and factories shut down we need the people in those areas to be more mobile so that they can move elsewhere to find work. We have over 40 years of decimated neighbourhoods and towns in the North East and South Wales because the people were put on permanent welfare and could not move away.
You tex the people who own the country you tax, the people that own your mortgage, you tax the people who own your debt own the assets of this country. They can’t remove these things so they can’t hide them. That’s the people who labour should be taxing.
Spot on Richard, all the arguments you make are justified by the end results. Labour have 5 years to make progress and they are off to a very bad start. They want growth? Reduce interest rates (I am certain "behind closed doors chats" could make this happen).Stop paying interest on money raised via the bank of England, re-start quantitative easing. Strict investigations on tax evasion; the list could go on and on. It is just about choices.
Maybe everyone that becomes an mp should be made to live on the current benefits limit, for say four weeks.. That would give them lived experience.. Plus save a pretty penny from their wages.
How is it that such an expert can be so blind? It’s completely hopeless to now tax people. Most of the wealth is being shuffled off abroad- think Amazon, think Bp, think essentially everything now. Creative accounting and tax havens are then used - but with the basic effect that this is where all the money is going, and very little of it ends up being taxed.
Georgist economics is a grand idea as the elites can bugger off and leave the likes of the Westminster estate behind and the rents go to help the NHS etc.Job done!
I don't disagree with a land tax, but reducing or eliminating income tax benefits those with the highest incomes most. Income tax is a fair tax, where the less you earn, the less you pay and the more you earn the more you pay. This also deals with the imbalance where the wealthiest actually benefit the most from public services. Road infrastructure for transport of their goods and getting their workers to work. Roads aren't built for people to go on a weekend away. Then there's schools and colleges to train their workers and NHS to keep their workers working.
@@tonyy452 Those who earn through _production_ and providing _services_ deserve to keep what they earn. Most of the incomes of billionaires tends to be appropriation of economic rent anyhow, unearned income, freeloading. *LVT stops the freeloaders.* Those who produce, and hence we all gain, are rewarded. PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel supports land value tax as a way to fix the economy and housing, and reward the bright and innovative, like engineers. Thiel says he's partial to the theories of Henry George, who promoted LVT as its core.
I worked for over 40 years.I saved and invested mych of my income.I am not rich but I have a moderately comfortable lifestyle.I'm just waiting for the government to tax me so that they can redistribute everything that I own.
If you use a credit card, then spending comes before income. Does not mean that they do not need to match... 'Bedroom tax' - so we should fund people living in houses much bigger than they need, and let those that are over-crowded stay where they are. More money to get a worse result... Inheritance tax- abolish it but charge recipients income tax on what they receive. Logical. Property prices- stop importing more people than you are building houses for. We are going backwards.
Im 62 retired and in receipt of 2 pensions, forces, and civil service. I also own, outright, 4 houses, 3 of which are rentals. I have always kept my rents low at roughly 60% of market value. This is to keep my tenants happy ( happy tenants pay rent and stay put ) and to avoid moving into the 40% tax bracket. With the changes in taxation and legislation that have already been announced and the soon to be implemented Renters Rights Bill, i have decided to hand over the rentals to an estate agent. This means more money for the agent in fees, more rent money for me, more tax for the HMRC, and large rent increases for my tenants. I thought Labour was meant to be socialist.
Not anymore, not since Blair. They implement the same economic policies as the Tories. They are culturally liberal but fiscally Tories through and through. There is no old left anymore. No political party dare challenge the Western and international Oligarchs anymore.
@@stephennelmes4557 The point is, it shouldn't be a business. Making profit of people's essential need of a roof over their head is not really morally justifiable. At least I've never in my life heard a reasonable justification for landlordism. The best thing to do ethically would be to sell them to the council for them to house people in dire need, or turn them in to co-operative housing. Unless you'd be happy to run them at a cost or to break even, thus providing people with good affordable housing at a fair price. But then you would be more like a charity wouldn't you, which to be fair is how a lot of landlords like to think of themselves. Nothing personal against you because from the sounds of it you are at the better end of the landlord spectrum of exploitation.
@@mxj-x2rSorry, I am still clawing my way up the socioeconomic ladder to even begin thinking that way. One day, hopefully, my children or grandchildren will have enough money behind them to be able extol the virues of socialism while sipping champagne 🍾. I spent my younger years chasing Soviet subs around the GIUK GAP and clearing mine fields off the coast of Kuwait. Then, as a civil servant I spent most of my time in the middle east helping protect British interests. I worked hard for my money and pensions and I'm in no mood to give it away. Charity starts at home, family comes first.
I'm 47, married and have six children aged 10 - 24 years old. I've encountered government services in multiple ways. There are some good interactions, but on balance I'd say whether Education, Health, Local Authority or Policing most have been below average or very poor. The inefficiency and waste I've witnessed in the NHS in relation to an elderly relative in the past three weeks beggars belief. Simply taxing a bit more or less, spending a bit more or less just isn't going to cut it. Anyone who tells you they know the answer is full of hubris. I'd recommend substantially devolution of services and revenue generation to allow different areas to try out different strategies. Some will work, some won't at least we'd learn and have the option to implement the successes more broadly. This government hell bent on control isn't going to generate the changes that are required. They are simply the modern day (irrespective of party) theatrical performers of politics.
@@chrishart8548 Well while that is partly true (Rich people lobby the government) but it not 100% true or there would be less VAT on luxury items. But it will be the luxury good companies that would lobby government hardest as they will worry their sales will fall with higher VAT. The question is would an extra 5% or 10% VAT reduce consumption of luxury good... of that I am not sure and one way to find out is to give it a try.
We have terribly inefficient use of our properties in the UK. On average, we have more bedrooms than people yet 70% of households have more people than bedrooms. Owner occupied properties are more likely to be under occupied than rented. We must not make it harder for people to downsize from properties they are under occupying. That is why Stamp Duty is a counterproductive tax. It discourages people from moving. We must not put it up. We should arguably abolish it. Prices do need to come down. But SDLT is a bad mechanism for doing this because of its other effects. Besides taxation, one option would be to replace the lender's right to exercise power of sale with a right to cut losses by selling bad loans to the government. The government would then be the chargee of the property (delegating management to the local authority) but would have a legal obligation not to make the occupants homeless. In most cases of people struggling, this would avoid them losing their home. In some cases, debtors could be moved to smaller properties. In the cases of landlords, the tennants would not become homeless as a result of the landlord defaulting on their loan. It could also make lending into the property market less attractive which could bring down prices by deleveraging.
Two things I totally disagree with. 1. Inheritance tax is state theft pure & simple. 2. Cars increasingly are falling into the “luxury” tax bands above £ 40K because of car price inflation since the pandemic. When they do taxes significantly increase. Drivers are the most taxed in the country. VAT on the purchase, road fund license, tax on car insurance, tax on fuel, tax on servicing, road tolls, car parking charges and your suggesting more! Labour should have not excluded income tax, NI, VAT, corporation tax. They should look at higher bands for expensive houses for council tax. They could bring in a luxury VAT band, they can look at tax relief on pension payments and yes capital gains tax rates.
The UK is estimated to lose £25bn of tax income due to profit-shifting. Multinationals exploit gaps and mismatches in the international tax system through a technique known as “profit-shifting”. This involves artificially allocating sales derived in one country to a lower-tax country. One of the ways this is achieved is by companies setting up a subsidiary in a tax haven and registering their intellectual property there. That entity then charges the company’s subsidiaries in other, higher-tax jurisdictions large royalty fees. By charging that “cost” to the market where the majority of revenues are made, profits can be reduced or eliminated, meaning no tax is paid. The royalty fees extracted in this way are booked as profit in the low-tax location. Profits are often shifted to countries such as the British Virgin Islands or Bermuda, which charge no corporation tax. Tax abuse by multinationals and avoidance by rich individuals costs countries around the world $427bn a year in lost revenues, according to research by the Tax Justice Network campaign group. The UK is estimated to lose £25bn of tax income due to profit-shifting. Richard Partington (Guardian)
Disagree with the intro suggesting that because Labour haven't announced their budget yet, they somehow don't already have a plan... bit silly. WFA should be means tested, I don't think anyone seriously disagrees with that, but they have gone a bit too far in their current iteration of that. E: Rest of the video is bang on
She’ll go for the middle class not rich. As with the pensioners. It’s outrageous. This isn’t labour and by their end of their term the middle class will be in tatters thanks to the green taxes as well
Excellent narrative once again. For what its worth I don't think Labour have the spine to have a fair tax policy. They are too afraid of upsetting the markets. Its much easier to carry on punishing pensioners, those in need and disabled.
When people have worked seriously hard & took risks with setting up a business & having aspirations to do well why should they be taxed more for someone who has no aspirations to progress their career on just stay on benefits? Is this now communism??
The ideas on capital gains are wrong and will cost money rather than raise it as people delay / stop the sale of assets to avoid the tax. This was shown by the support by the OBR, amongst others, for cutting capital gains tax on property in the recent Tory budget
Agreed. Nice also if they applied some critical thinking to expand their time horizons, investment needed and the interplay between so many areas such as aging population, immigration, inadequate housing, growing wealth inequality, deteriorating public services etc. I don't even know what their vision is for these areas or the interplay between them.
Cars have grown enormously in size, which adds to an existing issue which also isn’t charged for properly; on street parking. 10m2 space for free or a minimal fee in most cases. I can park on the street for £12.50 a year. Cheapest land use going. How much could councils raise via charging properly?
It doesn't matter. Whoever they tax, the Labour government will receive less. The productive members of society have already decided they are going to work less. They're not going to work flat out just so their earnings are to be given to someone else.
Great Richard. You’ve itemised very clearly ways of increasing tax for redistribution. What I worry about is this will be the ‘austerity’ i.e. no redistribution and new help for the less well off or investment in a transformative economy that will deal with the existential tipping points of environmental and ecological issues the earth faces . I don’t think the National insurance should have been reduced. It promotes the idea of getting rid of Public Services, Social Security and a National Health Service at the point of need. Far better to raise the tax threshold
If you want to address the housing situation you need to take a serious look at immigration and population growth. As long as demand outstrips demand prices won’t fall
If Labour adopted these policies they would indeed look like the adults in the room
Instead they look like clowns running the circus 🤯.
You do understand that clowns are only acting?
If she wishes to show that she is truly Labour and not just a Tory in a red rosette she should do as you say Richard. I am in total agreement.
Rachel Reeves is not, and never has been, a Labour politician. Neither indeed, is Keir Starmer. They are nothing other than closet Tories, and the current version of Labour is pure blue Tory as we are now discovering.
Davos doesn't allow support for workers, only billionaires.
But she won't, Do you think she will accomodate her pay master ? She will do what she thinks is right. Too stupid too see whats in front of her
The Dalek? @@HaydenCyclist
She's on the record as saying that Labour isn't a party for the unemployed.
Success is not built on success. It's built on failure, It's built on frustration. it's built on fear that you have to overcome. I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in Life
Investing in stocks & crypto is a good idea,a good trading system would put you thought Many day's of success.
People prefer to spend money on liabilities, Rather than investing in assets and be very profitable.
You're so correct save,invest and spend for necessities and few luxuries relative's to one's total assets ratio.
Some persons think inves'tin is all about buying stocks; I think going into the stock market without a good experience is a big risk, tone like mrs Geraldine Lane.
I began investing in stocks and Def earlier this year, and it is the best choice I've ever made. My portfolio is rounding up to almost a million and I have realized that when a stock makes it to the news, chances are you're quite late to the party, the idea is to get in early on blue chips before it becomes public. There are lots of life changing opportunities in the market, and maximize it.
I reckon Reeves did ask the question "who should Labour tax" - and her new donor chums said "everyone but us"
Exactly 🤬
Everyone wants the tax not to fall on them. I'm on £40k so tax Everyone £45k and above
That's why taxing the mega rich is the way to go.the wealth of the uk billionaires has increased by 300% during the period of tory misrule rule.they are the people most able to shoulder the extra tax and that
Loss of wealth will have zero effect on their life style and will allow the country to make the investments so badly needed for rebuilding our frastucture which will benifit everyone in our country.
@JohnPark-xf2gq let's tax the king and lords, and stop taxing working people. Also cut all benefits. People should work
@@davidcooks2379 obviously people that can't work won't have to. How about paying an amount that incentives people to work.
Isn't it depressing that such reasonable, rational and moderate ideas seem like radical revolution compared to what is actually on offer from this Labour government?
Agreed… but I don’t think the current Labour leadership is ideologically on the same page with us…
They don't need to be. They're mission is to fix the economy, not fix everything.
@@OneAndOnlyMe their “mission” is to keep the system as is. See how well it works for you.
@@OneAndOnlyMe Their mission should be to implement the changes set out in their manifesto, which is rather more than just fix the economy.
I'm paying plenty of tax already. This government needs to start recouping those covid contract fraudsters.
But other people are not.
I barely pay any tax
@@DewiSant-o3y When I retire I'm planning on paying as little in tax as possible. I don't mind paying tax, I just don't like governments, especially Labour governments, squandering my money.
Tax the king
@@kw8757Am already retired and that’s exactly how I feel. If the tax I pay was put to good use I’d have no issue paying but when you look at the nonsensical ideas politicians have it’s clear the majority of our money gets wasted.
Morally repugnant on so many levels.
A manifesto to tax the middle class yet again. Tax those that are trying to provide for their own future by taxing your wage, then tax pension contributions, then tax pension withdrawals!!! A manifesto to ensure you remain dependent on the state. We will tax your freedom of movement cars are so evil, you must walk. We will tax your parents' estate so you cannot benefit from their lifetime of hard work. We will cause inflation by MMT and then tax your house by pretending it has gone up in value.
This is a recipe for universal poverty.
The ugliness of socialist policies laid bare.
I pay tax at a highest marginal rate of 60%.
I am not willing to pay a penny more, if my taxes go up I will cut back and the Chancellor will lose more than I do.
It's not the first time he's come up with a recipe for universal poverty. Have a read of the tax proposals he came up with for Common Weal ("A Scottish Tax System - Imagining the Future"). If such idiotic suggestions had been put into practice it would have caused economic collapse.
My previous reply in support has been deleted.
Suffice it to say at my level of income more people benefit if I am incentivised to keep grinding away whereas far more people lose including the taxman if more taxes are piled on. You choose.
It's morally repugnant to think that you should be able to drive around in a polluting vehicle, of which the toxic fumes cause a whole host of chronic issues including cancer, stroke, dementia, heart disease, depression and infertility, without paying the necessary costs to cover these externalities. Let's not forget that car driving itself is already heavily subsidised by the state and thus by non-drivers through general taxation. VED and fuel duty do NOT cover the costs of the car usage and infrastructure. Fuel duty has been frozen for years and it is relatively cheaper to drive an ICE vehicle now than it was a decade ago. Explains, as Richard said, why there are SUV's and grotesque pickup trucks everywhere now barrelling down tiny roads causing destruction and death wherever they go.
It's also morally repugnant to think that extremely wealthy people should be able to pass down their ill-gotten gains to their descendants, thus passing down priveleges and advantages that the majority of the population will never receive, without giving just a bit more back to society to address the rampant generational inequality. This is not about getting rid of all inheritance, it's about making it fairer so that somebody can't just receive billions of pounds of assets and wealth by pure luck and chance. Look how that's worked out in the UK so far? We have a seemingly unremovable aristocracy that has and continues to cause devastation to the land in the UK. These so called 'custodians' of the land have effectively mismanaged and ruined it. This is not about you, unless you're mega rich.
The selfishness of some of the replies is quite astounding. The Thatcherite legacy is still running strong in the UK. It's all about 'me', not about society. Look where that has led us to.
(edit: spelling/typos)
@mxj-x2r Nah, UK started going downhill when it abolished slavery and gave voting rights to non-property owners. In the interest of the country, we should start treating those on benefits as second class citizens, in particular they should not get the right to vote. If you don't contribute, then you should have no right to decide how the money is distributed
Airlines are currently exempt from fuel duty, yet trains, cars, lorries, etc are not. It's true that nobody wants their imported food to suddenly become more expensive, but it would increase attempts to import from near neighbours when possible if there was a level playing field - in our case, Europe rather than the other side of the world.
I did not know this. It’s bizarre.
How much is commercial imports is via air compared to shipping? Does anyone know the figures?
This is a global issue - there doesn't seem to be any viable route for UK (for example) to apply a fuel duty tax on its own.
Short of a full global agreement, maybe it is not inconceivable for a pan-EU air fuel duty tax - allowing UK to come to some agreement on that single issue. But how that would work for flights not within the EU+UK, I really have no idea.
Fuel duty pays for roads. Airplanes (and boats) don't use roads.
HMRC have said raising CGT by 10% would reduce the amount gained by £2bn, this is the problem with socialist Labour economics, they don't work in the real world.. Have a CGT rate in line with income tax seem sensible until you realise you can buy assets in a company and pay way less, and some people hold assets for an extremely long time, if you earn £20k a year so are a 20% tax payer but have an asset that gains £10k a year but you sell it after 20yrs you will have a gain of £200k and pay 45% tax on a lot of it but if you invested elsewhere that gave you an income of £10k a year then over 20yrs you still get the £200k gain but you only pay 20% tax, that does not seem fair, if you invest in ISA's you can build up a substantial pot over the years and pay no tax... People will change their behaviour which is why HMRC say you will reduce the tax.. I stopped working 5yrs ago at 35 because I get income from other sources, if I work I pay 40% income tax and 9% NI, plus other taxes that were increased in the previous government and reduced allowances etc means my effective tax rate is 72%, after paying for commuting etc its just not worth me working, I pay way less tax than I did before and the higher taxation means the government gets less tax, I also spend less and am less productive so the government loses in reduced tax and the economy loses.... Read the story of the 10 blokes that went to the pub and paid for their beer in the same way tax is worked out and you will realise higher taxation is not the answer...
A lot of people paying relatively small amounts of CGT can probably "defer" the CGT to a later year if the person does not need the money to live on or, for example, if a landlord can keep renting somewhere out rather than sell a property. According to the government, most CGT comes from the small number of taxpayers who make the largest gains. In the 2022 to 2023 tax year, 41% of CGT came from those who made gains of £5 million or more. This group represents less than 1% of CGT taxpayers each year. 8% of CGT came from disposals that qualified for Business Asset Disposal Relief (BADR) i.e. the selling or liquidation of companies. London and the South East of England accounted for around half of total gains (48%) and CGT liability (50%). About 10% came from property sales. Approximately one third of CGT taxpayers have gains under £25,000 and this group contributes around 1% of total CGT. 66% of total CGT comes from those making more than £1m gain. So why is the CGT allowance so bloody low? Raise the allowance a bit and raise the tax. If all the people making up to £50k gain were not taxed then CGT tax revenue would go down by just 3.5%. The admin burden would reduce and a large number of people will pay less individual tax while the richest can be taxed more. E.g. ignoring any allowance change, increase the tax by just 2% on those who make >£1m gain and you probably have an increase in CGT tax revenue of about 7%. Please, challenge my figures; they could be wrong.
@@jam99 If you raise it then it should be index linked, quite simple so assets that you have held for a long time do not get disproportionately taxed.
Labour in government to manage decline. The only thruth Starmer said is that "its going to get worse".
No, to continue the decline with policies designed to do this.
Don't tax those who would otherwise spend and support the economy, tax instead those who have wealth that is not being spent or used to support the economy.
Good idea's but their is no way the chancellor will listen. She just wants to inflict pain on the poor and pensioners.
Na! She is just Frit!
She showed these disturbing proclivities in 2015, and has been rewarded by the plum job...
It's early days yet but labour have truly lost their way forward .
Their rhetoric and their actions are two different things which is the worst case scenario because it's like being in the dark .
They never had a "way forward".
Raise taxes, I leave. I don't go to work to redistribute my time and effort. This is ridiculous.
On your bike then. Never come back.
Bye then
@@SocietalDefibrilation Then you havn't got there tax if you tell everybody to leave.
Yes, yes, YES! 100% agreement from me. ❤
Once again a perfect analysis and workable solutions! Thank you very much!
The issue I see with raising all of the aforementioned tax rates is that you don’t end up actually taxing the real rich, the ones with trust funds and shell companies and ownership structures because these are the same people that fund the political parties’ election campaigns and so they will never actually redistribute wealth.
All your tax measures above will be paid by the same people that always brunt the majority of the tax reforms and that is the middle class, and whilst in the short term you may raise taxes, it will hinder growth and lead to an exodus of these high salarial earners to other countries with lower tax burdens. That’s because the people who pay the most tax aren’t employers and estate/business owners rather those who are employed and have a salary, and the companies who pay well are MNCs and so these people would have alternatives and be wanted elsewhere where they aren’t crucified for working hard and reaching the top.
Going along your line of thought, should we redistribute GCSE grades from this who have the highest marks down to those who failed all of them?
Well said.
Typical left-wing thinking.
1st step is to identify & cut the wasted money. The options presented simply encourage tax to go up & up & up. That's the logical conclusion
"Going along your line of thought, should we redistribute GCSE grades from this who have the highest marks down to those who failed all of them?"
That's a strange analogy. You're either impyling that those people who got higher GCSE grades don't deserve them, or if they do, that billionaires deserve the billions that they have accumulated (stolen) through the work of other people. So, maybe you think that a billionaire has earnt that money all by themselves? Perhaps Elon Musk genuinely has worked hundreds of billions of times harder than his employees and has not benefitted from a lenient tax system and undemocratic corporate structures which favours, obviously, those in charge of decision making 🤣
@@mxj-x2r I had assumed that people would have interpreted this analogy in the context of my message as it would have made sense then, but I will expand on it so that you may understand.
First of all I am not implying that those who work hard for their grades don't deserve it, in fact it is the opposite I think they do. The same way the people earn good money (on salaries), have also had to have worked hard for them whether you like it or not.
Secondly, it is a quite black/white view by saying billionaires either all deserved or didn't deserve any of it. Also, Net worth is not actualised so it isn't liquid money, and often quite difficult to accurately calculate. Today Musk may be worth $200bn, but tomorrow after a market crash he could be worth $50bn. And success is decided on what you bring to the market, and if you can add value to people's lives. Supply and demand.
My point is that those billionaires wouldn't be in the conversation of having their GCSE results shared and redistributed because they would be the ones who would be absolved from it, as they would have helped those who would want that policy implemented, to get into power as they would have paid for their campaigns, and in return those ultra-wealthy would be protected.
All the other common folk like your middle and working class who would have had to have worked hard for their grades would be the ones punished once again.
That being said, no one earns billions by sitting on their arse, and I sense a bit of frustration (envy) at your describing of how they accumulated their wealth. Yes some may have accumulated their wealth in certain unfavourable ways, but don't let these hypocrites of labour socialists fool you into thinking they'll do something about it (Free-gear Keir is worth north of £7m, Corbyn the communist is worth north of £3m). They'll never be taxed or reprimanded for it because they pull the strings in the first place, funding their politicians to get into power. So don't expect their lenient tax-system to change in any way whatsoever. (Corporate structures is a whole 'nother topic where i agree that the marketplace is being monopolised by big funds - BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street - and give you the illusion of choice whilst squeezing every penny out of your pockets.)
Why not cut costs first, rather than the knee jerk 'tax more'? Areas like overseas aid, pointless non medical staff in the NHS, excess staffing in the Civil Service and more...
Here is a clue for something to cut, just in from Germany’s Brandenburg election result:-
Greens … 0 Seats (down from 10 last time).
Many non-medical roles in the NHS are necessary, not pointless. Think about all the admin work that has to be done in a country-wide health system. Also, if you then cut a load of jobs, you lose out on the tax that you would have gained if they were still in work. If you were to, say, cut 100,000 public sector jobs, then those people will be unemployed, and there may well be 100,000 more people claiming universal credit. And that then means the fiscal deficit rises!! I'm not saying that every job in the public sector is vital, but we shouldn't try and implement deflationary policies to combat the economic mess that the UK is in right now. Especially because there is a much more reasonable response, one which Richard Murphy has talked about in many of his other videos - Modern Monetary Theory.
Overseas aid already was cut by a huge amount. Besides, that's not a lot compared to the revenue amounts that Richard has talked about. Why are you focusing on overseas aid and civil service staff? What do you think about capital gains tax? Corporation tax? Tax on wealth and assets and high polluters? What are your thoughts on those which we do not tax nowhere near enough
We have been had for centuries. The amount of educated people who genuinely think national economies are run like the household is staggering. When I tell them the messages from these very informative videos, they often look at me like I'm a moron. The general 'tax DOESN'T fund expenditure' message should be RAMMED home every single day. I recommend these videos to everyone I speak to and also "The secrets of Oz' video which tells the story of the Central Bank and usury scams absolutely brilliantly!
So, a large number of educated people believe one thing, and a single academic believes another. And you believe...
Hear hear. It is unbelievable.
@MrMassivefavour unfortunately it's chicken and egg. Saying that taxes Don't fund expenditure is technically true. However, if you do not tax to cover expenditure, then inflation is violent because the money you have printed is worthless. So you tax to cover expenditure, or you only spend tax money, SAME THING. Be careful of who you accuse of being a moron because, essentially, they are just as correct as you are.
Agree and the stitch up just continues with the obvious establishment plants of Starmer and Reeves.
Silent brain drain currently in progress in UK. No surprises why. Tax under Tories increased dramaticlly in past 7 years.
And this guy is advocating more.
Brain drain is quite a strange (media created) and fairly disprespectful term to use. Especially considering it seems to discount the millions of people on so called 'low-skilled' work who do vastly more important work every day than your average banker and accountant does. You do realise we can also just train and educate people with the right public investment right? People who are willing to pay a fair share of tax relative to their wealth will always stay and work here. The others, good riddance to em. Many scientists and other professionals will gladly come from other countries to work here if necessary.
@@cleanhit777 He's advocating better targeted tax, and if you watched the video, he explains that it will benefit the majority of people and affect the wealthiest just a bit more. As it absolutely should. I would go even further and have a 100% tax rate on wealth and assets over £1 billion. Because we just do not need billionaires to exist.
Illegal immigrants …..no money can’t come in . Try registering in Spain as a resident to retire if you haven’t got money .
One rule for them one rule for us .
Cut MPS fuel allowance to Zero . That’ll also help their net zero con job .
Labour utter disgrace ……resign .
wow - what a take!
You are entirely wrong on taxing pension contributions. It is not relief, it is delaying when you pay tax until the time you draw the funds. Otherwise you create double tax and strong disincentives to put money into a pension.
That’s not really true. I get 40% relief on my income but when I draw it out, I will be either using my 25% tax free allowance (so there’s a quarter gone straight away) and drawing the rest at either zero (up to my allowance) or at 20%.
Further more, there are plenty of ways to avoid double income taxation, so changing the point at which it’s taxed need not mean double taxation.
@@jamesreynolds4811 what isn't true? If you don't understand it is not a relief then I can't help you.
How is a farmer supposed to raise hundreds of thousands for inheritance tax without giving up farming ?
Why would the inheritance tax be hundreds of thousands? How much is the inheritance?
You can get agricultural relief.
@@debbiegilmour6171 ; Yes Debbie … You can get agricultural relief now - but in this video the mad professor is saying Labour should rid of it ! … (Which would cause a significant transfer of land from small holdings to giant corporations re-enforcing the belief that Labour, especially Starmer, hate the native English).
@@Hickalum It's not that they hate the native English (though that is a ridiculous notion for a party that is meant to be "British"), it's that they love mega corporations far too much.
But I'm sure nobody is suggesting that generational farmers be afflicted by a removal of agricultural relief.
Before they follow your suggestion of redistributing wealth by further taxing those of us who have been prudent, worked hard, and made the choice to sacrifice our free time and other pleasures to make a good living for us and our families, perhaps the government should address mass immigration? Why should any of us work hard to help support the lifestyles of the ten million people in this country who were not born here or the millions more coming each year, most poor and poorly educated? Society cannot function like that. If you want to raise taxes, start by simplifying the tax laws and close the numerous loopholes which allows multi national corporations and UHNW individuals legally avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
That! Worked 75+ hours on average every week over my entire working life. Didn't pay myself dividends because it was wrong IMO, so paid myself PAYE. I'm not very wealthy, just about scrape into the millionaire bracket, but I worked hard for every penny. There should be some recognition of that.
45% of wealth and 27% of income is held by the richest 5%. I would suggest them.
Then they leave the country, and you go from receiving a small % of a large amount, to a large % of nothing..
@@Peter-MH Rubbish
I work for the NHS and Labour have given a 5% pay rise. At my grade that equates to about £44 per month. I am also a single occupier who gets 25% discount on council tax. If that 25% discount is removed I will have to pay an additional £58 per month so that will wipe out my pay increase. With energy, water and insurances all going up I will be about £85 per month worse off. Whatever your income or budget, we will all be worse off in the long run and for me personally, probably the rest of my life.
Unlikely that you will lose the 25% discount on council tax.
Instead of taxing, they should reduce benefits, privatise healthcare and education, expell all the needy immigrants
Very well said Richard. Labour could change the feeling of national depression at a stroke if they did this....and put a stop to rediculous, eye-watering 'bonuses' given to people who are already very wealthy.
People earning a 100k salary are not the problem - they're already paying plenty of income tax, and contributing to the economy through their spending.
Nor are people retiring with 1m in assets (home+pension+ISAs) - that's just what is required for a comfortable retirement these days (house, travelling, eating out, supporting their grandkids etc), and we should be aiming for this to be the norm for a typical working person - not putting more barriers in the way.
The issue is people with tens of millions or more in assets, raking in interest and rent from the lower economic classes, and then just sitting on their pile of money rather than feeding the economy by spending it.
There are plenty of people shouting for higher taxes. They should be first.
Really I’ve not heard them?
Since taxes are at a 70-year high, how about no-one. Let's sort out spending.
Funny how the solution is always more taxes, and never less government spending.
Exactly.
Taxes on top bracket earners are nowhere near the highest in 70 years. There's a beatles song about it.
@SocietalDefibrilation You need to understand the difference between tax rates and taxes. Taxes as a percentage of the economy are at the highest in over 70 years AND we are running a massive deficit. We are getting massive amounts of tax, what we have is a spending problem not a tax problem. Taxes are too high, higher than when the Beatles were complaining in song.
@@mikefish8226 Yes, but taxes are unfairly leveraged. That's the whole point, the tax burden as an overall percantage of the economy is high but it's not fairly distributed and directed in the right way. The government's plan makes no sense - expecting the private sector, which only interest is to maximise their own profits, to invest in public utilities (including labour) and infrastructure and then somehow this magical growth will result in higher tax revenues for the state which they will then use to finally invest in the public. It's all backwards. If we tax these corporations less, they won't just invest more, they'll pay more dividends to their shareholders. This has been clear for so long, it's absolute madness that a so-called Labour government believes in this ludicrous and demonstrably failed ideology. There's zero difference between this and the last government. The same neoliberal shite. Corporations and wealthy twats are running (ruining) this country.
I don't know about tax. But they should definitely claim that dodgy ppe contract money back..
10m not working because massive taxes mean there is no incentive to do so. The focus needs to be on reducing spending, rather than crushing workers and businesses.
Workers and businesses don't share the same values so I don't know why you have lumped them together. Amazon is a business and would you say it is being crushed through taxation? Unless you mean small businesses, then I share some sympathy. Reducing spending is the complete opposite of what we need to do. Public services and the public domain have already deteriorated so much in the UK, how can we possibly let that degradation carry on as you suggest? The private sector has ruined most of the public utilities they have been handed, such as water, rail, staffing, etc etc. They need to be removed from the public sector. 10 million are not working because of massive taxes? are you sure that's the reason, where did you get that analysis from?
You need to be more aware about how much someone on disability benefit actually gets!! Pip £185 ish a week, UC - rent plus £325 a week plus council tax, so all in all much more than the equivalent of £30k before tax for a working person!! Not to mention free travel, free parking and cost of living payment and warm home discount etc etc etc…… Who would be working on minimum wage eh!! A family member of mine struggled to spend it all and that was with Amazon wearing out the hallway carpets to his flat. Get real. And he was a single person!!
The vast majority of people on UC do not receive that amount at all. Are you talking about the maximum cap? Also, free travel and free parking? Are you just making this up? Send me links to where you got this information from please!
The kind of equity proposed in this video would also encourage growth. Trickle down is a lie: we have seen periods of higher growth after government-led investment. Put an extra £100 in the pocket of the average working family and they will spend it the local economy. Put the equivalent total in the accounts of the richest and they will either move it offshore or buy assets to rent back to us at extortionate prices. As the patriotic millionaires remind us: inequality stifles growth.
From $37K to $65K that's the minimum range of profit return every month I think it's not a bad one for me, now I have enough to pay bills and take care of my family. ❤️
How please?
As a beginner, it's essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable. I'm guided by a widely known crypto consultant
She is Expert Rachel Friedman
Trading crypto now should be wise, but trading without an expert isn't advisable. I tried trading on my own but keep on losing. I think I'll give her a try
Venturing into crypto as a newbie was very difficult due to lack of experience which resulted in loosing funds......... But Rachel Friedman, restored hope shes a good woman
And that’s why I was so angry when we bent over backwards to accommodate the airline companies during the pandemic. I wonder how many thousands died of covid just because the companies wanted their profits and selfish barstards wanted their holidays 🤔🤬
It upsets me that a Labour government as a whole appears so clueless.
They need to have the difficult conversations with the likes of The Energy wholesalers, Amazon, Google, Starbucks ect who get away with paying little or no tax.
The reason we needed a winter fuel allowance in the first place is because of the ridiculous cost of standing charges and fuel.
Tax the greedy energy wholesalers.
Labour should tax their donors, 😂
Worldwide available atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are at critically low extinction level of 0.04%. When carbon dioxide levels fall to 0.02% all plant photosynthesis will stop leading to the collapse of available atmospheric oxygen and human extinction.
What a good contribution! In 10 minutes Richard Murphy has laid out the bare bones of a progressive tax system.
I spent 40 years working in the private sector and was, because of my job, required to reduce input costs from suppliers and providers by 3-5% EVERY SINGLE YEAR. And to do so with ever-decreasing headcount numbers in my team(s). The ethos was (and is) DO MORE WITH LESS.
Until the state, central and local, can demonstrate its INTENTION to replicate that approach to managing cost, it can pi55 off simply asking me for more tax every year.
Very good you just make people redundant, who then will make up your consumers and tax payers, you know the people that pay tax and buy your goods and services???????????????????????????
@@scottyfive4319 I was fortunate enough to never have to make anyone compulsorily redundant. We're not talking about mass redundancies here. People made individual choices on where they were going to take their work, their education, or indeed bring forward their retirement plans. Not everyone who leaves work becomes economically inactive and becomes the recipient of state benefits.
@@davidatkinson-lifematters4826 Well I have been made redundant twice, once because the company ultimately moved to another country and once due to lack of orders, although 5 months later they received a world manufacturing order for an American oil company. Both times I was too young to retire and did different things. In my experience it is very rare for redundancy to come at the right time, having said that a few hundred of the 2.5K+ people made redundant at the first place I worked were within the 55 - 65 age group with often 30+ years of service, so had choices.
Wait until you hear about the massive private sector bureaucracy and consultancy work they spaff billions on. You'll be fuming!
The rich. No brainer. They can afford it. And still remain rich.
They have got away with obscene tax breaks from the Tories who have savagely plundered the public purse and resources to the benefit of these obscenely rich people.
Labour did give a clue during the election campaign. They said the burden to fall on the 'broadest shoulders'. Remember? I haven't seen any of that yet, but maybe the Budget will give some indication. We shall see.
@27july1954: the problem is how to define rich. One person's rich is another person's well-off, is another's poor. How do you define rich?
What ??? … Is Labour running out of other people’s money already ???
...it's like an unrelenting rollercoaster of common sense. Another exceptional video, thank you.
Tax football clubs , Amazon , McDonalds , Pfizer , Monsanto , cruise ships , Tesco , Sainsbury’s , leave farmers alone and increase VAT
VAT hits the poorest most because the poorest spend all their money, whereas the rich only spend a small fraction of their money.
Tax should be on income, not spending.
@@tonyy452all the others I mentioned they are scared to tax , this guy is wrong about carbon , I thought he had more brains than get fooled by the climate wombles , the weather is not controlled by carbon , forget that and houses are not that expensive , people seem to believe they have a right to buy one without putting in the effort , if they work and save some money young people can easily afford high quality housing
@@v8interceptor134 You refer to "climate wombles". Do you really expect your comments to be taken seriously?
@@helenheenan3447 you really think a carbon tax will change the weather ? If so can you detail what weather we can expect with differing levels of carbon tax ?
The primary benefit of a land tax, in my view, would be that it might force sale of land to reduce estate sizes. That sold off land could be used to build homes on.
Likewise removing agricultural inheritance tax relief. This would prompt a significant redistribution of farmland from private ownership to giant corporations (who don’t pay inheritance tax). And, no doubt, re-enforce the popular belief that Labour, and Starmer in particular, hate the ethnic English.
Capital gains tax on property would be a scam. If anybody knows this it’s the good professor. If my house goes up 5% it’s because the value of money has gone down 5%.
So I gain nothing - but government tax me as if I have gained something, when I haven’t.
Unless you have more than one house.
There are the lazy rich and the hardworking rich. The latter should be left alone.
They should halve Housing Benefit and save hundreds of billions. Too much support for lazy people, who are young and don’t want to work.
Your evidence?
I came to know of your work through an interview on Tskysour. I have listened to most of your content and find it extremely beneficial. It would be great if you did a course on economic literacy giving a broad education of economic concepts and their application to condemnatory political economics?
This channel is it...
When have you ever heard of the government being smaller, more efficient, or a reduction of staff, never! Its constant expansion, borrowing, and waste. We are at an incredibly high amount of taxation. When will it stop?
You’re going to have to explain how CGT for the most part isn’t just a tax on inflation Richard???? And taxing investment is bl00dy stupid. The issue the UK has that it’s low investment and one of the reasons is that growth and productivity poor. The investment risk will not be taken for no return. Therefore money is being invested in assets that yield rent and one of the results of that is the increasing property prices. Other than that, she’s coming for that pension you’ve been stuffing everything into Richard 😂
Thank you for putting my thoughts into a coherent form! (Much better than my e-mails to my MP!)
Now you have a great template to us😃
No plan no strategy no intelligence.
WHAT ABOUT GETTING RID OF THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT, HAVE LOCAL COUNCILS RUN BY HONEST RESPECTED PEOPLE WHERE THE ACCOUNTS ARE PUBLIC NO SPAFFING MONEY UP THE WALL OR TO YOUR UNCLE.
I do not agree with your suggestion to leverage more tax from property transactions. It is a tax on mobility. When industries decline and factories shut down we need the people in those areas to be more mobile so that they can move elsewhere to find work. We have over 40 years of decimated neighbourhoods and towns in the North East and South Wales because the people were put on permanent welfare and could not move away.
You tex the people who own the country you tax, the people that own your mortgage, you tax the people who own your debt own the assets of this country. They can’t remove these things so they can’t hide them. That’s the people who labour should be taxing.
Spot on Richard, all the arguments you make are justified by the end results. Labour have 5 years to make progress and they are off to a very bad start. They want growth? Reduce interest rates (I am certain "behind closed doors chats" could make this happen).Stop paying interest on money raised via the bank of England, re-start quantitative easing. Strict investigations on tax evasion; the list could go on and on. It is just about choices.
Maybe everyone that becomes an mp should be made to live on the current benefits limit, for say four weeks.. That would give them lived experience.. Plus save a pretty penny from their wages.
Very clear and progressive message.
They should make sure that all the MPs pay the full rate of tax on their generous salaries !
How is it that such an expert can be so blind? It’s completely hopeless to now tax people. Most of the wealth is being shuffled off abroad- think Amazon, think Bp, think essentially everything now. Creative accounting and tax havens are then used - but with the basic effect that this is where all the money is going, and very little of it ends up being taxed.
Labour should tax land by its *value,* leaving our incomes in our pockets.
Georgist economics is a grand idea as the elites can bugger off and leave the likes of the Westminster estate behind and the rents go to help the NHS etc.Job done!
I don't disagree with a land tax, but reducing or eliminating income tax benefits those with the highest incomes most. Income tax is a fair tax, where the less you earn, the less you pay and the more you earn the more you pay.
This also deals with the imbalance where the wealthiest actually benefit the most from public services. Road infrastructure for transport of their goods and getting their workers to work. Roads aren't built for people to go on a weekend away. Then there's schools and colleges to train their workers and NHS to keep their workers working.
@@tonyy452
Those who earn through _production_ and providing _services_ deserve to keep what they earn. Most of the incomes of billionaires tends to be appropriation of economic rent anyhow, unearned income, freeloading.
*LVT stops the freeloaders.* Those who produce, and hence we all gain, are rewarded.
PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel supports land value tax as a way to fix the economy and housing, and reward the bright and innovative, like engineers. Thiel says he's partial to the theories of Henry George, who promoted LVT as its core.
Now, now! We mustn't upset our tailor otherwise we will not get any nice new clothes or glasses.
Should be cutting expenditure! Foreign aid, Illegal immigrant hotels, foreign climate aid, net-zero, green energy subsidies, DEI policies.
This makes a lot of sense to me.
I worked for over 40 years.I saved and invested mych of my income.I am not rich but I have a moderately comfortable lifestyle.I'm just waiting for the government to tax me so that they can redistribute everything that I own.
If you use a credit card, then spending comes before income. Does not mean that they do not need to match...
'Bedroom tax' - so we should fund people living in houses much bigger than they need, and let those that are over-crowded stay where they are. More money to get a worse result...
Inheritance tax- abolish it but charge recipients income tax on what they receive. Logical.
Property prices- stop importing more people than you are building houses for. We are going backwards.
But what about the threat that private businesses won't invest if the current tax regime is changed drastically ?
Im 62 retired and in receipt of 2 pensions, forces, and civil service.
I also own, outright, 4 houses, 3 of which are rentals. I have always kept my rents low at roughly 60% of market value. This is to keep my tenants happy ( happy tenants pay rent and stay put ) and to avoid moving into the 40% tax bracket.
With the changes in taxation and legislation that have already been announced and the soon to be implemented Renters Rights Bill, i have decided to hand over the rentals to an estate agent. This means more money for the agent in fees, more rent money for me, more tax for the HMRC, and large rent increases for my tenants.
I thought Labour was meant to be socialist.
Not anymore, not since Blair. They implement the same economic policies as the Tories. They are culturally liberal but fiscally Tories through and through. There is no old left anymore. No political party dare challenge the Western and international Oligarchs anymore.
They are,you're not.. being a rentier living off property income.
@anthonyrybicki1000 I'm not here to rip people off, but I'm not a charity either. It's a business.
@@stephennelmes4557 The point is, it shouldn't be a business. Making profit of people's essential need of a roof over their head is not really morally justifiable. At least I've never in my life heard a reasonable justification for landlordism. The best thing to do ethically would be to sell them to the council for them to house people in dire need, or turn them in to co-operative housing. Unless you'd be happy to run them at a cost or to break even, thus providing people with good affordable housing at a fair price. But then you would be more like a charity wouldn't you, which to be fair is how a lot of landlords like to think of themselves. Nothing personal against you because from the sounds of it you are at the better end of the landlord spectrum of exploitation.
@@mxj-x2rSorry, I am still clawing my way up the socioeconomic ladder to even begin thinking that way. One day, hopefully, my children or grandchildren will have enough money behind them to be able extol the virues of socialism while sipping champagne 🍾.
I spent my younger years chasing Soviet subs around the GIUK GAP and clearing mine fields off the coast of Kuwait. Then, as a civil servant I spent most of my time in the middle east helping protect British interests. I worked hard for my money and pensions and I'm in no mood to give it away.
Charity starts at home, family comes first.
I'm 47, married and have six children aged 10 - 24 years old. I've encountered government services in multiple ways. There are some good interactions, but on balance I'd say whether Education, Health, Local Authority or Policing most have been below average or very poor. The inefficiency and waste I've witnessed in the NHS in relation to an elderly relative in the past three weeks beggars belief. Simply taxing a bit more or less, spending a bit more or less just isn't going to cut it.
Anyone who tells you they know the answer is full of hubris.
I'd recommend substantially devolution of services and revenue generation to allow different areas to try out different strategies. Some will work, some won't at least we'd learn and have the option to implement the successes more broadly.
This government hell bent on control isn't going to generate the changes that are required. They are simply the modern day (irrespective of party) theatrical performers of politics.
Could have a higher rate of VAT for luxury items.
But the people that buy luxury items won't want that. And they get to decide the rules
@@chrishart8548 Well while that is partly true (Rich people lobby the government) but it not 100% true or there would be less VAT on luxury items. But it will be the luxury good companies that would lobby government hardest as they will worry their sales will fall with higher VAT. The question is would an extra 5% or 10% VAT reduce consumption of luxury good... of that I am not sure and one way to find out is to give it a try.
What is a luxury item? Surely a 72inch TV is a luxury when a 24" one is sufficient for most people. Any other bright ideas?
@@kevinsyd2012 I've been given 3x 42" lcd TV for free as friends upgraded. It's actually really small it's hard to see wants even going on
@@smellypunks Hey, I know. Why don't we give Communism a go as well?. Lenin and Marx can't BOTH be wrong.
PM - MP's - the Lords - senior civil servants - the judges and lawyers would be a good start.
Thank you, Richard for the common sense points!
So Murphy thinks increasing stamp duty on property will reduce the cost of buying a house..🤣😆he is barking mad
Wrong question. You should be asking whom the government should tax. Regardless of whether it's labour, libdem, Tory or even reform.
Why not start with a scrutiny of spending, and just making current taxation fair and even, then further and perhaps obscene taxes may not be needed.
We have terribly inefficient use of our properties in the UK. On average, we have more bedrooms than people yet 70% of households have more people than bedrooms. Owner occupied properties are more likely to be under occupied than rented.
We must not make it harder for people to downsize from properties they are under occupying. That is why Stamp Duty is a counterproductive tax. It discourages people from moving. We must not put it up. We should arguably abolish it.
Prices do need to come down. But SDLT is a bad mechanism for doing this because of its other effects.
Besides taxation, one option would be to replace the lender's right to exercise power of sale with a right to cut losses by selling bad loans to the government.
The government would then be the chargee of the property (delegating management to the local authority) but would have a legal obligation not to make the occupants homeless. In most cases of people struggling, this would avoid them losing their home. In some cases, debtors could be moved to smaller properties. In the cases of landlords, the tennants would not become homeless as a result of the landlord defaulting on their loan. It could also make lending into the property market less attractive which could bring down prices by deleveraging.
The more tax they get, the more they waste.
Two things I totally disagree with. 1. Inheritance tax is state theft pure & simple.
2. Cars increasingly are falling into the “luxury” tax bands above £ 40K because of car price inflation since the pandemic. When they do taxes significantly increase. Drivers are the most taxed in the country. VAT on the purchase, road fund license, tax on car insurance, tax on fuel, tax on servicing, road tolls, car parking charges and your suggesting more!
Labour should have not excluded income tax, NI, VAT, corporation tax. They should look at higher bands for expensive houses for council tax. They could bring in a luxury VAT band, they can look at tax relief on pension payments and yes capital gains tax rates.
The UK is estimated to lose £25bn of tax income due to profit-shifting.
Multinationals exploit gaps and mismatches in the international tax system through a technique known as “profit-shifting”. This involves artificially allocating sales derived in one country to a lower-tax country. One of the ways this is achieved is by companies setting up a subsidiary in a tax haven and registering their intellectual property there. That entity then charges the company’s subsidiaries in other, higher-tax jurisdictions large royalty fees. By charging that “cost” to the market where the majority of revenues are made, profits can be reduced or eliminated, meaning no tax is paid. The royalty fees extracted in this way are booked as profit in the low-tax location. Profits are often shifted to countries such as the British Virgin Islands or Bermuda, which charge no corporation tax.
Tax abuse by multinationals and avoidance by rich individuals costs countries around the world $427bn a year in lost revenues, according to research by the Tax Justice Network campaign group. The UK is estimated to lose £25bn of tax income due to profit-shifting.
Richard Partington (Guardian)
Disagree with the intro suggesting that because Labour haven't announced their budget yet, they somehow don't already have a plan... bit silly. WFA should be means tested, I don't think anyone seriously disagrees with that, but they have gone a bit too far in their current iteration of that.
E: Rest of the video is bang on
I agree with Richard,
and the Tax Monies should be spent on the UK Public 1stly,....Then we can give Charity to the World.
They could start with themselves and pay some tax on all the freebies from their corporate friends and then start on their friends .
She’ll go for the middle class not rich. As with the pensioners. It’s outrageous. This isn’t labour and by their end of their term the middle class will be in tatters thanks to the green taxes as well
Wow. I couldn't agree more.
Excellent narrative once again. For what its worth I don't think Labour have the spine to have a fair tax policy. They are too afraid of upsetting the markets. Its much easier to carry on punishing pensioners, those in need and disabled.
When people have worked seriously hard & took risks with setting up a business & having aspirations to do well why should they be taxed more for someone who has no aspirations to progress their career on just stay on benefits?
Is this now communism??
The ideas on capital gains are wrong and will cost money rather than raise it as people delay / stop the sale of assets to avoid the tax. This was shown by the support by the OBR, amongst others, for cutting capital gains tax on property in the recent Tory budget
Agreed. Nice also if they applied some critical thinking to expand their time horizons, investment needed and the interplay between so many areas such as aging population, immigration, inadequate housing, growing wealth inequality, deteriorating public services etc. I don't even know what their vision is for these areas or the interplay between them.
Cars have grown enormously in size, which adds to an existing issue which also isn’t charged for properly; on street parking. 10m2 space for free or a minimal fee in most cases. I can park on the street for £12.50 a year. Cheapest land use going. How much could councils raise via charging properly?
Agree fully......but it won't happen.
It doesn't matter. Whoever they tax, the Labour government will receive less. The productive members of society have already decided they are going to work less. They're not going to work flat out just so their earnings are to be given to someone else.
The absolute truth. We already have an economy disastrously short of energy ambition and enterprise. More college Professors won't help.
Many great proposals but land tax should replace stamp duty entirely as the latter discourages downsizing. Look at how high land tax is in USA.
Great Richard. You’ve itemised very clearly ways of increasing tax for redistribution. What I worry about is this will be the ‘austerity’ i.e. no redistribution and new help for the less well off or investment in a transformative economy that will deal with the existential tipping points of environmental and ecological issues the earth faces . I don’t think the National insurance should have been reduced. It promotes the idea of getting rid of Public Services, Social Security and a National Health Service at the point of need. Far better to raise the tax threshold
Why shouldn't people have some pleasure and be able to fly away especially when you think her stressful it is in the UK
If you want to address the housing situation you need to take a serious look at immigration and population growth. As long as demand outstrips demand prices won’t fall